Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< April 07 April 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit
List of tornado-related deaths at schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST, as much as I love tornado-related lists. EF5 21:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking ever since the new article came out that this one was weirdly written and now is redundant. Merge to List of schools struck by tornadoes, which covers an overlapping and broader topic and doesn't have an exceptionally WP:SYNTH-y section of original analysis. Departure– (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even say that list meets WP:NLIST, but that'd be for another discussion. — EF5 16:16, 9 April 2025 (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! 22:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theo van Zwieteren

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

None of the sources in the article seem to provide WP:SIGCOV, and I was unable to find any on Google or newspaper archives such as Newspapers.com, Delpher, Archief Eemland, Stadsarchief Rotterdam, and Gallica. I did find some mentions like 1 and 2 using an abbreviation of his name ("T. van Zwieteren"), but nothing substantive. Another Dutch referee (albeit with much more international experience) from the same era, Raphaël van Praag, was recently kept after multiple in-depth sources were found using these same archives, so maybe someone else has more luck. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noooooo!!!! I was literally going to put this page on a draft tomorrow!! Couldn't you have waited just a few more hours!! Barr Theo (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barr Theo, Let'srun, and Clara A. Djalim, with the extra sources, can we settle for a keep? gidonb (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just copy my signature?! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a historically important referee, by WP:NEXIST and by the WP:GNG that is fully met. Theo van Zwieteren passed away in 1962, so no BLP concerns apply. The article was created by Barr Theo based on his historical significance, and that assessment holds.
I was recently pointed to this article by the creator and made several corrections—his date of birth, for example, was off by a day. This followed my overhaul of an article on Raphaël van Praag, a distant cousin I had never heard of before. Van Praag, who was also a gifted communicator, became Holland’s favorite son in Belgian soccer management. He left the field forever just before much of our family was exterminated.
Van Zwieteren’s international experience extended beyond the Netherlands, in international games, and during his residence in Hamburg. That, too, is worth exploring. The sources cited are from Delpher, which aggregates historical Dutch newspapers. This is the correct search string. For the Rotterdam region, I also check the Schiedam-based Krantenkijker, though it often yields less than Delpher.

These are sources that by themselves provide SIGCOV:

These are sources from which SIGCOV can be pieced together, a legitimate approach for historically important professionals (see the subsequent list):

These are sources that state Van Zwieteren's importance as a referee:

gidonb (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More than sufficient for me to a keep. Svartner (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Clariniie! I can take that. The last four sources are not in depth. These sources are significant because they talk to the importance of Van Zwieteren, i.e. the sources are important in a category other than SIGCOV. The first two sources are SIGCOV and the next four sources contribute toward SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: I'm pretty sure the first SIGCOV link you posted is the incorrect one as it consists of one sentence of coverage and is a duplicate of the Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad link below it. Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noting. I corrected that three minutes before your comment. gidonb (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's very thin in my opinion, I am not quite sure it's at the level needed for what constitutes a good article for a biography. Feels thin, but maybe just enough for WP:BASIC. I would like to see it improved if possible. Govvy (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found additional sources:

These sources belong to my categories II and III above, often combined. With the previous we have a clear and complete pass of the GNG! We already had that yet these sources add even more material to use!!! gidonb (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2025 (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! 22:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Fu Records

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Pictorial

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. No sources. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Aero Pictorial, Ltd. English, active 1930s-1950s". New York Public Library. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  2. ^ "Aero Pictorial". Canmore National Record of the Historic Environment. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  3. ^ "National Collection of Aerial Photography". Historic Environment Scotland. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  4. ^ "Newsletter - Winter 2014" (PDF). National Collection of Aerial Photography Newsletter. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  5. ^ "Aero Pictorial Ltd". University of Cambridge. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  6. ^ "Aerofilms and Aero Pictorial Limited". Newcastle University. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  7. ^ "Aerofilms and Aer Pictorial Limited". Museum Wales. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  8. ^ "Aero Pictorials Ltd". National Trust Collections. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
  9. ^ "Redhill Aerodrome, 1953". The National Archives/Surrey History Center. Retrieved 10 April 2025.
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! 22:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; almost only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. All besides that is very trivial. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree that these AFDs about GI Joe characters should be grouped OR most should be closed for now to avoid overwhelming editors. I do not believe it is possible to nominate 52 articles in a little over an hour while doing due diligence with WP:BEFORE. Pretty much all of these characters have google hits, and due diligence requires more than a minute to check and read sources in normal search engine + books. These discussions are likely to have similar arguments about the notability and/or reliability of secondary sources focused on GI Joe (e.g. [7]). Once that discussion has been had, the community can proceed to keep, merge, and/or redirect articles based on a consensus.
  • On another note, maybe there needs to be a limit on how many AfD/Prods an editor can make in a given day to avoid overwhelming the process. Not what the best place would be to have such a discussion or if such a thing is even technically feasible.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the !redirect if needed. I don't have time to look at 50-something AfD's for one same franchise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really keep track of the whole "this site is unreliable because I want this article deleted" bullpoop, and obviously there's the whole "closing admin does what they want" thing in the mix. But: -
Might be worth a look. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2025 (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! 22:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shipwreck (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same caveats, but
Most of it is making fun, and I suspect 90% of the links magically don't count, but there's actually more out there about the Joes than I expected. Curious as to how Baleety McGee was able to sift through all of this and discard it in such a rapid fashion. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2025 (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! 22:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Kick (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials (plus a super trivial mention in another material; not even due for inclusion anyways). Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's enough to tip into notability, though the Shang-Chi thing is a bit interesting. But certainly not the lack of sources the nomination indicated. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2025 (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! 22:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doc (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:04, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:04, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tripwire (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:03, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zap (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; almost only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials, plus a trivial mention in an unrelated work of fiction. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:00, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short-Fuze (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:54, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Rat (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steeler (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only sourced to primary GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:52, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; almost only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Study in "Other works" is not sufficient for GNG. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:51, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rock 'n Roll (G.I. Joe)

edit
Rock 'n Roll (G.I. Joe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstrated notability; almost only mentioned, mostly trivially, in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:50, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamakura (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in primary GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:49, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Law & Order (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in primary GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:49, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slip Stream (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; literally only sourced to primary GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:46, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blowtorch (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:43, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psyche-Out

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

No demonstrated notability; literally only sourced to primary GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:41, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeline (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; trivially mentioned outside of primary GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:39, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zarana

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

No demonstrated notability; trivially mentioned outside of primary GIJ materials. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:38, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outback (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only a character mentioned in primary G.I. Joe materials, with no other sources. Should be merged or redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:37, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recondo (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Article is basically a summary of primary sources. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:36, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Bill (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2025 (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! 23:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dial Tone (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; almost only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Mention in novel does not establish notability. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:34, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grunt (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; almost only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Additional mentions are really trivial. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:31, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flash (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in primary G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:30, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural keep‎. per the other G.I. Joe AfDs Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stone (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:28, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shockwave (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:27, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Six (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:26, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are probably passing mentions; some are probably on the list of sites that aren't allowed because *smokebomb*, but what most are not is "(almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials", and the ones that are Joe branded stuff seem to be from legit publishers rather than directly licenced piffle.
If AfD was fit for purpose there would be devices to stop this sort of flood; sanctioning those who repeatedly do not conduct adequate BEFORE; preventing people misusing AfD for articles they believe should be merges or redirects; and dealing with any attempts to game the system. But too many closers like deleting pages, so that will never happen. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2025 (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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copperhead (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:25, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major Bludd

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not sure if it's enough to sway into notability but there's a bit more out there for many Joe characters (particularly the ones who had sizable roles in the cartoon) than I expected. To the extent that I'm wondering if I'm using the same Google as everyone else. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, never seen an AfD vote that doesn't even ostense to assert about an article or its subject's notability before. Thanks for looking, and I'll take a look at these sources and follow up here, if you don't get around to reading and commenting on the sources you brought here first. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't those sources show up on your BEFORE? They're simple Google Book/News results, which I went maybe three pages deep on. If you weren't previously aware of those sources and need to follow up on them now or for me or someone else to do it, you have not conducted adequate BEFORE. And if you've not conducted adequate BEFORE for fifty-something nominations that means you've spammed AfD for nothing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did see most of these and I still think this article should be merged because its subject isn’t notable enough and there’s not much to discuss about him outside of primary-sourced plot summaries. A handful of them I haven’t encountered, though. I was just being polite since this vote is like the tenth salty comment about me that I’ve seen you make on my Watchlist. Re: my profound incompetence/evil, that sounds like a discussion for my Talk page, not this deletion discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you need to "take a look at these sources and follow up here" if you've seen them before?
  • Why doesn't your nomination here include a note that there are some links out there but for whatever reason they're not enough to make the article notable, but instead a misleading and incomplete rationale?
  • How is there around a minute between most of these nominations if you're conducting thorough BEFORE?
  • Why are you nominating articles for deletion if you think they should be redirected?
  • Why do you think it is acceptable for you to be so slapdash and for other editors to run around looking for and evaluating sources you can't be bothered to "take a look" at before triggering an AfD, or before raising concerns on talk pages?
Trying to worm around that I'm calling you 'evil' or that you're getting 'salty' comments when you seem to expect other editors to put more time in than you can be bothered to seems like a bit of a reach, TBH. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fasho ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I think it's fair game to discuss how you have compiled an AfD on an AfD page, however much you would like to project that the only possible objection anyone could have to the way you've done so is somehow personally motivated. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2025 (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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low-Light (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:24, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural keep‎. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (G.I. Joe). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kessler

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in primary G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:23, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural keep‎. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (G.I. Joe). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost only primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:15, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural keep‎. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (G.I. Joe). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost only primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. The mention in an essay (in the last section) is completely trivial and undue. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:13, 8 April 2025 (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 procedural keep‎. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (G.I. Joe). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Job (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost only primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:12, 8 April 2025 (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 based on the majority of votes and discussion. (non-admin closure) Imwin567 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Mindbender

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Mindbender" seems to often be used - from what I can tell it was the name printed on the toy's card back in 198-whatever. Not doing more than skimming quickly as it's not worth the effort when AfD is so badly run. But some of these are not as cut-and-dried as the nominator suggests. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2025 (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 procedural keep‎. No sources specific to this character were listed, but editors referred to another discussion where sources were found. Editors in that discussion also sought talk-page consensus about the reliability of certain sources before evaluating them at AfD. Since this specific article was not discussed in detail, there is no prejudice against a future renomination. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:10, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bazooka (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:10, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Guard

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:09, 8 April 2025 (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! 23:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckles (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:08, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breaker (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:07, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mainframe (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherneck (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:05, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Suit (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:04, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Head (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:03, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Cord (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:03, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zandar

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:02, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:01, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gung-Ho (G.I. Joe)

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

Not independently notable; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while some of these are Notability Nobodies some require greater research than these 'bot nominations suggest. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area) and per arguments made here about potential sources. BOZ (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2025 (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! 22:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Hinton

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

Contested PROD. Rationale was: There is no inherent notability for ambassadors. One of the sources deals with Hinton in depth. I couldn't find any other sources that go into some depth. Thus, this person fails notability criteria. Schwede66 18:36, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue (band)

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

English band. The usual things about lack of sources. The first link is broken (thehornstalbans.co.uk). Marked for lack of notability since 2011. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (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.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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! 22:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scott Johnson

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

Appears to be edited by UPE recently. None of the cited sources are in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. For example, among the most cited references, Yahoo Finance article is a press release [8], Malibu Times article is tagged as "13StarsManager" ([9]), "On the Move" articles like this are usually paid, see ([10]). Gheus (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is WP:COI and WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2025 (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 Platte River (Iowa and Missouri)#Tributaries. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Branch

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

This stream is barely perceptible when viewing aerial imagery, and there is little reference to this stream besides the sources already given. It is hardly notable, and it is intermittent at best. SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is fine, I didn't even realize that was an option. Though, if I hadn't had created and organized the tributary list for the Platte River it seems this would have been deleted, which I find interesting. SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably true, but redirects don't cause any harm in my view.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:56, 11 April 2025 (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 and move to Adaptations of Mary Poppins‎. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Poppins (franchise)

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

Article fails MOS:FILMSERIES, stating "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films." Currently the article has no sources discussing it as a franchise as a whole. It goes against WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." and WP:SIGCOV ( addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material., The article currently fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is just a simple list with with no contextual information.

On trying to find sources to contradict SIGCOV and expand the article, I found little indepth information.

Sources suggest there is no Mary Poppins franchise

  • From the Oxford Handbook of the Disney Musical (2025) suggest that the idea of a Mary Poppins franchise was "in the air" on the release of the second film. here)

Other sources mention a franchise, but not specific details, commentary, or anything applicable to build an article from other than vague notions of it existing.

  • Broadway Bound (2024)
  • Chicago Sun Times article includes it on a brief list of the highest grossing film franchises, even if it attributes it as just re-iterating information from The Numbers and offers little critical commentary.

For the several rules it breaks, I think it would be best to delete this article, any relevent information is and can be found on related articles with little confusion for readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa NZ Youth Party

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

There's no coverage beyond what I can find in the article, and it's gotten almost no votes, though it hasn't garnered RS coverage like Vermin Supreme has. JayCubby 15:27, 8 April 2025 (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. SNOW Delete Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of irregularly spelled places in the United States

edit
List of irregularly spelled places in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and is near-completely uncited. Inclusion guidelines are also second to none, is "Chicago" really spelled that weird? I hate uncited IPAs, so this list is basically my worst nightmare. EF5 14:58, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in the Wye Valley

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

Fails WP:NLIST, completely uncited (which in itself isn't a reason for deletion, but NLIST makes up for that). EF5 14:51, 8 April 2025 (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. No support for deletion beyond nominator. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18 (One Direction song)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSongs. There is not significant enough coverage of this song to warrant an article.

When searching no other sources appear besides a couple of album reviews mentioning the song, they provides 1 sentence or less; these do no count towards notability.

There is also another source with Ed Sheeran discussing he wrote the songs, which falls under (Self Promo) and not as an independent source. Other then chart entries, that again, do not give a song notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2025 (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. Consensus is that this an acceptable list according to our notability guidelines. Editorial discussions on renaming can be held on the article talk page or at WP:RM. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadliest Canadian traffic accidents

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Individual accidents are talked about, but not a list of accidents. EF5 14:42, 8 April 2025 (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! 22:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McInerney

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources to establish notability beyond routine coverage of his professional role. Most sources primarily focus on Visa Inc., rather than McInerney as a notable individual. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: Most sources are about getting the job at VISA. There's a small bit of information otherwise [17], but he gets quite a bit of coverage. He was with JP Morgan Chase [18], for quite some time before joining VISA. He was speaking with Forbes before even joining VISA [19], showing he was well-known even then. He's the CEO of one of the largest financial /credit card businesses in the world, he's not working for some small, local firm. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retno Kusumastuti Hardjono

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanderwaalforces: I don't see how this fails WP:NACADEMIC? Since this fulfills criteria no. 5? (She's a dean and reports directly to the university rector, or president in other countries) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see how using university websites for the significant coverage in GNG doesn't count, since articles of deans in other notable universities such as Harvard largely use their university website for sourcing (see David C. Parkes, Susan D. Allen, Emma Dench, Rakesh Khurana, Sarah Whiting) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dean of faculty is too low an administrative position to pass WP:PROF#C6 (that would be only for the rector of the entire university). And full professor is too low of a scholarly rank to pass WP:PROF#C5 (that would be only for people with a distinguished professorship or for the kind of named professorship that is given for scholarly work at a level beyond that of an ordinary full professor). And her Google Scholar profile [20] shows double-digit citation counts that (in a high-citation field, business leadership) are definitely not enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: Is it possible to draftify this instead? There's a trend of this faculty dean being appointed as deputy ministers (the 2016-2020 dean was appointed as the deputy minister of bureaucratic reform and the 2020-2024 was the deputy minister of sports), so there's a chance of seeing her being eligible for an article in the future. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 20:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That can be an outcome of an AfD, and I don't see any strong reason to object in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support drafting the article, but I still can't understand why articles of deans from top Western universities are allowed to exist, despite the fact that the sources used are mostly from the internal universities. Is it because of their uni's academic ranking, or is it because of other reasons? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many deans also have high impact or recognition as scholars and pass other criteria, not through being a dean. For instance the dean of the school in which I work happens to be an IEEE Fellow, giving him a pass of WP:PROF#C3. For those for which scholarly impact is not obvious, see WP:WAX — perhaps some of those should also be discussed for deletion, but when they have not one cannot conclude much about our standards from that. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation, I'm not really arguing a point here, I'm just rather confused on the standards of article here. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: Is it possible to just close this discussion with your discretion? An IDWIKI LTA has been lingering around and adding COI tag to the article without any substantial evidence... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, at this point we have to wait for the usual AfD discussion period to finish (usually about a week) and for someone who has not already expressed an opinion in the discussion to close it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G7 by The Anome. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Prosecution of Paul Chambers

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

We are not supposed to have articles like this. Per the BLP policy, section WP:BLPCRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime." The only reason this page was created, most of the content, all sources except one non-independent sources, and now the title as well, are about the arrest and allegations. A draftification to give the creator a chance to rectify this was reverted. Fram (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Fram is at it again, and I suspect from past experience they will just keep hammering away at this for as long as possible until they either get their way or exhaust all possible avenues to get their way. I note in particular that their previous attempt to get rid of the article related to academic notability, but that they have now pivoted to an entirely different rationale, not mentioned before, to try to relitigate the matter. The article is not about whether or not Chambers has committed a crime, it's about his detention without trial in an affair that many suspect to be purely political in nature. This story has attracted world-wide press attention as a case of concern regarding censorship and political repression in Thailand. The entire global press corps of WP:RS can't be wrong here. — The Anome (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack; I merely observe your past behaviour from our earlier interactions, and your pivot in reasons for getting rid of the article is interesting. Did you bring my attention to WP:BLPCRIME issue when you draftified the article? If so, please provide a diff. If not, please tell me why you stated above that "A draftification to give the creator a chance to rectify this was reverted." — The Anome (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread WP:NPA. Second sentence of page, and first sentence of bolded nutshell: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." As for WP:BLPCRIME: See the edit summary of the draftification, WP:SUSPECT is a synonym of BLPCRIME. "WP:SUSPECT, a BLP only sourced to articles about allegations and arrest. Needs rewrite to be about the person if they are otherwise notable, or else we shouldn't have it at all" Fram (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had a look for sources to try and improve the article, and it sounded promising, but all I could find were two pieces where it was a trivial passing mention. For biographies of living people, we need to have very strong sourcing to get it way past sub level. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's not a biographical article, and I make no claim of notability for that; the article is about the extremely unusual prosecution and detention without trial, apparently originating from the Thai military, which has garnered worldwide attention from WP:RS. — The Anome (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my principal concern in the article is that the sources given (and the BBC and Independent sources I found) all date from around last Friday. Furthermore, the BBC source I found is primarily concerned with reforming Thai law, rather than the specific person being prosecuted. That gives me concern that this is a biography of a relatively unknown person in one event; even though it's not directly a biography, the BLP policy applies to any article where living people are concerned. I appreciate your views that you want to fight censorship and repression, but where living people are involved, we really need to err on the side of caution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: That's a well-reasoned argument. I think the story here is of an apparently poltically-motivated prosecution to inhibit political discussion, and the biographical material merely gives context. I think a good comparison would be the Twitter joke trial in which a completely non-notable individual was accused of a serious crime, and the event garnered sufficient worldwide public-interest attention to warrant an article, even though it was superficially a case of BLP1E. Let's see how this pans out in the longer term. — The Anome (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Twitter joke trial is a good precedent. In that article, the news played out over many years, in multiple outlets. We aren't there yet with this one, and we can't side-step the BLP policies just because we suspect sources will be created. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: I'd also raise the case of Luigi Mangione, who is also a hitherto-unknown person who is solely famous for his arrest and prosecution for a crime of which he has not been convicted. The difference between Mangione's case and the WP:SUSPECT rationale is, of course, the absolutely vast sustained attention from the public and WP:RS, and I suspect this will be the same; if sufficient press attention is paid to this over sufficient time, this will become notable it its own right, per Mangione. — The Anome (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I'm convinced by your argument, and I propose to draftify it again, per Fram's original proposal. Let's see how this plays out over the months to come; I suspect this is the start of a cause célèbre, not a flash in the pan. Does this seem reasonable? — The Anome (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTEVERYTHING and this page is not necessary. We do not need to instantly write a page on everything that happens, and there is a danger that this kind of thing could be damaging to the person concerned and/or could be considered to be campaigning. If the legal stuff has completed then there will likely be plenty of time and material to write a retrospective page describing the context and importance of what happened. JMWt (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article is not already very prominently in the public ___domain of WP:RS, and the nearest thing to a contentious statement in it is reported speech by his own lawyer. If we follow this to its logical conclusion, any government will be able to arrest and detain as many of its non-notable critics at it likes indefinitely, and it will be Something Wikipedia Cannot Speak About. This is a bad precedent. — The Anome (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to Right Great Wrongs. And we absolutely can write about it - when the time is right, when all the dust has settled and when we can do so in a neutral way which doesn't harm anyone involved. That's highly unlikely to be in the midst of a criminal trial. There's no time limit, if we wait we are likely to have better sources which will allow better context anyway. JMWt (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the sole contributor, I'm happy to speedy-delete this, given the consensus here. This can be revisited for undeletion at a later date if needed. — The Anome (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2025 (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 14:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nexcom Bulgaria

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

should be deleted due to concerns regarding its overall notability, lack of extensive coverage in independent sources, and the potential for promotional language that undermines its informational value. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Behzad Rafigh Doust

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

The subject fails both WP:NKICK and WP:MMA. The article has atrocious citations. I checked all of them and removed 95% of them. What is left are fight results with only his name mention, no significant coverage. As much as I love that the subject is a Lethwei coach, the award by Lethwei World itself is not sufficient enough to justify the standalone article. I cannot find any significant coverage about the subject, fails WP:GNG. Here is a brief analysis of the citations:

  • Profile on muaythaitv used 3 times: h
ttps://muaythaitv.us/fighters/behzad-rafigh-doust-f3980.html

In addition, the article has been written by User:MMA Kid, a sockpuppet of JRM2018 who is blocked indefinitely.

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 14:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtway

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

should be deleted due to its promotional tone, lack of reliable citations, questionable notability, and the status of its flagship project, which is considered vaporware. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2025 (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. As for the renaming proposals, a move may be suggested at WP:RM or simply done WP:BOLDly. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of destroyed heritage

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

This page is a complete mess, as shown by the multiple tags on it. The first section alone (about Egypt), features a pyramid partly demolished in the 12th centure, but still standing 800 years later; and stolen objects, which may or may not have been destroyed. For many of the more modern buildings which have been demolished, there's nothing to suggest they were particularly important heritage buildings. It may be better to split this up, and have separate articles (where they don't already exist), but with clearer criteria. Blackballnz (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: a list of destroyed heritage (sites? culture? the lede is conflicted) appears compatible with WP:STANDALONE, and the size and edit history of the article indicate some appetite for its existance. is deleting the article the best action, or would a judicious scrub of irrelevant or uncited materials, like the pyramid or modern buildings you mentioned, not suffice?
fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2025 (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 List of Yahoo-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Philippines

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamjarcars

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even on YT I could only find youtu . be / UtjJzeO3KVs - Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of SIGCOV, kind of on the fence with SIGCOV, since a lot of the coverage from the new millennium has disappeared. There is a possible COI and PROMO issue however. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2025 (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 high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malawi. Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Ritchie (diplomat)

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

No independent reliable sources about her. What we have are either dependent sources (her employer, her former school), or sources about some event where she is present or which she supported. Should be a redirect to List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malawi (I haven't attempted this first, seeing that the "notability" and "third party sources" were removed without actually adressing these issues). Fram (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think "were removed without actually adressing these issues" is meant to mean "were removed without actually adressing these issues" (to my satisfaction). Also "some event where she is present or which she supported" includes holding a reception at her official residence on behalf of her country where a minister gave their support to her employer (the King)" and the reporting of events where she is the primary (and essential) person at the event. Victuallers (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a diplomat holding a reception is "some event where she is present or which she supported", it is not a source about her, just doing her job as an intermediary: like you said, "a reception at her official residence on behalf of her country where a minister gave their support to her employer (the King)" is not something which contributes to her notability. Fram (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2025 (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 Bill Melendez. Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melendez Films

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published or promotional sources and does not demonstrate a lasting impact, it would not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bill Melendez. The article can very well be merged into Bill's page since the company was his. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: Does not meet WP:GNG, but does WP:OVERLAP with Bill Melendez. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2025 (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. User:Welcome to Pandora, your deletion nomination states that the article should be deleted if it lacks SIGCOV but your nomination shouldn't be a question. If you are unsure if an article has coverage, then don't bring an article to AFD. You have to do a valid BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe Pistol and Smallbore Association

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

should be deleted if it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2025 (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 Jang Sung-min. If editors want to Merge any content, it's there in the page history. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party

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

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Violates Wikipedia’s sourcing policies**: This article fails to provide reliable sources and lacks independent sources, violating Wikipedia’s verifiability policy.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article. --Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a supplement to the reason for deletion, this Wikipedia article has referenced articles and bibliographies, but they are not about the Grand National Unity Party, which is the main topic of the Wikipedia article, but merely about people who appear in the Grand National Unity Party article in the course of discussing it. As such, they do not constitute evidence for the Grand National Unity Party, and there is no mention of the Grand National Unity Party in the article. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasu Raja

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vasu Raja was the high-profile architect of the world's largest airline's commercial strategy including a unique take on distribution for two years before being forced out and continues to be a notable industry expert. He has sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline and curious whether a search was done before nomination. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2025 (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 based on the majority of votes (non-admin closure) Imwin567 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space

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

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space has interrelated issues. I'm not able to find other sources than the sole one that the article cites (F. Trèves' book on topological vector spaces). I think inasmuch as it is different from just, multivariable differential calculus, it is not a notable topic—in that sense, it may be seen a content fork, where the page is about an obscure TVS approach to a well-known topic that probably doesn't merit coverage on the article about the latter. It is also written in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK-like style, quite closesly paraphrasing Trèves. For example, the portion starting at Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space#Space of Ck functions corresponds tightly to the portion of Trèves starting at Notation 40.1; see an example of this below:

Article:

Suppose is a sequence of relatively compact open subsets of whose union is and that satisfy for all Suppose that is a basis of neighborhoods of the origin in Then for any integer the sets: form a basis of neighborhoods of the origin for as and vary in all possible ways.

Trèves:

Consider a sequence of relatively compact open subsets of whose union is equal to , an arbitrary integer , a basis of neighborhoods of zero in , [namely] . As and vary in all possible ways, the subsets of , form a basis of neighborhoods of zero for the topology.

ByVarying | talk 02:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do not agree with your assertion about a lack of noteworthiness. Also, the topic is substantially different from multivariate calculus. Topological vector spaces are certainly noteworthy, and since differentiability is a corner stone in analysis, it is clear, that differentiable functions with values in such spaces are also noteworthy. The classical definition of differentiability is based on norms (see, for instance, Jean Dieudonné's textbook "Foundations of Modern Analysis"). This classical approach does not work for functions with values in topological vector spaces. So this article has very little to do with multivariate differential calculus. It is a keep. 51.154.152.231 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say notable, I'm talking about WP:N. Being tangentially related to notable topics doesn't make something notable; substantial coverage in RS does. ByVarying | talk 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cook, James S. (Fall 2013). Lecture Notes for Advanced Calculus (PDF). Liberty University - Department of Mathematics. Retrieved April 2, 2025.
  2. ^ LOOMIS, LYNN H.; STERNBERG, SHLOMO (1989). Advanced Calculus (PDF) (Revised ed.). Jones and Bartlett. Retrieved April 2, 2025.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎Keep. There is a clear consensus below that this is an inappropriate nomination that should be closed early per WP:SNOW. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election

edit
AfDs for this article:
Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has numerous problems (see talk page). Problems include excessive citations, reliance on self-published sources, and being mostly edited by a single user. 1101 (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article isn't in good shape, but it's been through AfD before and it very much has established notability. EatingCarBatteries (contributions, talk) 19:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following up. I made a few changes to the page, as tagged, and discussed my changes on the talk page, just like I should. See? Easy-peasy! Bearian (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2025 (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. As there has been no further discussion in the past week, I have to conclude there is not agreement to what to do, except that most of the options presented (renaming, re-appropriating or redirecting) do not involve deleting the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaqua

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

Zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources. Redirect was reverted with the rationale, "Bonaqua isn't a really known brand and it doesn't have major companies as sources. There are plenty similar pages with less in depth analysis and evidence. I believe Onel shouldn't just delete someone's entire page based of their own personal opinion. The facts are as accurate as they get, it's literally from Swire's own website. With this said, DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE AGAIN." However, without in-depth sourcing, does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Hong Kong. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bonaqua appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Independent and reliable sources, such as Retail Asia, Marketing Interactive, Macau Business, and Taiwan News, provide significant coverage of the brand, particularly its market leadership in Hong Kong (verified by Nielsen data) and its notable sustainability initiatives like the launch of label-less bottles and returnable glass bottles. The brand has also received industry awards for its sustainability efforts. While the current Wikipedia article relies heavily on primary sources, the existence of substantial independent coverage demonstrates that the topic is notable and verifiable. The article should be improved by incorporating these independent sources. --Xrimonciam (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please supply those sources? Onel5969 TT me 15:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Xrimonciam (talk · contribs), would you provide a summary of or links to the sources you found as that would strengthen your argument for retention? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sure. You may find links here: Retail Asia, SME, Macau Business, Times of India etc Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep, at worst draftify. The entry is false in that Bonaqua is sold in many other places than Hong Kong. For instance in Norway, where it is a long-lasting and ubiquitous water brand in segments such as natural mineral water and flavored non-carbonated water. Here is some coverage, mainly about how the production in Fyresdal was set up: [26] [27] [28]. The market shares are often covered, this regards Bonaqua's challenge towards the two market leaders, Ringnes' Imsdal [no] and Hansa Borg's Olden (water) [no]. [29] As a curiosity, here are two product tests from Dagens Næringsliv, in which Bonaqua scored 3 points out of 10, one point lower than tapwater. [30] [31]. It is bad that the article currently has these dreadful sources, something should be done in order to strengthen my keep stance. Geschichte (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about, we change the title to Bonaqua (Hong Kong). Now, mostly the page is written by me. I do agree that the sources are lacking but it doesnt justify just deleting the whole thing. As a Hong Konger, Bonaqua is a water brand of Hong Kong. Its distribution in Hong Kong is handled by Swire, not coca cola and the Bonaqua sold in other countries arent exactly the same as ours, therefore i believe they're not even the same brand but just different projects by coca cola under the same product name? SmartDio97 (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have independent sources that detail all of that info, we would be well on our way to keeping the article Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Coca Cola (or Swire if that is more appropriate). None of the sources in the article are independent, and I do not find independent sources. Draftify More sources have been found although none are extensive. For example, the Norwegian ones listed here are routine company news. It is possible that when the article is expanded to include more of the markets for this product that the sum of the sources will reach GNG/NCORP. Lamona (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's some low writesmenship SmartDio97 (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, was that a comment to me? Lamona (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. The sources found by Geschichte.
    2. Manning, Paul (2012). The Semiotics of Drink and Drinking. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 86–87, 92–93, 227. ISBN 978-1-4411-3774-6. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes on page 87: "I will begin with a discussion of the newer, and more familiar, of the two products, purified waters like BonAqua, turning then to natural mineral waters whose properties, stabilized in the nineteenth century, are largely continued under socialism by Borjomi. ... The qualities of BonAqua: One of the qualities that is central to all drinking water is purity, meaning first and foremost that water is wholesome and safe to drink. But of all the different forms of water that fit this description, only one relatively recent variety emerging in America in the 1990s — ‘purified’ bottled waters like BonAqua — is actually marketed in specifically these terms."

      The book notes on page 92: "BonAqua, by contrast, is like most other product names in that it is a trademark, referring to a specific, non-geographically localized personalistic producer, a firm or undertaking (Schechter 1927, Davis 2008, Bently 2008). Geographical indications (Borjomi) and trademarks (BonAqua) do similar semiotic work ..."

      The book notes on page 93: "By contrast, BonAqua is like many contemporary Western brand names in that it conjures up a vague almost Esperanto-like hint of descriptiveness, which might just be translated as ‘good water’ if there were any Romance language (including Esperanto) in which Bon Aqua meant ‘good water’, which there is not. By contrast, the Western version of the brand name, Dasani, is purely arbitrary, apparently chosen when consumer testing revealed that the name suggested ‘purity’ and ‘replenishment’. The point is that neither name is descriptive of any product qualities (therefore, not technically referentially misleading), but both are felt, in different ways, to be suggestive of some of the product qualities."

      The book notes on page 227: "This brand is also known as BonAqua/BonAqa/Bonaqua in different parts of Europe, Asia, Africa and Eurasia, and Aquabona in Spain."

    3. Wong, Chi Bo; Law, Monica; Wu, Wing Chi Branda (2023). "Determinants of Customer Loyalty: A Green Marketing Perspective". In Chen, Fanyu; Choo, Keng Soon William; Voon, Hsien Lee; Chooi, Yi Wei (eds.). Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Business, Accounting, Finance and Economics (BAFE 2022). Paris: Atlantis Press. ISBN 978-2-4940-6999-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 448: "The green product investigated in this research is Bonaqua, a bottled water brand in Hong Kong. In response to the changing behaviours of Bonaqua’s consumers, the firm has set an example by launching a comprehensive green marketing campaign that includes a mode of repackaging that involves the reduction of plastic bottle waste and the rolling out of environmental advertisements to reinforce the firm’s green efforts and positioning in the market."

      The book notes on pages 456–457: "This result implies Bonaqua must implement measures to improve green customer satisfaction as a means of enhancing green customer loyalty. ... The findings indicated that no significant positive relationship exists in the green product quality-loyalty link. For Bonaqua, this finding implies that customers who highly value green product quality may not necessarily decide to repurchase the brand’s products in the future. ... This research suggests that Bonaqua’s green corporate image is insufficient ensuring repeat brand patronage ... The findings imply that Bonaqua’s green customer satisfaction can be boosted via green trust. ... The potential lack of customer loyalty toward Bonaqua may be attributed to perceptions of greenwashing (Go Green Hong Kong, 2014)."

    4. Vijayraghavan, Kala; Chakravarty, Chaitali (2007-07-30). "Upset with bottlers, Coke to bring Bonaqua". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

      The article notes: "Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling (HCCB), the bottling unit of Coca-Cola in India, is launching Bonaqua, a water brand from Coke’s global stable. Bonaqua in all probability will end up competing with Coke’s existing water brand Kinley. ... Coke has two international bottled waters: Dasani, which is sold predominantly in North and South America, and Bonaqua, available mainly in Europe. Dasani was first introduced in 1999. Bonaqua has been around since the late 1980s."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bonaqua to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at each of these and although you found better sources than most, I still only barely see these as significant. I'm coming around to Geschichte's view that the article may be a keeper but it needs to be about the brand in all of the markets, not just Hong Kong. (The suggestion to make this BonAqua Hong Kong doesn't seem viable to me.) Also, this brand appears in the List of Coca-Cola brands article, but not in the The Coca-Cola Company article itself. Some of the brands are named in that article and BonAqua might fit into one of its sections. So I'm leaning toward draftify as the article is critically incomplete. I fear that if we leave it as a stub that it'll come back to AfD in this same condition. Lamona (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should cover the brand in all markets, not just Hong Kong, since there is extensive coverage about the brand's being sold in many places outside Hong Kong. Cunard (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hope that we can find some more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2025 (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 03:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Sinhagad (1693)

edit
Capture of Sinhagad (1693) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the three cited sources provide significant coverage to the topic, this was a minor attack that had no lasting impact nor is it given the weight required for a standalone article in the history books, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2025 (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 and move to Medical Errors and Medical Narcissism. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medical narcissism

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

Reason Vasaras kruīzi Tallink (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original book was reviewed by New England Journal of Medicine: [32]. I don't know if this is enough for notability. Other than this, I mostly just find blogs and other book reviews. Maybe the article could be based on the book, rather than the concept? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this concept could potentially be covered (or, as now, rather "mentioned") on Wikipedia but I oppose it having its own article. Thus, I believe that this article should at some point be deleted, or converted into a redirect to the page where medical narcissism is discussed. For example, if we can find an article discussing the integrity of medicine or something of the sort, this information can be included there as an example of a phenomenon which the author claims (I hope on good grounds) is a feature of clinical mal-practice. To me, it does at leas sound plausible, although that is not a measure of verifiability, of course. Vasaras kruīzi Tallink (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would something like Medical ethics be a good target? Conyo14 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion! I will try to take some time to consider the article's suitability for the purpose, and in case it is the best one, I will try to locate where in the article a section for "medical narcissism" could be included. Hopefully we can have this resolved so that we can continue on the path of making Wikipedia an encyclopedia of high quality. BlockArranger (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per the policy on neologisms. Just because someone coined a word doesn't mean it deserves an article. I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in the Medical ethics article, but I don't know it's not, so that doesn't sound like a terrible idea as long as this article doesn't stay. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For information to everyone this concerns, I want to announce that I have merged the content into the article about Medical error, specifically the section concerning Disclosing mistakes => to patients, under Mitigation. To me, this seems like a reasonable place to merge it into, as medical errors are specifically addressed in the author Banja's book, and medical narcissism is defined as having to do with disclosure specifically to patients. I believe that Medical ethics would not be as suitable as it discusses the abstract, ethical, philosophical aspects which are important to consider, but not as centered on the practical matters such as what is discussed in the Medical error article. Hopefully, this will work out as a solution which is also accepted by the broader community maintaining the ME article. BlockArranger (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If spotted last week, this AFD discussion should have been a procedural close as Keep as there is no deletion rationale nor nomination. But people have commented and so I'm going to give this discussion more time. I favor ATD when appropriate but we have more than one suggested target article for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would like to explain that when I originally suggested that this article should be done something about, such as merger into some other article, I may have missed some crucial step. Anyway, I have meant to make it clear that the article in question is not much more than a short description of what a certain not very notable neologism means. I have suggested its incorporation into Medical error as per above and in other comments in this discussion. BlockArranger (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Medical error#To patients seems like a fine target too. BlockArranger has already merged anything viable from this article. So a redirect would be my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: C'mon folks, we've got a couple of viable ATDs, so this isn't going delete unless the delete !voters can explain why those ATDs are inadequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2025 (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. Discussion has now tended towards there being sufficient sourcing for a standalone article Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marv (Sin City)

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

Minor comic book character. While there is a reception, it is just a summary of several listicles, in which the character takes at best a 24th place. Other than that, this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media. This fails WP:GNG and at best could be redirected to the List of Sin City characters Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sin City characters: the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence, probably, and the rest of the article is just plot summary. Did a quick google and didn't find anything obvious -- it seems unlikely by assumption he needs his own article separate from Sin City. I don't know of a lot of reviews that only talk about one character except for the most famous works. (see below) Mrfoogles (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is not a "minor comic book character"!!!!! I've expanded the reception. Please take less Sin City-related articles to AfD or do thorough BEFORES, Piotrus. Marv clearly meets WP:GNG. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 19:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all, as WP:ATD. I see WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and listicles that don't support a separate article, but could improve the character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look harder, please. To quote the essay you are citing: "Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -Mushy Yank. 18:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Need to determine an outcome as arguments are split between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: not sure a relist was necessary as no merge !voter so far nor the nominator had responded to the significant GNG-level temporarily final expansion of the reception section (please note that I expanded the page in two phases and that much more exists), which seemed to address the nominator’s concern. So that new M !vote(s) -if based on "all above" and no other argument- should be weighed with that in mind. -Mushy Yank. 15:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still see three editors arguing for a Merge. Just because they weighed in to this AFD before your editing contributions to the article doesn't erase their arguments here. But since you object to the relisting, I'll leave this discussion for another closer to handle. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot access all the sources cited in the Reception and interpretation section, but the ones I can, like "Everything I Need to Know, I Learned from Mickey Rourke Movies", have significant coverage of this character. It is also clear that merging all of this relevant content to a list where this character already has the longest entry would be hugely undue. Arguments such as the nominator's this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media and Mrfoogles's the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence have been thoroughly addressed by the subsequent improvement to the Reception section. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There is now enough heft to the reception, including content from decent sources, that I believe a standalone article is warranted. The article is in appalling shape, though - someone needs to take a hatchet to all the original research. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to keep -- reception is definitely expanded enough to show this needs its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. Deleted under CSD#G5 by Izno. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Howard

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

Blatant WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable former college football player's asset-based lending, botox and supplement businesses. Behold the sourcing:

We have basically one piece of independent WP:SIGCOV, about his decision to end his football career after six seasons of eligibility, and that's nowhere close to a WP:GNG pass. I've left all the spam in here for now so AfD participants can see what this page was intended for. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 8 April 2025 (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! 02:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Humphreys

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

Non-notable rugby player. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. Fails WP:NATHLETE. CycloneYoris talk! 02:43, 8 April 2025 (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! 02:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adhunik Bharat Ke Brahmarshi Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth.Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (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! 02:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Păduraru

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2025 (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! 02:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Oprea

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. All the articles I found on her where just a mention of her name. Darkm777 (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mykhailo Tkachuk

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

I'm a bit unsure of this one, as he played mainly in the 1990s and had a rather long career, but in all four related languages, I could only find this, which is hardly WP:SIGCOV. I could find literally nothing else—hardly even a mention of his existence. The article has also been a stub for going on 10 years now. I figured that it would be worth putting it up for discussion here, as it doesn't appear as though this article is improvable without seeking out physical archives for information—and even then it's not guaranteed. I'm curious if anyone else can find anything on this player. Anwegmann (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Katy Perry

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

After a PROD was removed for unclear reasons, I'm taking this to AFD. It's filled with fancruft and comes off as a WP:POVFORK with claims that lack adequate sourcing and/or are promotional in nature. I therefore suspect whoever started the page up wanted to have a puff piece focused on praising Katy Perry. Either way, the "Legacy" section of her main bio already is sufficient when talking about her impact on music. There's no need for a bloated subpage. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate delete. It's a good idea for an article, and she has certainly impacted media. But unfortunately, this article breaks WP:NPOV and is just glazing Perry. ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 17:28, 12 April 2025 (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Erzurum (1821)

edit
Battle of Erzurum (1821) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject already discussed in the ottoman Iranian war article. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Could easily blank and redirect this instead of AFD.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2025 (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! 00:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open iT

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The Computerworld article only contains a brief mention that some other company used Open iT's products, and the other two sources were authored by a company employee. Can't find anything else besides trivial mentions and another article published by a senior employee. Also this source which is apparently a vanity award publication after looking through online reviews. The generic name makes it hard to search, though. Deproded in 2006. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP an company's software WP:NSOFT. As-written the article reads like a brochure for the company's products. Most available sources don't appear to be independent of the company either.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2025 (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! 00:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronet

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

Notability/importance still seems low. No useful references to support most content on this page. Redirecting wouldn't be a bad idea. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (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! 00:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cheese

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

non notable meme, fails wp:gng. ProtobowlAddict talk! 00:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. No notability for a short lasting meme. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meme has led to radio announcements, real life protests, and a go fund me for a homeless character involved in the storyline. This article should not be deleted. Jakegorham8 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Jakegorham8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_April_8&oldid=1286019921"