Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

18 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 17	November 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Byron Cemetery

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

this discussion in rfd was closed as restore, when it should have been closed as restore and send to afd. same rationale applies cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Šembera

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

Non-notable sportsperson. The sources describe his accident, which left him paralyzed at the age of 16, and how he lives with the consequences, but do not document any achievements or any other reason for having an encyclopedia entry. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced BLP other than tables of statistics (WP:NOTDATABASE). Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. MSportWiki (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Šembera

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

I did not find any good sources to verify that he meets the WP:GNG criteria. The only external link does not work. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced BLP other than tables of statistics (WP:NOTDATABASE). Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. MSportWiki (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (writer)

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

WP:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").

That UFO Digest and similar are not reliable sources hardly needs explaining. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summers Vitus Nwokie

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

Contested draftification without improvements, so here we are. Fails WP:NBIO. Geschichte (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. CptViraj (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mana Nakao

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

Playing 1 cup game for a J League team is an extremely weak claim to notability. Sources in ja:wiki are either primary or match reports, none are in-depth. As such he fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. CptViraj (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dečan operation

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

The entire section on the operation itself is unsourced, and it has 0 information on the actual operation, only explaining the lay-out of the operation and that the KLA were entrenched. The sources only mention the casualties and are not in-depth. The article is also not writen from a neutral prespective with it refering to the KLA as "terrorists" and using serbian letters for Albanian names like Hashim Thaçi. This article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Magadha

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

Unnecessary article doesnt needed already mentioned very much on List of wars involving India.Such type of articles should be for present day entities. Edasf (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mughal Empire exists

List of wars involving Ottoman Empire exists

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France exists

List of wars involving Holy Roman Empire exists JingJongPascal (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All wars are properly sourced.

The Magadhan Empire and Second Magadhan Empire is seperated by 200 years

This article will help a user to view all of them in one go

While on List of wars involving India

One will have to switch time periods. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some exceptions do exist and all above article like for Mughals have issue the Mughal one is functioning even more like a disambiguation page.Another thing The first or second Magadha empires separation canT give a valid reason for a separate article.There arent that much wars for Magadha majority here dont have a separate article and some even looks like created by OR. Edasf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do Holy Roman Empire & Kingdom of France exist ? JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions exist They have several wars Edasf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they are already included in List of wars involving Germany, yet they exist. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal They have many Magadha doesn't have that big to have a separate list. The list itself looks Original Synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Unnecessary," "not big enough to have a separate list," or "looks like Original Synthesis"? Under what context are you nominating and proposing a discussion for this article? It seems like the nomination is based on your personal viewpoint rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. You need to provide sufficient evidence to justify taking an article to deletion discussion. Personal opinions should not be the basis for judging an article; any proposal for deletion must be grounded in WP:DEL. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India original synthesis is a part of WP guidelines read guidelines correctly first. Edasf (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short List of Wars involving India quite enough by going this we need to create a dozen articles like this. Edasf (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe step back a little bit now? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Edasf (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a wrong understanding of what "Original Synthesis" is! As long as you are not adding unsourced interpretations or inferences to the data like claiming something that is not directly supported by the sources, this type of comparison is within the acceptable range of Wikipedia's guidelines and does not violate the original synthesis rule. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a separate list looks unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd prefer the title "List of wars of the Magadan Empires" but see no reason why such a list is worth deleting. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unnecessary and original synthesis. Edasf (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Most of these wars ,a article page exists JingJongPascal (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references offer substantial and reliable academic coverage of Magadha’s historical conflicts, indicating the wars' historical significance. Passes WP:SAL.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion Edasf (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf "why should there be separate article there's already wars involving India"–Both articles deal with wars in India over time, but they focus on different scopes. The two articles are not the same in content, although they partially overlap when discussing ancient history/war. The article in question is a specific subset of the India article, focused on a particular kingdom during a particular period in Indian history and India article is much broader in scope involving all territories that eventually became modern India, including the broader Indian subcontinent (modern-day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other regions), covering a wider range of periods, regions, dynasties and also, the British colonial period, post-independence India, and modern conflicts. That's said, this article is not "Unnecessary". — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your points arent accurate there are other kingdoms who had different wars we some even more than Magadha, we wont make article for each. Edasf «Talk» 14:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but it’s not reflective of Wikipedia’s policies. There are no restrictions on creating articles as long as they meet the established criteria. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting critrea doesnt guarantee article like WP:Verifiability#Verifiablity does not guarantee inclusion Edasf «Talk» 15:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer to this circles back to what I’ve already mentioned about why this article isn’t “unnecessary.” And also, your concern about "there aren't that much wars" being mentioned multiple times is irrational. Articles, whether they’re lists, stubs, or have limited content, shouldn’t be proposed for deletion simply because they’re short, WP:TOOSHORT. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? Why isnt? Its to you to prove conclusively this article is necessary to me and even two other editors India one is quit fine and this isn't necessary to have an specific article for a single kingdom and just ignoring others. Edasf «Talk» 15:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an immature argument to make! This is a discussion, and reviewers are entitled to form their own opinions and vote accordingly. My vote is to keep, and I’ll stand by it unless you can provide a solid, rational reason for why this article should be deleted. Just because you and other editors share the same opinion doesn’t mean I’m obligated to agree or consider it valid without proper justification. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not forcing you well.Take example of Macedon there were atleast 20 wars involving it will you come create another article? Such types of articles are generally for present entities. Edasf «Talk» 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with Macedon or its wars, but relating that to the article in question, to support your argument that such articles shouldn’t be created is weak and all the questions about "Why should this be kept?" have already been answered, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself on that. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again and do you have source which states a synthesis between these? This article is an Original synthesis part of WP:OR Edasf «Talk» 16:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t wish to continue the discussion, as it keeps circling back to the same point "OR". About the references, it's quite extensive, and my apologies, but I can’t go into all the details right now, it would take more time to elaborate that here. The references listed in the article could be considered. Additionally, I’m just pointing out some similar articles to show that your proposal, claiming "such articles should not exist separately," is not valid. These examples are only meant to challenge the subjective reasoning behind your suggestion and are not relevant to evaluating the article based on the guidelines. List of wars and battles involving the Principality of Smolensk, List of wars involving the Principality of Tver, List of wars involving the Principality of Moscow, List of wars and battles involving Galicia–Volhynia, List of wars involving Kievan Rus', List of wars involving the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, List of wars involving the Inca Empire, List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, List of battles involving the Sikh Empire.— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I won't repeat myself points. Edasf «Talk» 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont compare medieval empires here Edasf «Talk» 09:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why not? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because List of wars involving India is enough. Orientls (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @JingJongPascal. On an additional note, the article seems to be extremely well-made and kept, and seems to be extremely useful. Also @JingJongPascal, you do not need to provide citations on the article, simply providing a link to battle/war would be enough. In case, a separate article for a particular battle/war doesn't exist, then you shoulda adad a citation. PadFoot (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. It would be good to see more policy-based argumentation referencing, for example, WP:LISTN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hirst

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

Delete – I suggest that the subject is not notable - my WP:BEFORE searches turned up nothing of substance, no reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Music, Television, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in NJPW born outside Japan

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

No evidence that this grouping of characteristics meets WP:LISTN and has received significant attention as a group. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Wrestling, and Japan. Fram (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [1], and some analysis here [2] and here [3]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems to be a RS [4], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:

Dánta Póca [5][6]
Ó Chréanna Eile / From Other Earths [7][8]

And two books that don't meet NBOOK but do have one review (so a second would pass NBOOK):

Ar Thóir Gach Ní [9]
Cnámha Scoilte / Split Bones [10]

I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot World

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

Non-notable mobile game. Sourcing about the game itself leans heavily to primary sources, low-quality secondary blog coverage or user-generated social media and influencer youtube videos. The more reliable coverage about SpinX and their business activities, such as from GameDeveloper, Nikkei, or Reuters, barely mentions Jackpot World. May be one to consider framing as notability for a WP:CORP and not for the game itself. I accept the game itself is quite popular but there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage on it from what I can see. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netmarble. Agree with nom that Jackpot World is poorly covered in RS, failing WP:GNG. Developer is covered, although questionably well enough for an WP:NCORP pass, but in any case doesn't have an article, so redirect to parent company of developer. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look shows that the Netmarble article doesn't mention SpinX, but it easily could: [11] [12] [13] [14] ~ A412 ^talk! 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems appropriate to me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. After careful consideration, I also agree that "Redirect to Netmarble" makes more sense. JulieBole (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:

"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, Gscholar has hits on this organization as late as 2018, so there is sustained coverage, there also seems to be an offshoot in Scotland... We have sustained coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Movement for Socialism (Britain). Wellington Bay (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I am re-writing the article. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. There's quite a lot of scholarly publications on this group.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to analyse the changes added after the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London

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

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly List of Holocaust memorials and museums § United Kingdom could be expanded into a full article along the lines of List of Holocaust memorials and museums in the United States, as there are 156 search results for "Holocaust" in the Imperial War Museum's War Memorials Register. The contents of this page could then be a section there. Ham II (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular Stolperstein is unique because it is the only one in the United Kingdom. This has made this particular one the subject of signifcant coverage, and has also made it the site of activist activities which get in the news such as [15], [16] Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with 4meter4 on this. There is coverage, so we can have an article. The fact there are a lot of Stolpersteine elsewhere doesn't matter. This is the English Wikipedia so we are allowed to focus extra attention on things of especial relevance to those living in English-speaking countries, of which the UK is one. The first-and-only Stolpersteine on UK soil has very high cultural significance. Elemimele (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends (Cricket)

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

Non notable cricket tournament trying to use WP:NOTINHERITED to assert a notability. Just because a number of notable former players competed at this event, it doesn't mean the event itself is notable, and the coverage for the event does not pass WP:GNG. We have deleted many similar non-notable "legends/masters" event articles like this in the past. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and England. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Palmer (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only single source cited. Absolutiva (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NJPW female wrestlers born outside Japan

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

No evidence that this meets WP:LISTN, a trivial grouping of characteristics Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Wrestling, and Japan. Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is a list of 48 female wrestlers, I think it would be best to change the alphabetical format of the list to a table, and also add additional sources. Maybe when there are 90 or 100, the alphabetical format would make sense. Nikotaku (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a very arbitrary set of criteria. Not sure why this exists. — Czello ^(music) 09:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Giacomo Milano

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this young rugby player. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWLC

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one page and one redirect.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DWLC-AM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move DWLC-AM to this title, and delete the redirect DWLC-TV which has no mention at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKC

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one existing page.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DYKC-AM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move DYKC-AM to this title and delete redirect DYKC-TV which has no mention at target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYNU

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

Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one existing page.

I'm against redirection. I'd rather have DYNU-FM, the only page on the dab, moved to the namespace for the sake of WP:NAMINGCONVENTION. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Philippines. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two entries. Redirect to DYNU-FM and use hatnote {{redirect|DYNU|the TV station|UNTV}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Al-Hamar

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

Declined prod. Could not find any sources in google news and google books. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. I would reconsider if there is anything in Arabic. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources which passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Cave (Gibraltar)

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

Redirect toGibraltar Nature Reserve where it is located. Not indepentely notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge absent sources being found (did a light check) into Mediterranean Steps or Gibraltar Nature Reserve -- noting there are many caves listed in List of caves in Gibraltar, so as a whole the caves are probably notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tina's Fissure

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

Redirect or merge to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Not independently notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gibraltar Nature Reserve. Very little coverage in sources, does not appear separately notable. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upper All's Well Cave

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

Clearly nonotable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content and image are worth keeping if minimal; I think these should be merged to some larger article in my opinion. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's Cave

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

Links in ref's are broken, and all the info is sourced from the one referenced book. That book list many, many caves, and inclusion does not make this one notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Estonia

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

Poorly sourced and fails WP:NLIST. The Estonian language version of this article has more entries but also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Estonia. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three entries and one notable entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773@LibStar: has good potential to grow per e.g. etwiki list. Some references and info are also added Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 46 blue links (ie 46 potential entries...) on the Estonian page, that is an indication that should be noted and that is at least promising. And there is also a list dedicated to those of Tallinn only (in Estonian). Mushy Yank (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NOTDIR and is only manageable because of the country's relatively small size. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with LibStar and Mangoe, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. If it had more links and sources, then it might be passable, but it is not acceptable under it's current condition.

Aknip (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Poorly sourced, yes: cleanup issue. Fails NLIST? no, meets NLIST as the topic as a set has received coverage. (Thomson, C. (2007). Estonia - Culture Smart! The Essential Guide to Customs & Culture. Kuperard. for example or Noble, J., Williams, N., Gauldie, R. (1997). Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania(Keeling): Lonely Planet, p. 147, for a start) At least a redirect and merge to Cinema of Estonia seems warranted to preserve history. The topic would seem to be perfectly encyclopaedic, though.... Mushy Yank (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and how precisely and exactly is that list supposed to fall under NOTDIR? Mushy Yank (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears that the list topic has been discussed as a set in RS. That is all we need to prove WP:NLIST. Further, I don't think this list falls under any of the six criteria of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and those saying it does haven't actually discussed or connected the list to any one of the six standards for making that judgement. It's not a convincing argument as the list has a clearly defined scope that is relevant to the Cinema of Estonia. It's not a simple listing because of the RS coverage, and given that Estonian language films get played pretty much only in theaters in Estonia and the small geographic area its reasonable to list theaters in a single page for topical reasons. It's therefore not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", or a "A resource for conducting business", or a "Genealogical entry", or an "Electronic program guides".4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das verfluchte Jungfernloch

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

I don't believe this is notable. It is mentioned as existing in folklore, which it does. However, these references don't feel notable to me. IDK, y'all help me out! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my German isn't very good, but there's references to this cave in books on a quick Google search and caves have very low notability thresholds. "These references don't feel notable to me" is a bad deletion rationale. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic & General

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can I ask what the reason for this is? I'm happy to fix any issues

Thanks Ecwdgbt (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for reason given in nomination. The lack of independent sourcing makes the whole thing read like a press release. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi

Please could you clarify what you mean by 'lack of independent sourcing'. The majority of the citations are from independent sources including Sky News, The Independent and The Financial Times. Certain points have been substantiated via the company's homepage and their annual report but this has also been done on HomeServe, Legal & General and Admiral Group.

This is not supposed to act as a press release or as a marketing tool but appreciate your point. Would it benefit from adding in any new sections?

Thanks in advance for your feedback! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the article in the independent, for example - the many, many external links in the article are via Linkby which indicates that Domestic and General are paying for them. Which is why there's so many external links - you wouldn't normally see that many in a newspaper article. It's an advertorial, not independent coverage. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for flagging this. I have removed the independent article as it is not an unbiased, reliable source. Ecwdgbt (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A prior discussion from 2018-9, touching on COI in the instance at the time but also on notability, can be read here. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This is an odd one: a firm over 100 years old, whose products are used by 1/3 of UK households according to a 2019 Bloomberg item("Abu Dhabi Fund to Buy 30% of Domestic & General Group"), previously a plc but taken private then changing hands several times. But the problem is that despite their name recognition and near-ubiquity in domestic appliance warranty, there's not a lot of coverage outside announcements of the firm changing hands, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am close to saying "But it's notable!" but unless better coverage can be found, would have to say it falls short on WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback!

Here are three topics aside from the firm taking hands that have led to coverage that I would argue isn't trivial.

Offices

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/domestic--general-hopes-create-5084777

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/domestic-general-flexible-working-london-hq-revamp-wfh-b942634.html

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/big-nottingham-employer-domestic-general-7422086

Partnerships

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-five-year-aftercare-deal-with-marks-electrical/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/panasonic-and-dg-sign-a-six-year-deal/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/dg-agrees-three-year-deal-with-lg/

https://ertonline.co.uk/news/hughes-partners-with-domestic-and-general/

https://retailtimes.co.uk/domestic-general-extends-deal-with-john-lewis/

Acquisitions

https://www.cityam.com/american-adventure-continues-for-domestic-general-as-it-makes-second-acquisition/

https://www.postonline.co.uk/news/7955324/dg-aims-to-create-uber-like-claims-experience

https://www.warrantyweek.com/archive/ww20230629.html

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/domestic-general-group-to-acquire-after-inc

In addition to this, the CEO Matthew Crummack has garnered lots of coverage over the years (see below):

https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/former-gocompare-ceo-donates-major-sum-create-opportunities-students-need

https://newsnreleases.com/2021/08/04/matthew-crummack-joins-domestic-general-as-ceo/

https://www.aston.ac.uk/about/governance-management/matthew-crummack

https://www.postonline.co.uk/personal/7955323/big-interview-matthew-crummack-domestic-general

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/16007578

Let me know what you think or if the article would benefit from any new sections to showcase its notability?

Thank you! Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the weight to be placed on items about offices, partnerships and acquisitions, see the Standard notices points under WP:CORPTRIV. The City AM piece is bylined, but is ultimately a summary of announcement PR quotes. Coverage about the present CEO is relative to that person more than the company. You ask about what can "showcase" notability; in a way that is indicative of the problem of an article contributed by an editor with connection to the company at present. What is lacking is the longer perspective: substantial coverage about the firm's history. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would argue that Domestic & General is newsworthy in its own right in particular when opening new offices and through its CEO Matthew Crummack. Not in the sense that the business inherits notability through Crummack, but that his decisions for the business are often of note in the media.

It is a global company that employs over 3000 people and partners with hundreds of manufacturers to provide appliance warranty to 1 in 3 homes in the UK. I understand that ubiquity in homes does not necessarily mean 'notability' but I would ask that some of the references sources are revisited as "reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it".

Any articles that have been correctly flagged as being biased have been removed from this draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) — Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, It would be helpful if some of these new sources brought to the discussion were assessed to see if they can contribute to establishing some level of notability for this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joline Godfrey

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkTS

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]