text,label
"Hey Everybody: This a procedural nomination and I am neutral.  2 different IPs have also attempted to PROD this article, so let's just get this discussion out of the way.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Perfectly reasonable dab with seven entries.  * Pppery * it has begun... 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per WP:CSK #3.  WP:ONEOTHER refers to one other topic , not one other article .   This is a perfectly reasonable disambiguation page.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I already made additions to fix the WP:ONEOTHER problem yesterday, so there's no need for this article to be deleted or have PROD templates placed on it anymore.  B3251 ( talk ) 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Polly Namaye: Sources 2-4 are dead.  Fails WP:BIO .  No notability from the roles she has had.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uganda .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject not notable, just known as a police woman.  From searches on google she still doesn't meet WP:GNG . -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please review improvements made to the article since its nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is coverage of Namaye in the news, with the three best sources as follows [26] , [27] , [28] .  These articles discuss her career path, her role in the police department, and cases she has been involved with.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean enable subject to pass WP:GNG .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe album): I went back to look at this article as I was rewriting and splitting the main pages to determine if they should stay, and after looking I couldn’t find much (or any) reliable sources for the albums and most singles.  The redirect for this page was reverted by Atlantic306 again for the same reasoning as before.  I reasoned that even though it did chart high, there still wasn’t much reliable sourcing to make it pass WP:GNG and just because it charted high did not make it notable when it’s the only thing that I could find.  The only things I could really find was an announcement for this and another album being remastered (which only has a bit of text before giving the track list), the Oricon/Billboard chartings in the article, and articles that only mention it as part of writing of the whole career of the band (like the OtaQuest reference in the article).  reppop talk 00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That said, I would like to put my vote to redirect to Carlos Toshiki & Omega Tribe , as I had did prior to being reverted.  reppop talk 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NALBUM#2 by charting at #2 on the Oricon Albums Chart .  — siro χ o 04:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Person who contested prod is correct.  Charting establishes notability.  Notability can be established by either GNG or specific criteria; meeting both is not required.  Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  It would be helpful it additional sources could be brought into this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to band article.  Chart positions definitely contribute to a band's notability, and I get pissed whenever an AFD commenter pulls the ""Chart positions do not contribute to notability"" comment when a song or album has like 10 of them.  However, there is only one chart position.  We still have to write a full article at the end of the day, and a chart position alone just does not give you enough.  In all fairness, contemporaneous coverage about Japanese music in the 1980s is REALLY tough to find if your only source to everything was on the Internet and (probably) if you lived in the Western world.  However, if what is on the article is all we have, the band article can easily summarize it.  Additionaly, you could just list the Oricon peak in the discography section.  The amount of content you could write is just too little to make an article on its own.  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Keep or redirect to band article?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM .  We have WP:SNGs for a reason.  4meter4 ( talk ) 21:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep , with respect, nominating for deletion a second place charting, 20th most sold album of the year just to make a point about SNGs vs. GNG debate is a gigantic wastle of time.  If we were talking about a 2010s American album that ranked 40th in the gospel airplay chart maybe the nominator would have had a point, but for a Japanese band of the 1980s it is perfectly perfectly understandable why sourcing is difficult to find, but  almost certainly exists.  C avarrone 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Coin rotation paradox: This term has been used in a popular internet video and in few books which rather target maths learners than scientific demands.  But since it isn't really a paradox and covered by regular geometry, this doesn't need an article for it's own.
 Is is correct that there was an mistake in the exam, but this was not really because of a phenomen called ""coin rotation paradoxon"" then, this was just because of a wrong calculation.  In the linked youtube video it was goven the name ""paradoxon"" and given an extra-complicated explanation to make a paradoxon out of a simple calculation.
 See also discussion page for more.  - Flexman ( talk ) 01:33, 27 December 2023 (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/2023 December 27 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are (as far as I can tell) two arguments presented in favor of deletion: It's ""not a paradox"" and it's redundant to some as-yet unidentified article.  This particular quirk of rotations is not discussed at geometry , nor was I able to find it after a brief skim of rotation (geometry) , so presumably the nominator was thinking of another article, but until that article is specified, this argument is incomplete.  As for ""not a paradox"" - take it to WP:RM .  Badly-titled articles should not be deleted, they should be renamed.  -- N Y Kevin 02:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe it fits into the article of rotation.  This video provides the simple answer without calling it paradox: If the radius of circla A is 1/n of the radios circle B, the answer is n+1.  Nothing paradox about it.  There isn't even an expression for ""Coin rotation paradox"" in other languages since it is more connected to the phenomen of this SAT test than to regular science.  Flexman ( talk ) 10:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is indeed a veridical paradox .  The coin rotates more when rolling around another coin than when rolling on a line segment of the length of the latter coin's circumference.  This is strongly counterintuitive at the first glance, enough to be called a paradox.  If this wasn't a paradox, just geometry , birthday paradox would also not be a paradox, just simple probability calculations.  Janhrach ( talk ) 21:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are plenty of sources for this, the article should be cleaned up for sure but it passes WP:GNG Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Murtagh, Jack.  ""The SAT Problem That Everybody Got Wrong"" .  Scientific American .  Retrieved 2023-12-27 .  Keep : Seems to pass GNG.  For the record, I contested the PROD.  Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 07:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a tendency of certain people on YouTube to call everything a ""paradox"" as clickbait.   This is one of the reasons that YouTube isn't a very good source.   But the right answer, if it is a documented mathematics topic, is to take the YouTube clickbait out of the title, not nominate the article for deletion.  Uncle G ( talk ) 13:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ""Paradox"" is definitely sensationalistic; ""puzzle"" would be justifiable, as it appears in books of them, e.g., [43] [44] .  An abstracted version of the puzzle appears in group theory [45] .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with XOR'easter that calling it [a?] coin rotation puzzle rather than paradox would be more apt.   -- JBL ( talk ) 18:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we take a look on Deferent and epicycle , does this have a relation to the puzzle?  - Flexman ( talk ) 23:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vaguely but not even really enough to be worth mentioning in either article.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You won't be shocked to know that Gardner did an extension to a single coin rolling around a closed loop of n coins ( n > 2 ) in Mathematical Carnival in 1975, which was an updated version of xyr 1966 Scientific American column.   And the chapter in the book is titled ""Penny Puzzles"".  Uncle G ( talk ) 19:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : It is too specific a phenomenon to belong to geometry or similar articles.  Just because it is obvious to Flexman doesn't mean it is to others; it is described in Scientific American , Wolfram MathWorld etc.  Regarding the name, a Google search shows many parties calling it a paradox .  cmɢʟee ⎆ τaʟκ 03:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MathWorld is known to be a bad source for terminology, and a generic Google search turns up unreliable rubbish.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also the choice of title of the Wikipedia article for a relatively obscure thing like this with no ""real"" name will have a pretty big impact on the google hits.  100.36.106.199 ( talk ) 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: “This isn't even a paradox, it's just geometry” is such a lame excuse for destroying someone’s hard work on writing an article on a truly remarkable topic (in geometry :-p) that has garnered significant attention in both popular and scholarly circles.  It’s extremely telling that you would rush immediately to deleting it instead of first suggesting a rename or something non-destructive.  Stop the deletionism!  — Timwi ( talk ) 10:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The notability of this mathematical phenomenon does not seem to be in dispute.  Maybe the title should be changed, but I would note that describing counter-intuitive results as paradoxes is very much a regular occurrence in the field.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : discussed in many reliable sources, clearly notable.  Deleting this article solely because it uses the term ""paradox"" in a colloquial sense is absurd.  Must we also then delete Epimenides paradox , Barbershop paradox , Cantor's paradox , and every other non-intuitive but logically sound idea?  Dan • ✉ 04:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This seems like a clearly notable observation/phenomenon.  Retitling would be fine if someone can find a different name which is more common (or comparably common and clearer).  – jacobolus (t) 05:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are plenty of sources.  As nominated, it already had two sources associating it with a ""paradox"" (Mathworld and Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes ) and a major national newspaper story about the SAT snafu.  There is plenty more where that came from; for instance Martin Gardner also calls it the ""coin paradox"" (again separate from the SAT).  There is no need to rename; it fits perfectly well into Category:Mathematical paradoxes which clearly states on the category page ""Paradox"" here has the sense of ""unintuitive result"", rather than ""apparent contradiction"".  The fact that this is unintuitive is attested by the failure of the SAT creators to notice the problem and the tiny percentage of SAT participants who reported the problem.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Freight Farms: Doesn't pass WP:CORP .  Four of the references are from the company's own webpage and one is from Kickstarter.  The only real source is BI.  Uhooep ( talk ) 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Some coverage from an NPR story [56] .  With the BI article, I think we're ok.  Needs a rewrite though.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep When I created the article years ago I referenced the ample coverage in reliable sources at https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/06/27/grow-produce-anywhere-in-freight-farms-60000-truck/? sh=321f4d0e4cb0 and https://newatlas.com/freight-farms-cropbox-shipping-container-farms/36689/ but the current version seems to not have those.   I click the news search at the top of the AFD and I easily find https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/apr/16/boston-organic-food-farming-agriculture-startups and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-17/boston-based-freight-farms-takes-high-density-urban-farming-to-a-new-level as well.  D r e a m Focus 15:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed source material would be quite helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources listed above by Dream Focus (which need to be re-added to the article) are sufficient to pass the WP:SIGCOV test.  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"WeLab: Poor and not-independent sources BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Cohan, Peter S. (2018).  Startup Cities: Why Only a Few Cities Dominate the Global Startup Scene and What the Rest Should Do About It .  New York: Apress .  p. 64.  ISBN 978-1-4842-3392-4 .  Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books .  The book notes: ""Two Hong Kong gazelles are the Uber-for-delivery-vans-service GogoVan and WeLab, which operates a personal lending platform. ... whereas WeLab's ascent appears to have been smoother sailing.""  The book notes: ""WeLab's story is less dramatic but another great example of a gazelle becoming a unicorn. Cofounder and CEO Simon Loong started WeLab in 2013 after over 15 years in the banking sector. ... In 2013, he founded WeLab, a mobile lending platform that uses risk-testing technology to conduct credit assessments in seconds and enables customers to borrow money with a few taps of their smartphones. Now valued at more than $1 billion, it was Hong Kong's first tech unicorn and its WeLend leading online lending platform has sourced more than “$154 million in loan applications and 16,000 members.”  By January 2016, WeLab had loaned money to 2.5 million customers, the majority in mainland China. That month WeLab raised a $160 million Series B from Khazanah Nasional Berhad, Malaysia's strategic investment fund, with participation from ING Bank and Guangdong Technology Financial Group, which is run by the Chinese government, leading to total funding of $182 million.""  Leung, Grace L K (2019).  Innovative and Creative Industries in Hong Kong: A Global City in China and Asia .  Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge .  ISBN 978-1-138-06849-0 .  Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books .  The book notes: ""WeLab: founded in 2013, WeLab is reinventing traditional financial services by creating seamless mobile lending experiences. WeLab effectively analyzes unstructured mobile big data within seconds to make credit decisions for individual borrowers. WeLab operates Wolaidai, one of China's leading mobile lending platforms, and WeLend, Hong Kong's leading online lending platform. The company also partners with traditional financial institutions, which utilize WeLab's technology to offer Fintech-enabled solutions to their customers. WeLab did 6 rounds of funding exercises and raised a total of US$425 million. Her investors include CK Hutchison's TOM Group, Malaysian sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad, ING Bank, Sequoia Capital and Chinese provincial government fund: Guangdong Technology Financial Group. In 2016, WeLab was ranked in a KPMG-sponsored report as one of the top 100 Fintech companies in the world – sixth in China and 33rd globally. "" Fannin, Rebecca A. (2019).  Tech Titans of China: How China’s Tech Sector Is Challenging the World by Innovating Faster, Working Harder & Going Global .  London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing .  ISBN 978-1-52937-451-3 .  Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books .  The book has a section titled ""AI at Work in Fintech: WebLab"".  The book notes: ""An example of AI disrupting traditional banking comes from Hong Kong-based fintech startup WeLab, which provides small consumer loans in an online instant, with fewer than average defaults by relying on AI and data to determine creditworthiness. WeLab technology combs through online data such as bill payment records and social media profiles to figure out which potential borrowers are likely to pay their loans on time. Then it prices and tailors online consumer loans. Consumers complete the entire lending process over their smartphone and don't need an established credit history—an issue among young people starting in their careers. Loan decisions for individual borrowers are made online within seconds. One hint: don't fill out the online form in all capital letters. WeLab has found applicants who write in upper case are not good credit risks. A technology team of more than 210 engineers and data scientists have ...""  Mohan, Devie (2020).  The Financial Services Guide to Fintech: Driving Banking Innovation Through Effective Partnerships .  London: Kogan Page .  p. 102.  ISBN 978-1-78966-106-4 .  Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books .  The book notes: ""WeLab is a Hong Kong start-up that was founded in 2013, and which became the first peer-to-peer lending platform in the country. WeLab enables users to borrow money as personal loans from other indi- viduals while delivering lower interest rates than traditional banks. WeLab makes this process as easy as possible, with an online application form and relatively short assessment process being the only barriers to accessing credit. One of the fascinating initiatives implemented by WeLab is Wolaidai, a mobile peer-to-peer lending platform for top-tier university students in China. With the founder of WeLab, Simon Loong, having experience in the commercial banking industry at Citibank and Standard Chartered, this fintech solution draws on experts in the traditional financial system, while taking on some of its biggest proponents. We will undoubtedly see more of this in the years to come.""  Rubini, Agustín (2019).  Fintech in a Flash: Financial Technology Made Easy .  Boston: De Gruyter .  p. 136.  ISBN 978-1-5474-1716-2 .  Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books .  The book notes: ""Founded in 2013, WeLab is a Hong Kong-based internet finance company that uses exclusive risk management technology to analyze Big Data and offer reliable credit services to individual borrowers in the Asian market. WeLab operates two leading online lending platforms, Wolaidai in China and WeLend in Hong Kong, seeking to offer its customers a seamless mobile lending experience. Furthermore, the company has partnerships with traditional financial institutions, which use WeLab's sophisticated credit risk management tools to use Big Data analytics and offer their customers advanced fintech solutions. In January, WeLab raised $160 million in Series B funding from domestic and international investors, including Khazanah Nasional Berhad wealth fund, ING Bank, and state-owned Guangdong Technology Financial Group (GTFG). This was the first time that funds were raised by a Chinese fintech firm and one of the first times that an international financial institution (ING) financed a leading Chinese fintech player.""  Less significant coverage: Lo, John Y. (2016).  Angel Financing in Asia Pacific: A Guidebook for Investors and Entrepreneurs .  Bingley, West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing .  p. 27.  ISBN 978-1-78635-128-9 .  Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books .  The book notes: ""There appears to be a consensus that the startup scene in Hong Kong has taken a quantum jump in the last five years. A major breakthrough in January 2016 is probably the announcement of the receipt of US$160 million investment in a Series B financing by WeLab. This is a local fintech startup that specializes in peer-to-peer lending technology and operates both in Hong Kong and mainland China. While not publicly disclosed, the valuation of the company has been estimated to be near US$1 billion, qualifying it as the first unicorn24 from Hong Kong.""  Gough, Neil (2014-06-16).  ""Start-Up WeLab Raises $14 Million From Sequoia Capital and Hong Kong Tycoon"" .  The New York Times .  Archived from the original on 2023-09-19 .  Retrieved 2024-05-27 .  The article notes: ""WeLab Holdings, an Internet finance start-up in Hong Kong, said on Monday that it had raised $14 million from Li Ka-shing, Asia's richest man, and Sequoia Capital, a stalwart of Silicon Valley.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow WeLab 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 ) 08:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On top of the sources found by @ Cunard I'd add: Financial Times article profiling the company.  This is an earned media feature article, not an interview.  Forbes with a short market report (which I suspect was leaked by Loong) Forbes again with a feature on the company.  This one is a nice profile but clearly based on an interview with Loong.  Keep This is a major fintech player in Asia Pacific, and although WeLend has its own article this is the parent that also includes Mainland platform Wolaidai as well as a bank in Indonesia I think.  There are other bits and pieces out there, at the paragraph scale similar to those found by Cunard, but I think the FT piece along with the Forbes 2022 piece should be enough.  Oblivy ( talk ) 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and Hong Kong .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clean up is not deletion.  Per se, the sources are significantly impactful for the article.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Radio Reșița: -- NGC 54 ( talk ｜ contribs ) 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Romania .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Czech government thinks they're useful (?) Elinruby ( talk ) 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Link Elinruby ( talk ) 23:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to have ample coverage (and also considerable importance).  Looks to have been at the center of some significant political controversies in 2019 and 2020 .  Even the subject of some English-language analysis from journalistic and technical perspectives (although I suspect that the latter ""journal"" is not an RS) and some very interesting political analysis .  One show from the station appears to have given rise to an entire book.  Here is a story from RRC about the station's 25th anniversary that contains some interesting background (independence may be an issue for that one, although I'm a bit unclear how closely the different public stations in Romania are related).  In sum, although I am ill-placed to evaluate the sources, even with my very poor Romanian search skills there doesn't seem to be any shortage of sources.  Unclear why nom considered what appears to be a prominent and fairly controversial station to be ""not notable"".  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the great work done above by Visviva . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Terrisa Bukovinac: There appear to be two claims to fame here.  Running against Joe Biden and being the executive director of Democrats for Life.  Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one.  There is no evidence that Bukovinac's candidacy will meet any sort of historic record or ten year test.  It's raised funds equal to the value of a half-decent used car.  The second claim to notability would be as the executive director of Democrats for Life.  I don't believe being the executive director of the organization itself warrants notability given their form 990 cited on Wikipedia gives them annual revenues in the 5 figure range which much like figures of major parties turned minor parties, does not meet GNG and warrant an article.  Mpen320 ( talk ) 04:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Mpen320 is correct that this fails NPOL.  However, as that guideline notes, candidates ""can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.""  A review of the references in the article demonstrates that with coverage in outlets like the NY Times, HuffPost, AP, etc, that the subject passes GNG, and a quick DuckDuckGo search shows there is additional content that could be added as well.  -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk ) 04:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Except she GNG too. Most of that coverage is run of the mill coverage any minor presidential candidate would get. It doesn't separate her from most of the 1,200 candidates declared with the FEC.-- Mpen320 ( talk ) 13:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Allegedly taking home a box of aborted fetuses isn't routine coverage, see below...  I wish I was making this up.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Michigan ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She's notable, but not for NPOL.  The article glosses over certain facts, but she appears to have taken home aborted fetuses [25] , [26] , [27] , which borders NCRIME.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even clicking on the NYT link above gives five hits in the New York Times.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable per GNG .   A quick Google search reveals many articles from reliable sources.   I took the liberty of adding some of them to the article.  Dhalsim2 ( talk ) 20:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , notable for quite a lot of reasons; article has a wide variety of good quality sources demonstrating this.  Chessrat ( talk , contributions ) 23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG.  Even if she fails NPOL as a minor presidential candidate, she has had adequate coverage in reliable sources outside of her campaign, specifically regarding the aforementioned crime.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 01:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Democrats for Life of America .  This will preserve her edit history in case she demonstrates more notability in the future. -- Kerbyki ( talk ) 19:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more thoughtful opinions.  I'm not sure any criminal charges is sufficient to establish notability as laid out by Wikipedia notability guidelines.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft keep.  She borderline meets WP:GNG but it's close.    ~ Politicdude ( About me , talk , contribs ) 19:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe she meets the criteria for notability.  DocZach ( talk ) 02:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Vittorino Milanesio: Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 06:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy .  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 06:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This looks like it should be a keep; this source comments that he was the joint-subject of a book .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I don't know Italian but in addition to the above book I was able to find another book from 2021 that says it has ""an important section of the book dedicated"" to Milanesio, which I added to the article.  Thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it by adding that other source.  -- Habst ( talk ) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Book sections focusing on him from decades after his career indicate notability and show a pass of WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:GNG . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, it would help if editors could identify or link to new sources found so that others can evaluate them as well. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The book in question is recounting the gatherings hosted by the committee the author is president of and just contains anecdotes from the subjects. This is not in any way independent enough. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay , thank you for voting. In addition to the two books we found so far, I found several more sources -- the ones I could machine translate I added to the article, which include important information that he ran alongside world record holder Pietro Mennea in winning the 1977 national championships.  I also found several recent magazine articles about Milanesio (this isn't even including contemporary coverage) -- the problem is, I couldn't find a way to extract the text from them for machine translation, so I added them to Talk:Vittorino Milanesio . Do you by any chance know Italian so you can help us translate those three sources for the article? -- Habst ( talk ) 00:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It would help to get another review of additional sources added to the article and listed on the article talk page.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment –  the new sources added don't seem to fulfill notability guidelines –  presiding over ceremonies and being on the cover of a book don't make you notable.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ InvadingInvader , thank you for the comment.  If the books (there are two we've found so far) cover the subject in an independent, reliable, and significant manner, then they would fulfill WP:GNG per the letter of the policy.  This isn't even considering the more recent magazine articles we've found on the talk page that still can be added to the article.  -- Habst ( talk ) 04:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – More sources have now been located by Habst , and there are certainly more offline.  Svartner ( talk ) 13:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"St Mark's Church of England School, Southampton: Despite Necrothesp’s assertion, the notion that secondary schools are inherently notable was abandoned years ago.  Repeatedly re-created.  Acroterion (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Indeed we do have WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, ""Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations.""  This article is entirely unreferenced, for goodness' sake.  How would this place be presumed notable?  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 11:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you'll find, if you actually look, that it is not unreferenced!  It has no secondary references, but it is certainly referenced.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That'd be the two references you added AFTER my comment above was posted? So what was I to 'actually look' at? Your intent? The future? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that would be the reference in the infobox that was already there before it was even prodded! Check the history if you don't believe me. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  A total misrepresentation of what I wrote (which frankly, and sadly, surprises me not at all).  Editors need to read WP:PROD before they use it.  It is for uncontroversial deletion only .  AfD is the forum for any other deletion.  The deletion of a secondary school in a western country is never going to be uncontroversial and should not occur without discussion at AfD.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable and well-referenced after Necrothesp added 2 good refs to the article.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as it skirts by on the multiple RS requirement for notability guideline of orgs. The only source of sustained converse appears to be the local Daily Echo , though, hence my apprehension towards a full keep. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Southern Daily Echo is the main newspaper for the Southampton area. It's reliable. It doesn't have to be big. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  My concern is that the only sustained coverage comes from that source, while the other RS I could gluons exclusively covered a single event.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think this webpage should be deleted because other pages for example St George Catholic College Southampton share similar notabilities where as they have not been deleted Parabelleum ( talk ) 19:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG , as do most western secondary schools.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 07:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you guys remove the deletion thing on the page because so many people have said keep and I also say we should keep it. Parabelleum ( talk ) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Parabelleum is now indefinitely blocked for vandalism. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See the instructions for participating at AfD.  Theyre linked in the box at the top of this page.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 23:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  References used do not show any notability that passed the WP:GNG or WP:NORG bar.  The first school in a single city - Southhampton - that is able to serve from year 4 to year 16 is not notable enough in my opinion.  The second reference is just covering about the expansion of the school, and the notability claim on the second reference is similar with the first reference.  Secondary schools are assumed to be not notable, so deletion for them is somewhat uncontroversial.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, secondary schools are certainly not ""assumed to be not notable"".  They are assessed on a case by case basis and most western secondary schools are kept, so should never be prodded as uncontroversial deletion.  It's primary schools that are generally assumed to be non-notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article is sourced and proves notability.  Bleaney ( talk ) 12:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Don't know what to do with it but I'll have to leave this article as is as there is adequate sourcing.  HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 15:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Chesley Awards: Only primary sources and non independent sources seem to exist.  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 15:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 15:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this is to be an encyclopedia, then it should be encyclopedic.  Deleting articles because an editor is not familiar with a topic, as seems to be the case here, where this chap @ Big Money Threepwood refers to the award as being ""non notable,"" is counter to the very concept of creating an encyclopedic source of information.  Independent sources abound for those willing to look.  The award has been around for many decades.  Edifice of the Cosmic Overarch ( talk ) 05:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's a whole book about them .  They are cited frequently in this reference work about fantasy art .  The results are covered every year by trade publications ( ProQuest 232540284 , ProQuest 205466020 , [34] , [35] ).  Jfire ( talk ) 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Was a literature search even done before starting this AfD?  Yes, the article needs work and more citations.  However, saying the "" pinnacle award in the (SF/F) genre for art "" is non-notable is ridiculous.  This article absolutely meets notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Why in the world would this article be deleted?  The article may need some work, but the Chesley Awards are of historical and contemporary significance.  This is an important article.  Look at the awards that the biggest names in SF&F art mention in their bios and you will see the Chesley listed.  Look no further than Bob Eggleton as an example.  JollyGreenOgre ( talk ) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Funny coincidence, I have literally read the book listed (a long time ago, grant you).  This clearly meets WP:GNG .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"R. Brian Ferguson: The sources don't seem to say anything about him receiving any awards, honors, fellowships, etc.  Just looks like he's sold some books and been featured a couple times by Scientific American , but I don't know how massive an accomplishment that really is.  It's also worth noting that the article may have been created by an editor with a conflict of interest who otherwise hasn't made a ton of edits .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Social science , New Jersey ,  and New York .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 18:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In terms of meeting NPROF, it can be satisfied if they are often quoted as an expert in mainstream media.  Scientific American counts, but I think we'd need at lease one more other source quoting him.  Does anyone have any?  BhamBoi ( talk ) 18:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:Prof .  Nominator is advised to learn the policy guidelines that apply to a topic before editing there.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] I mean it's not like I didn't read those guidelines.  Calling something ""not my area of expertise"" doesn't mean I know nothing about it.  And by my judgment, as I said above, I don't believe this article passes by those standards, so I ask what makes you think otherwise.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  His books have reviews, and the citation count is fairly high for anthropology, passed NPROF-C1.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 12:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : In defense of the nominator, it took me a while before I fully understood the nuances of WP:NPROF ; it's certainly one of our most complicated notability criteria.  The subject seems to quite easily pass on just raw citations, which is also an indicator that, as an anthropologist, he may also WP:NAUTHOR on reviews, though I haven't checked this latter part yet.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The alleged complexity of a policy is no excuse for failing to parse it correctly.  If you can’t stand the heat keep out of the kitchen.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Quantum weirdness: Only a single reference, a book by this name.  Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: ""weirdness"" is not thing in physics.  We have plenty of articles on QM.  — User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024 Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title: deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources — User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024 The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty.  Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept .  Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics?  No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics?  Probably also no.  Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics?  I do not know.  Remsense 诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A good example is the article Bare particle , which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion.   -- Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete . I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description . The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles.  -- Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The topic has coverage by a number of sources.  The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion.  Cortador ( talk ) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article: Many ""interpretations"" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.  While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition.   -- Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete .  Wishy-washy long neutral comment .  This article does not say anything that is not already covered in a range of other existing WP articles on physics.  It mostly appears to be some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR .  As to quantum being weird, yes, even physicists say this.  Anecdote: When I was a young student, my prof pulled me into his office, closed the door, and made me swear a secret oath: I must not talk about quantum to anyone who does not have a formal education in physics.  Why?  Because quantum is weirder than Hollywood or anything scifi authors could ever imagine, and people's heads would explode, and cranks and snake-oil salesmen would come out of the woodwork.  I got the impression this was a standard oath administered to anyone studying physics, dating back to the WWII Manhattan project .  Now, if this article was actually about that oath, and/or some sociological study of physicists, I'd be thrilled to vote ""keep"".  But we don't need a compendium of weird stuff.  Also p.s. excuse me: most of QM is weird for one reason: because weak convergence (Hilbert space) is fugnuts weird.  So this is just math being weird, and not physics.  And once you tune in, lots of math is really deranged and weird.  Like way more weird than what QM has come up with.  (I changed my tag to wishy-washy . I dunno, since everyone is talking about it, anyway, what the heck. Article could mention the U. Columbia prof who dropped his pants for Physics 101 to show how weird QM is. See youtube videos. My ex is a Dean of Students there, we chatted about this. CNN (2013)  Columbia professor strips down for lecture ) 67.198.37.16 ( talk ) 06:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : same vote, different explanation.  The original article that was AfD'd was just a dictionary definition.  It has since been edited adding some highly dubious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR .  It makes claims about what scientists think which are just not true; most scientists who have worked in the area have no ""weirdness"" issues.  It's math.  Slightly different reason to delete, same vote.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is it even relevant to the discussion that ""most scientists who have worked in the area"" have no issues?  Some of the most notable ones clearly did have their issues, like Einstein with several aspects of QM, as expressed in his qualification spukhafte Fernwirkungen , and his statement, Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend.  Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist.  Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher.  Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt.  Scientists working in the area are not immune to the limitations of human intuition as shaped by evolution and everyday experience; if they have no issues, it is because they set their intuition aside when doing science.  While true and probably sourceable, this is, however, not of direct relevance to the topic of the article.  The intended article (now still a stub) is not about alternative mathematical formalisms (which are, by the way, not always fully equivalent with vanilla Copenhagen), but about the clash between human intuition and the best available fundamental physical theory .  This is an entirely different topic than covered by our ""Interpretations"" article .  There are, nevertheless, some connections with the ""interpretations"" that are worth documenting, since some interpretations of QM were obviously inspired by the desire to interpret some of the weirdness away.  In the pilot wave theory there are no cats that are both alive and dead.  But it does not imply and cannot explain the Born rule , so it is not mathematically equivalent.  The mathematical formulation developed by Hugh Everett III in his PhD thesis is mathematically equivalent.  Not so for its popularization as the many-worlds interpretation , which again does away with cats that are simultaneously alive and dead but likewise cannot explain the Born rule.  Everett himself considered this transmogrification of his formal mathematical theory ""bullshit"".  [39] -- Lambiam 07:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics which already discusses the non-definition aspects of the article in more detail.   Any content that is missing from the redirect target could be merged, but I don't see any.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that this is still a stub , not a fully developed article.   -- Lambiam 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Other than a definition, what content would be here that would not be appropriate at Interpretations of quantum mechanics ?   There are many ""interpretations"" of quantum mechanics largely because it is ""weird"".  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 16:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but probably change it entirely?  I don't see a reason not to have an article on the book titled Quantum Weirdness, but if the book itself doesn't meet requirements for notability, maybe just Delete.  Love, Cassie.  ( Talk to me! ) 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cassie.  , you are ""voting"" both Keep and Delete?  If you are not certain on Wikipedia's standards for notability, it's best to not participate in an AFD discussion than to give a contradictory opinion that doesn't help a closer assess consensus.  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry for the confusion.  I'm familiar with the guidelines, I'm just not familiar with the book.  Love, Cassie.  ( talk ) 12:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rewrite .  Briefly, quantum weirdness is a thing referred to both in scientific publishing (and prepublishing ) as well as the science communication press .  I don't think the present article does a great job explaining it, but that's a signal it should be improved rather than deleted.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 13:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Draftify .  Although the article is not quite ready for mainspace, there is no policy-based reason for deletion either.  WP:NOTDIC does not seem to apply, since the article is not written like a dictionary entry.  What perhaps irritates the editors is the way it is presented as a fact that quantum mechanics is ""weird"".  In the introduction of Philip Ball's book (cited in the article), 'Quantum weirdness' is actually called a trope , and Ball quite critical of portraying quantum mechanics in this fashion.  To achieve a WP:NPOV , this kind of views should be included.  This is not an easy subject to write an encyclopedic article about (as opposed to an essay) and draftspace should provide time for that.  If, instead of draftifying, there is a consensus to redirect the article somewhere, then I suggest Introduction to quantum mechanics which matches the content of the current article quite well.  See the second paragraph in the introduction of that article, and compare the list in Quantum weirdness to the section titles.  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 08:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was created in Oct 2022 so I think technically it is too late to draftify ( WP:AFDTODRAFT ).  Also, we have a ""moving target"" page here.  The one AfD'd was WP:DICTDEF ; that as of 24 May is IMO WP:SYNTH , WP:OR , WP:NPOV .  Of course rules can be broken and the article draftified.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for pointing this out.  I've somewhat reluctantly changed my vote to weak keep, as I don't find it completely implausible that an article discussing the alleged counter-intuitiveness of QM could be written from the available sources.  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 06:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Broken (Armstrong novel): Most of the sources found upon searching 'broken novel' are not even this book.  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources McMahon, Donna (2006).  ""Broken"" .  SF Site .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The review notes: ""So I found the story growing tedious as it devolved into a cycle: the heroes discuss their options, attempt a strategy, discover something that makes the problem more complicated, fight for their lives, eat, have sex, sleep, then discuss their options again, and so forth. It soon seemed inevitable that our protagonist would end up alone and in peril, and sure enough, Armstrong eventually contrives to extricate Elena from her pack of werewolf bodyguards so she can fight alone. ... Fans of action may also enjoy this book -- there are lots of fights and chases. And Armstrong provides some candid pointers on how to have hot sex in the third trimester, which some readers will no doubt delight in and others are liable to find a turn-off. I found that all the action was plot-driven and none of the characters engaged me enough to keep me interested in the outcome.""  Crutcher, Wendy.  ""Broken by Kelley Armstrong"" .  The Romance Reader .  Archived from the original on 2007-03-09 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The review notes: ""This is an engaging entry to highly readable series. Armstrong continues to write strong female leads, and even introduces a new one – a vampire named Zoë who has a lot of fun potential. Elena continues to be strong – content and ready to move on to a new phase in her life. Readers who became so engaged with her in the first two novels will certainly enjoy this return visit.""  The Romance Reader was published and edited by D.N. Anderson and has Cathy Sova as a senior editor.  Here is more information about The Romance Reader , which I consider to be a reliable source: ""Favorite Web sites: www.theromancereader.com"" .  The Tampa Tribune .  1999-06-14.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Newspapers.com .  The article notes: ""Readers of romance fiction have a difficult task separating the wonderful from the dreadful in their genre. The often-embarrassing cover art and the always-inaccurate jacket blurbs offer little guidance to a discriminating reader. Thank goodness for The Romance Reader, which offers an independent assessment of many new releases, judged on a scale of one to five hearts. There also are columns, including ""My top 10 favorite romances of all time"" by several authors, including LaVyrle Spencer and Susan Elizabeth Phillips ."" ""The net"" .  Star Tribune .  1999-01-15.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Newspapers.com .  The article notes: ""Web hits » http://www.theromancereader.com . If you're a romance novel junkie, The Romance Reader has all the love and kisses you could ever pine for. The core of the site is its book reviews (more than 1,000). Authors can respond to reviews of their work. Check interviews with numerous romance writers, lists of new releases, readers' recommendations and something called Road Stories — a collection of hilarious tales from authors about book signings and other memorable moments.""  Perrault, Anna H. (2013).  ""Literature and Literary Studies"" .  In Perrault, Anna H. ; Aversa, Elizabeth S. (eds.).  Information Resources in the Humanities and the Arts, 6th Edition .  Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio .  p. 158.  ISBN 978-1-59884-832-8 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Google Books .  The book notes: ""5-146. The Romance Reader. http://theromancereader.com . It has only been in recent years that romance novels have been taken seriously by those who don't read them, even though they are the most popular form of genre fiction with over half of mass market paperback fiction being romance novels. This site is one of the oldest review sites and it is organized into contemporary, historical, paranormal, series, and eclectic. The reviews rank the works according to one to five hearts. Other features are author interviews and a section where readers can ask questions and get answers. The site can help readers and librarians alike to be ""in the know. """" Bielke-Rodenbiker, Jean (2013). ""Review Sources for Mystery Fiction"" . In Overmier, Judith; Taylor, Rhonda Harris (eds.). Managing the Mystery Collection: From Creation to Consumption . New York: Routledge . p. 66. ISBN 978-0-7890-3153-2 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Google Books . This book source is about The Mystery Reader, which like The Romance Reader is also edited by D.N. Anderson. The book notes: ""The Mystery Reader: http://www.themysteryreader.com .  Companion to the Romance Reader site, this Web site is edited by D.N. Anderson.  ...  This site is one of the most often linked to by other sites: It's been around awhile and is a credible resource for mystery reviews. "" Grimwood, John Courtenay (2006-06-09). ""Murderous impulses"" . The Guardian . Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The review notes: ""A new book featuring werewolf heroine Elena Michaels should be good news for fans.  And, at first, all the signs are promising.  In return for revealing the hiding place of a serial killer, half-demon Xavier requires Elena, her lover Clay and their boss Jeremy to steal a letter written by Jack the Ripper.  It seems a fair deal, until the letter opens a portal to the past and assorted 19th-century zombies start ruining Toronto's more exclusive districts.  This is Buffy territory, now colonised by half-a-dozen US novelists, of which Armstrong is one of the best. "" ""Kelly Armstrong – Broken"" (PDF) . Vector . July–August 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database . The review notes: ""The sixth volume in Armstrong’s Women of the Otherworld series sees the return of the werewolf Elena Michaels, last seen in the second volume, Stolen (reviewed in Vector 233).  This one sounds fascinating with Elena persuaded to steal Jack the Ripper’s ‘From Hell’ letter from a collector, which inadvertently opens a portal back to Victorian London.  Oh, and our hero is pregnant.  Which has sold it to me.  Colin Odell and Mitch Le Blanc have reviewed much of this series, finding it at the front of this Buffyesque genre and strengthening with each volume. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Broken to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 10:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure about the validity.  For example, #3 doesn't have Broken as the main subject, which seems to be required by the crit.  I will leave that review process to others.  Cunard , where do you find these sources from?  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 12:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Sungodtemple ( talk · contribs ).  I found these searches through Google Books , Google , and Newspapers.com searches and through checking the book's entry in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database .  The Romance Reader review was in an earlier version of the article before being removed as a dead link.  Cunard ( talk ) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified by Cunard.  Source #3 is a collection of 4 book reviews, one of which has Broken as the main subject.  pburka ( talk ) 14:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Bubble Gum (NewJeans song): Poirot09 ( talk ) 09:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Poirot09 ( talk ) 09:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a stub and also it is a song article not a single article.  It is also important to have a separate article as both songs are notable since Bubble Gum topped music videos in South Korea and became a big hit there.  I would also like to add I am planning on adding more information and sources but as it is a b-side which was never released I simply just copy and pasted information from that article.  However this will be changed.  This0k ( talk ) 10:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : it certainly was released, otherwise we would never had heard it.  But I would question if this was a B-side as stated... it appears that ""How Sweet"" and ""Bubble Gum"" were released together as a double single, and I wonder if it might be better to merge the two into a single article titled ""How Sweet / Bubble Gum"", because apart from the two chart positions, most of the content seems to apply equally to both songs.  Richard3120 ( talk ) 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally I'd be fine with retitling the article.  This0k ( talk ) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Richard3120 Yeah, there has been a bit of a discussion going on over what classification to use for these singles, since publications have described them as double single, [1] single album, [2] and extended play, [3] even though the group has used the term double single.  I'm not able to engage in a long discussion atm, but you can check out Talk:NewJeans discography if you wish to contribute to the discussion with other editors.  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Sources 12 and 14 are about this song, rest aren't.  I'm not sure why were using sourcing from 2023 for a song that came out in 2024.. .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Enough sourcing in RS about the music video, [17] , [18] , [19] , with coverage from Korea and the United States.  Likely TOOSOON as the song was just released, but it's got coverage in spades.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , although the article should be rewritten with content specific to this song only.  I don't see a problem having two separate articles for double A-side singles, as this kind of release is pretty common outside Korea (especially Japan).  ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Nkon21.  If the issue is duplicative content, rewrite it with information pertaining to this song only.  Ss 112 02:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/05/398_373562.html ^ https://www.nme.com/news/music/newjeans-make-surprise-new-single-album-announcement-and-tease-2025-world-tour-3609684 ^ https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/newjeans-how-sweet-bubble-gum-stream-it-now-1235692150/ 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.",keep
"Leonard Arthur Bethell: I think it needs to go back to draft for further work.  Too much reliance on primary sources, long sections of unsourced material, and speculation.  What is lacking is depth coverage in reliable independent sources.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Military , India ,  and United Kingdom .  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't seem to pass AUTHOR.  I did a newspaper search at the LOC from 1870 to 1915.  His name never turns up.  I'd expect some kind of mention of his books.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I expected this to be a delete, but it's probably not, I think he's a keep .  That Oaktree b didn't find his books on searching for his real name might be because he published under the pseudonym ""Pousse Cailloux"", as the article says, and also using merely his initials with no name.  He and his books do get mentions by others, e.g. an article in the Journal of Asian Studies by Carrington [23] , and he's quoted here [24] .  I find his books still widely on sale in the second hand market, which implies that they sold well in his day; I found multiple copies of Jungle Tales and Garden of the Hesperides available for sale everywhere from the UK to New Zealand.  I suspect he was a sufficient author in his day to pass.  The article could do with some work; some parts of it are rather interesting original research and include speculation that isn't appropriate in WP; for example, we should not make the connection between the date of his house being bombed and the death of his wife, that should be done elsewhere and then reported here.  Elemimele ( talk ) 21:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Pousse Cailloux"" brings up an article about the French 75 pounder gun in newspapers from 1916.  Mentions him briefly [25] still not enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found two of his books in LOC - 'His Majesty's Shirt-sleeves' 1930, and 'Tales from the Outposts' 1932.  Maybe the search window (from 1870 to 1915) was too narrow ?  Charles.bowyer ( talk ) 18:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NB I used his real name - Leonard Arthur Bethell Charles.bowyer ( talk ) 18:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per nom.  The article in its current state doesn't provide evidence of notability, and I was unable to find any significant coverage online.  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 08:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure that LOC (Library of Congress - I assume) is the best place to look for him.  British Library (Asian section) is better - there you will find his letters, in the manuscript section (restricted section in fact), his books, and other references.  Some parts of my article can be easily changed, but the problem area is 'notability'.  I believe him to be notable - from the books he published - but trying to match Wikipedia's standard measures has been a struggle.  Apart from the British Library entries, I can say that the authors he worked with on 'Tales from the Outposts' include significant national and literary figures - I count 19 Wikipedia entries among them.  (See article).  Charles.bowyer ( talk ) 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was a search in American newspapers, so he might not have gotten much readership in the US.  I have a few Canuck newspaper archives I use, I'll try there later.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ::Algeria is hard to source and almost impossible in English.  The French article is longer, but not all that much help.  It does say that the Algerian were there with armored vehicles.  I could, actually, conceive of such a battle being ignored since Algeria would have been newly independent and probably wasn't expected to stand  chance against Israel.  That doesn't mean that that's what happened though.  As far as the author goes, he was a wartime general who saw action in this war.  How is that not notable.  I think you must be getting that assessment by looking for book reviews or something.  I also strongly suggest checking in Arabic.  Hth Elinruby ( talk ) 01:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) <--moving thisto the discussion about the battle in the Yom Kippur War.  Elinruby ( talk ) 21:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Elinruby : I think your comment was intended for another deletion discussion.  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] yes my mistake.  will move it shortly.Thanks for the good catch.  Elinruby ( talk ) 19:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought it might be useful to add some background – because a number of people have asked me the question, why am I interested in Bethell. ?  Over the years, I have read widely – some books stay with you, some don’t.  Bethell has stayed.  Not my top author, but at number 15 in my top 30.  Virtually all the others in the top 30 are well-known and respected authors and all except 2 have articles on Wikipedia.  Bethell is one of the two, of course.  His books are known but there is nothing about the person.  It was suggested it was time something was put up about him.  It was further suggested that I should be the person to do this!  So here I am.  PS can someone tell me the correct way of putting a comment on this stream?  at the moment I’m using text edit and it doesn’t produce all the features.  Charles.bowyer ( talk ) 21:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Given the large number of sources in the article, it would be helpful if someone could identify the WP:THREE best sources here.  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 10:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject .  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.  Sources Mullaly, B. R. (1957).  Bugle and Kukri: The Story of the 10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles .  Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons .  pp. 146 – 147 .  Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive .  The book notes: ""It was commanded throughout by Major L. A. Bethell, O.B.E., who had come to the Regiment from the 8th Gurkhas when he was posted to the 2nd Battalion as a double-company officer on its formation in 1908. He had been with the Assam Military Police for a number of years. Bethell was a strange and in some ways eccentric character, and many stories were told about him and his unorthodox disciplinary methods, but there was never any criticism of his work as the Depot Commander throughout the war, and the 1st Battalion owed him a deep debt of gratitude for the fine drafts he sent it. He never lost sight of the one essential—that the depot existed for the sole purpose of maintaining the Battalion in the field by sending it the best trained material possible in the time available—and he also showed unusual breadth of vision in the great care he took to safe-guard the health and happiness of the families of the men on service. The Indian Army system proved to be antiquated and unsuited to the demands of modern war, and Bethell summed the situation up well when he wrote: ...""  The book further notes: ""Bethell profited from the experience of Kitchener's Army in England, and applied the same methods as far as they were applicable to the special conditions of the Indian Army.""  Tredrey, F. D. (1954).  The House of Blackwood, 1804–1954: The History of a Publishing Firm .  Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons .  pp. 216 , 221 .  Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive .  The book notes on page 216 : ""D. S. Meldrum had left the London Office before the war, and from 1920 to 1939 James Blackwood was helped by Lieut. Colonel L. A. Bethell, who wrote in 'Maga' as ""Pousse Cailloux"" or ""Forepoint Severn,"" and who edited the most successful twelve-volume series of stories collected from the Magazine, ""Tales from the Outposts. "" The book notes on page 221 : ""L.  A. Bethell had left for work on armament production, and many of the staffs from George Street and Paternoster Row had gone into the Forces. "" ""Blackwoods' Books"" . The Bookman . December 1930 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive . The advertisement notes: His Majesty's Shirt-Sleeves. By Pousse Cailloux. ""Deserves the publishers' description of 'epic,' and apart from the element in it, it has a value far beyond that of mere entertainment. "" — Scotsman ""Can be heartily recommended. "" — Graphic ""A remarkably fine book. "" — Morning Post Macdonell, Ronald; Macaulay, Marcus (1960). A History Of The Fourth Prince Of Wales's Own Gurkha Rifles (1857–1937) Volume II . India: The Army Press. pp. 53 , 55 , 164 , 172 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive . The book notes on page 53 : ""During the years 1923–25, while the 1st Battalion was helping to keep the peace around its ""home,"" the 2nd Battalion, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel L. A. Bethell, was farther afield doing a tour of duty in the Khyber.  The period proved an uneventful one. "" The book notes on page 55 : ""In May 1924, Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel A. M. Mills, D. S. O., who was later to become Colonel of the Regiment, joined the battalion as 2nd in command.  He took over officiating command when Colonel Bethell was invalided home in August of the same year. "" The book notes on 164 : ""271.  BETHELL, Major LEONARD ARTHUR.  Joined the 2nd Battalion as permanent Commandant from the 1/10th Gurkhas in September 1929, Commanded the Battalion until August 1925.  Left the Battalion, on transfer to the 2/10th Gurkhas as Permanent Commandant, in February 1926.  O.B.E.""  The book notes on page 172 : ""Rank attained up to 1937: Lieut. -Colonel.  Name: L. A. Bethell, O.B.E. Tenure of command: (2nd Bn.) 1922–1926.""  Zarif (1933). ""Two Months Leave"" . The Cavalry Journal . 23 . The Royal United Service Institution: 80 – 81 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Internet Archive . The journal notes on 80 : ""Some months ago, I think it was in the July, 1931, number of ""Blackwood's Magazine,"" an article entitled ""Experiments in the Primitive,"" appeared written under the nom-de-plume of Forepoint Severn.  This was an excellent article, covering entirely new ground, in which the author showed, for the first time, probably, in the history of shikar, that there is a definite peculiar influence which man exerts over animals.  There is some peculiar form of mental ""telepathy"" which, if a man sits waiting patiently, murder in his heart, to shoot an animal, seems to warn that animal, who probably never appears.  How far that influence can act, and to what range, has not yet been discovered; but that such an influence is present is coming to be more and more universally recognized. "" The book notes on page 81 : ""Anyhow, whatever theories people may have about this, we do all of us owe a debt of gratitude to ""Forepoint Severn"" for his courage in being the first to bring to light what must, after all, have seemed at first sight to be a crazy theory. "" ""The Garden of the Hesperides"" . The Bulletin . 1936-12-30. p. 9 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via National Library of Australia . The article notes: "" The Garden of the Hesperides: Forepoint Severn (Blackwood; 7s. 6d.).  Recollections of travel and.  military and sporting life by a retired colonel.  Style friendly and spirited, but author inclined to forget that what interests him personally may have little general appeal-e.g., the inclusion of a treatise on apple culture in England, the author's present occupation. "" Champion, F. W. (1933). The Jungle in Sunlight and Shadow . London: Chatto & Windus . p. 197 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Google Books . The book notes: """"Forepoint Severn"" gives another example of the effect of thought-waves when he was shooting Ammon.  He had been watching some of these magnificent wild sheep at rather long range for hours on end waiting for a chance to shoot.  At long last he decided to risk the shot, and, simultaneously with his decision, the three Ammon, which had paid no attention to him all day, jumped to their feet, fully alert, even though he had not made the slightest sound or movement.  He then states that the Ammon must have instantly become aware of his intention to shoot by means of thought-waves giving them warning of danger. "" "" ""His Majesty's Shirt Sleeves,"" by Pousse Cailloux"" . Western Morning News . 1931-02-05. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: """"His Majesty's Shirt Sleeves,"" by Pousse Cailloux.  Here is a record, obviously based upon fact, of the service rendered by British officers and native troops on the North-East frontier of India.  Told with humour, it gives an insight of the price at which security and order are brought in difficult country.  (Wm. Blackwood and Sons, Ltd. 7s. 6d.)"" H. B. (1930-10-10). ""His Majesty's Shirt Sleeves"" . The Guardian . Archived from the original on 2023-04-22 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Be his pen-name what the author will, his stories are as English as cricket, and as real.  Fiction is his thin veneer over descriptions of the life on the Frontier of white men, Turkos, Tibetans, Pathans, and once at least the pretence of fiction is altogether dropped, and in ""A Footnote"" we have, with Younghusband as hero and with high praise for mules, direct narrative of a transport officer's experi-ences of the expedition to Lhasa.  A woman is present in one story, white heroine of a gruesome tale, sleeping with her husband's corpse till the superstitious bearers brought it, not knowing what they bore, ..."" ""Companions for the Bookshelf: A Varied Choice of Fiction"" . Western Daily Press . 1938-12-28. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Eastward, above and beyond the frozen Himalayan heights lay China, potential invader.  At home, uneasy Government watching over India.  Was the icy barrier inviolable?  Was there a way through?  Years before, a man said there was, that he had seen it; but he was dead.  With his Gurkhas and load carriers, provisioned for many weeks, Forepoint Severn sets out to find the answer.  Drummond, officer of pioneers, soldier and explorer, once a noted member of the force that Younghusband had taken to Lhasa, on leave in Scotland, having heard of the quest, takes train to Peking and disappears into the blue.  ""Look out for me."" he writes.  Such is the theme of ""The Blind Road"" by Forepoint Severn (8s 6d, Blackwood), a truly amazing narrative, essentially a man's book, and one that will stir the blood. "" Whitton, F. E. (1939-07-23). ""The Other Frontier"" . The Observer . Archived from the original on 2023-04-22 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Until this book of Forepoint Severn's the North East Frontier has lacked its Herodotus and Xenophon, its Stevenson and Verne.  Now we have a man's tale which for vivid incident and descriptive power is likely to be long without a rival.  On to his personal knowledge of the grim borderland north of Assam the author has grafted a thrilling and fascinating tale. "" "" ""The Bat Artist"".  Strange Story of Austrian Tyrol.  Ever heard of Hitler?"" . Nottingham Evening Post . 1933-11-01. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""There is a strange story in ""Blackwood's Magazine"" this month.  It is called ""The Bat Artist.""  Out East a ""bat-artist"" is a chatterer, and this story is written by Forepoint Severn.  The setting is in the Austrian Tyrol, ""some years ago.""  A Scottish character is introduced in the person of one Brodie-Munro, whose particular obsession is the superiority over all others of the Nordic races. "" E. M. H. (1938-11-23). ""The Way Through.  The Blind Road.  By Forepoint Severn"" . Liverpool Daily Post . Archived from the original on 2023-04-22 . Retrieved 2023-04-22 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""It is a long time since I read a book of travel and adventure that gripped me as much as ""The Blind Road"" did.  It is a bulky book of 442 pages, but not a page is to be missed; one reads on, enthralled, to the last word.  Mr. Severn writes of an expedition, of which he was the leader, through the rain, forests and swamps and amongst the foothills of the north-east frontier of India to investigate the rumour—it was little more—that there was a way, through the great Himalayan chain, between China and India.  ...  A great story, supremely well told. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Leonard Arthur Bethell (also known as L. A. Bethell, Forepoint Severn, and Pousse Cailloux) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cunard - thank you very much for your thorough and extensive coverage of this topic.  Honestly - your research is better than mine !  If you wish to add to the Wiki article at all, I would be grateful.  Charles.bowyer ( talk ) 16:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Had a look in newspaper coverage but didn't find anything of note.  But I was only looking under his real name.  Thanks to the good work of Cunard in digging out the above references, especially the first listed, my view is the subject passes GNG.  Cunard's 1st source contributes to WP:BASIC and adding in the combination of sources 2 & 4 may or may not be sufficient to take it over the line of the criteria listed, it's borderline.  Anyway, I judge the subject and book review sources together to pass GNG and make the subject sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article.  Rupples ( talk ) 14:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I’m amazed at how much everyone has been able to find.  Thank you!  No need to prolong this discussion further I think.  Mccapra ( talk ) 05:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ulrika Björklund: The article literally just states that she's a person who exists, while completely failing to state what political offices she may have held -- but politicians are not all ""inherently"" notable just for existing, and are only presumed notable in certain specific major offices, so an article that completely elides what offices the person even held in the first place clearly doesn't cut it.  Additionally, the fact that there's no article about her at all on the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't bode well, since there's just no way that Swedish editors would completely overlook her if she were actually a holder of any NPOL-passing office.  In addition, two of the three footnotes here are just address directory entries, which are not reliable or WP:GNG -building sourcing, and the only one that comes from a real media outlet appears to suggest that she's just a local figure in a small town, which is a level at which we would need far, far more than just one GNG-worthy source to deem her notable enough.  Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt this article from having to contain a lot more substance than this, and a lot more sourcing for it than just one media hit and a bunch of phone books.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sweden .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , AFAIK this person has been elected at local (municipal and county) levels only, which doesn't suffice for NPOL, and the sources fall well short of GNG.  I had a quick search and found a few secondary sources, but they only cover her in the context of her crossing the floor to a different party, so again not enough for GNG.  There could be more if one digs deeper, but it's not particularly easy as the name is fairly common.  If the author can produce more and better sources, then I'm prepared to reconsider my stance, but as it stands this seems non-notable.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NEXIST , passes the WP:GNG .  A simple two minute Google search shows her switch from the Moderates to the Centre Party due to disagreements with the former's embrace of the Sweden Democrats' anti-migration politics received national media attention in 2022: Swedish Television (public broadcaster) Swedish Radio (public braodcaster) .  Feature profile in Nerikes Allehanda : [41] .  Behind a paywall, but profile on her role in education policy: [42] .  Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: meets WP:GNG per Goldsztajn's links. WP:OTHERLANGS should also be kept in mind, and the fact that there isn't an article in the Swedish Wikipedia yet is not relevant to determine notability. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:ONEEVENT regarding the party transfer, and the notion tat she has a ""role in education policy"" seems like a major exaggeration.  Not every person who was the subject of a feature in a local or regional newspaper is Wikipedia material.  I have access to the Swedish Mediearkivet, but on the basis provided here, it's not at all compelling to search for gems in newspapers.  This looks like a regular person who is active in her community and doesn't like a political party.  Geschichte ( talk ) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have multiple, multi-year, sigcov RS, this satisfies the GNG.  We may assess the quality, scope or reliabiliy of sources, but I'm not aware of any community consensus that allows us to criticise the editorial decision making of the reliable sources.  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a point of interpretation how significant a given piece of coverage is.  And my interpretation is, among others, that the significance is being overplayed regarding the education piece.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have four reliable soruces with SIGCOV in relation to the subject (two of which deal with one issue).  An editor's opinion of the importance of the coverage (ie editorial decision making) is not relevant.  The second Nerikes Allehanda is reporting on the subject's intentions with regard to education policy; whatever one's views on the contents, it's not our job to assess their importance.  Even if you take away that piece, we still still satisfy BASIC/GNG.  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there are five reliable sources with SIGCOV in relation to the subject.  Also per WP:GNG.  Her work as CEO of SJ is highly notable.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For a stronger consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  02:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The claim of being the CEO of SJ is pathetic.  The given source states that Ulrika Björklund is ""the director of SJ Contact Center in Ånge "".  Not included in the CEO list , although SJ consists of several different parts.  The Ulrika Björklund of SJ is not even the same person, it's a different person née Sahlin and born in Timrå !  My opinion of delete stands until the misinformation is sorted out.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Maybe close as draftify ?  In that way, the editors who find gold in the aforementioned references can work this into the article, showing its actual importance beyond WP:NEXIST - and also to facilitate a necessary sorting out of things to avoid throwing other people named Ulrika Björklund into the mix.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: But more polishing needs to be done to it.  Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 14:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Maybe consider the possibility of draftification.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn.  More work clearly needs doing but I think this article meets GNG.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Joasia Zakrzewski: Only other coverage of her seems to be [4] , but that's basically a WP:SPS , since she's clearly submitted the information for the article herself.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Scotland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Is there some list of cheating in sports (or in running sports in particular) that a WP:SUMMARY of this could be merged into?   This subject doesn't seem notable enough for a stand-alone article.  The coverage is about the cheating incident, not the person per se , so this seems to be a typical case of building an article about a non-notable person out of a single passing news event largely of localized or micro-topical interest (i.e., probalby fails WP:BLP1E ).  The cheating event itself probably passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE , for inclusion somewhere, since it did generate some independent press, but this doesn't seems to be a stand-alone article topic, especially not a biography of a living person.  I am leaning toward delete if there's not a list article to merge a concise entry into.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She has held, albeit briefly, the international record for distance run in 48 hours - see https://www.irunfar.com/history-of-the-womens-and-mens-48-hour-world-running-records and https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a43418171/camille-herron-shatters-48-hour-world-record/ .  Pam D 23:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And found several more sources under ""Joanna"", and various records broken.  Pam D 10:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete or redirect .  WP:ONEVENT IMHO.  Redirecting to a list of record holders and/or article about cheating that mentions her might be better, with the list making more sense IMHO.  PS.  Sidenote.  Is her first name legally ""Joasia""?  In Polish it is a diminutive of Joanna.  Some sources use that name instead [5] , [6] .  If kept, this may need to be renamed to Joanna Zakrzewski , as Joasia may be her nickname, not proper first name.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article needn't be at her official name, but at the name by which she is most commonly known.  But thanks for the info about the other name, as it finds more sources about her.  Pam D 07:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there's enough here unrelated to the event that this doesn't fall under one event IMO.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability has been demonstrated well by PamD.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep recent contributions have demonstrated notability microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Argja Bóltfelag: Boleyn ( talk ) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , long and well-covered history, [4] and countless other sources.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Football , Denmark ,  and Islands .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Long history, indeed; and it has been a first-division club in the Faroe Islands, whether or not it is semi-pro and fully professional is immaterial, as very, very few clubs in the Faroese system are fully professional.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No Faroese teams are fully professional, KÍ had 5 full-time players last season.  As you say, though, the pro status is not the deciding factor when it comes to the clubs' respective cultural relevance within their country.  It is however an unfortunate trend in Wikipedia to add the moniker ""professional"" to players and clubs to make them seem more important.  The other day, I removed ""professional"" from a club in the El Salvador third division.  It was obviously not true, and even when it is, a club only has one or very few teams that are professional when the rest (age-specific) are not.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - top-level team, clearly notable. The fact it is semi-pro is totally irrelevant. Giant Snowman 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ Geschichte . Svartner ( talk ) 14:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Garett Nolan: No new sources have been added since article was tagged two years ago.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Military , Cycling , Internet ,  and Pennsylvania .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Coverage in the various entertainment tv shows and magazines.  This is a RS [84] .  This [85] .  On the whole, seems ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for sufficient sourcing and coverage.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although sources in the article might not be adequate, sufficient SIGCOV can be found online.  It would help if the nom could add new sources instead of nominating this for deletion without doing a BEFORE .  Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"She Is the Darkness: Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources MacLaurin, Wayne (October 1997).  ""She Is The Darkness: A Novel of the Black Company"" .  SF Site .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database .  The review notes: ""I invite you to journey with Croaker, The Lady, One-Eye, Soulcatcher and Longshadow and the rest of the most bizarre collection of mercenaries and villains ever conceived. If you've read the others, She Is The Darkness is a great ride. If you want to experience what the Black Company is, I strongly recommend you start at the beginning. Like all great, complex stories, this one is just too confusing to jump in mid-way.""  Bird, Colin (March–April 1998).  ""She Is The Darkness"" (PDF) .  Vector .  Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database .  The review notes: ""It's difficult, as always, to review the second volume in a fantasy sequence when one is unfamiliar with the backstory, but in this case Cook's She Is the Darkness is anything but a plot-choked middle volume. Cook is no prose stylist and the scatalogical modern dialogue is a bracing change from the normal off-the-shelf archaic dialects that so many fantasy writers use without thinking."" ""She Is the Darkness"" .  Kirkus Reviews .  1997-07-15.  p. 1074.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The review is listed here .  The review notes: ""... whose evil plots unfold against a landscape so bleak and blasted by war and magic that readers can't help but wonder where, for instance, the Company's food comes from, or who can afford to pay them. Fascinating, no doubt, for the fans; all but impenetrable to outsiders."" ""She Is the Darkness"" .  Publishers Weekly .  1997-09-22.  p. 74.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The review is listed here .  The review notes: ""The distinctively non-Western flavor of much of the mythology is also welcome. Large parts of the book read like a collaboration between Michael Moorcock and the late John Masters, dean of historical novels of the British Raj. Indeed, the book offers virtually anything a fantasy reader could ask for, except a coherent narrative that stands on its own.""  White, Bill (April 1998).  ""She Is the Darkness review from Voice of Youth Advocates"".  Voice of Youth Advocates .  p. 53.  The review is mentioned in an advertisement here and in an Encyclopedia.com article here .  The review notes: ""[Cook] describes the villany of the Company's antagonists with extraordinary power ... fans of the Black Company will relish this novel."" ""Cook, Glen 1944–"" .  Encyclopedia.com .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The article notes: ""Volume two of the ""Glittering Stone"" series, She Is the Darkness , once again takes up the tale of the Company as the group moves closer toward discovery of its mystical origins when it reaches the city of Khatovar. It becomes a race against time once the Company's demonic enemies begin to kill off members as a way of preventing those origins from being revealed. Bill White, in Voice of Youth Advocates praised the novel's ""complex and sophisticated story,"" and noted that the author ""describes the villainy of the Company's antagonists with extraordinary power. "" Roland Green in Booklist called She Is the Darkness ""wrenchingly realistic in both the details of war and the emotions of the characters. """" Green, Roland (1997-09-15). ""She Is the Darkness"" . Booklist . Vol. 94, no. 2. p. 216. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Gale . The review notes: ""Wrenchingly realistic in both the details of war and the emotions of the characters and drawing eclectically but intelligently on dozens of different elements, the book still doesn't constitute a smooth narrative, simply because there are, after six preceding Black Company yarns, so many characters and elements that only devout followers of the saga possess the knowledge to make full sense of it.  But those followers are numerous. "" "" ""She Is the Darkness"" comes to Iranian bookstores"" . Tehran Times . 2019-08-13. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The article notes: "" She Is the Darkness , the 7th novel in the The Black Company dark fantasy series written by American author Glen Cook, has recently been published in Persian by Tandis Publications in Tehran. "" Non-independent coverage: Flory, Graeme (2013-09-16). ""The Black Company Reread: She is the Darkness"" . Tor.com . Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The book was published by Tor Books , which is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers , which owns Tor.com , so this magazine article is not independent. The review notes: ""Having made it through She is the Darkness , I’d say that things are kind of back on the right track (in more ways than one).  If Bleak Seasons was Crossroads of Twilight (trying to draw stuff together but not a lot actually happening) then She is the Darkness is Knife of Dreams (an unwieldy cast is prodded into moving towards a conclusion); there’s good stuff happening but it is slow work getting there… ...  She is the Darkness is one hell of a slog to get through, for me anyway, as Cook really captures that long drawn out feeling of a siege that is going nowhere fast. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow She Is the Darkness to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources listed by Cunard.   Article does need improvement, but AfD is not cleanup.  Resonant Dis tor tion 21:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Deshawon Nembhard: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belize .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly no search for sources, given that the first page of Google News brings up 1 , 2 , 3 .  Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG.  No BEFORE was done. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 23:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has enough sources. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 10:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG.  8/9 sources currently in his article aren't independent of Nembhard.  amandala.com.bz source is a mention in a squad list.  1 is a match report where the Nembhard specific coverage is ""man plays football match"" and ""has three caps"", 2 has a paragraph on Nembhard, takes large quotes from a Football Federation of Belize press release and this article which is a copy and paste of this .  3 contains slightly more on him but nowhere near enough for a GNG pass.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per GiantSnowman, Ortiesp, and Mvqr.  Internatiojallt capped player withn ongoing career and already has good sources.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Trump v. United States (2024): Trump was indicted for election obstruction and filed motions to dismiss the indictment on the basis of presidential immunity, now to be decided by the Supreme Court.  This is already covered at Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)#Immunity dispute .  My redirect to that article was reverted on the incorrect claim that ""the cases are different"", and I don't see the need for a separate article at this point.  Reywas92 Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Reywas92 Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — United States v. Trump has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, only the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision, thus making Trump v. United States a separate case.  If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is not immune from prosecution, United States v. Trump will continue to play out.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nearly all SCOTUS cases are standalone notable, and while the details so far of this case are part of the Federal prosecution article, the question of presidential immunity is a self-contained aspect of that, so it is reasonable to have a separate page to cover the SCOTUS case.  This should be done by moving the existing content into the SCOTUS page case (along with appropriate attribution), and leaving a summary in place.  Alternatively, when the case is ultimately decided, and can be summarized briefly on the prosecution page, then the details can go into the SCOTUS page.  Either way, there will eventually be a separate page for the case so deletion makes no sense.  -- M asem ( t ) 03:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why was this AFD started just a few hours after this article was created?  Is there some kind of urgency about it?  Quick AFD nomination just seems to happen a lot with article based on news and politics.  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator is opposed to most, if not all page splits.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This wasn't a page split, it was a single sentence.  Was there really some kind of urgency to get this still-mostly-empty page started?  You could have at least done what Masem recommends, but instead this page provides no further information.  Reywas92 Talk 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was noting your position on page creations, not that I disagree.  I typically write articles from the ground up but publish them early in order to avoid any conflicts, furthered by the existence of Trump v. United States , the special master case.  Nominating stubs without giving due time is WP:TOOSOON , and I wasn't going to let this article remain a stub.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As Masem said, this is a notable case in the Supreme Court and its widespread precedent on Wikipedia to have standalone articles for cases like this.  Timetorockknowlege ( talk ) 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Already seems to pass WP:GNG .  Don't really understand the nomination.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The only good argument for deletion/draftification I could see here is WP:TOOSOON , but I don't think it's too soon to start this article, given that cert has been granted and there's already significant coverage of the case.  Regarding the nominator's point that this is part of the election obstruction case, while true, Supreme Court cases take on a life of their own beyond the individual case, and this article would eventually need to be split from the election obstruction article, so I don't see a point of merging it now.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: it's a high-profile pending Supreme Court case.  CarpCharacin ( talk ) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is a notable topic.  103.65.140.93 ( talk ) 10:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Hanoi University of Pharmacy: Perhaps merge into Hanoi .  Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Vietnam .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is the same place as Hanoi Medical University .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It seems okay now.  Hanoi Medical University is not the same.  The two institutions were split many years ago.  The article could be expanded by adding text from the corresponding article in the Vietnamese Wikipedia at vi:Trường Đại học Dược Hà Nội .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] we make it one article and provide the inital history & cover the splitting PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We generally keep state-accredited universities.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Necrothesp 's comment.  Wikipedialuva ( talk ) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"2014 Astana Challenger – Singles: Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 11:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Kazakhstan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a notable tennis event under WP:NTENNIS .  I at least added sourcing to the article.  I also disagree with nom's claim that this article violates WP:NOTSTATS .  I don't believe a tennis bracket with results only is any different than an Olympics page with 100m sprint times, and I don't believe either violates NOTSTATS.  If this article was loaded with match times, ace numbers, winners and double faults, then maybe we'd have a problem.  Nom had similar reasoning at an AfD just a couple of months ago on a similar article here .  Articles of this sort have been nominated for deletion multiple times before: here , here , and here , and the consensus always seems to be that these articles are notable but the question is whether these articles should be merged under one parent article or left as is. I feel that is best decided in an RfC, not at AfD.  Adamtt9 ( talk ) 12:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NTENNIS doesn't seem to cover (challenger) tournaments but specifically biographies of singles and doubles players.  This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players Your examples on AFDs concerning the Bucharest and Gelsor tournaments are both AFDs on higher tennis tournaments such as the ATP International series or WTA International tournaments and therefore on higher lever tournaments than one of the challenger series which this one is about.  In your last example in which multiple challenger articles were nominated for deletion the majority voted for either merge or delete with you opposing mentioning there exist numerous sources for those tournaments.  But at least to the articles I checked no-one made other than maintenance edits.  Then also in none of those AFDs someone ( not even I ) argued with WP:SIGCOV or WP:NOTMIRROR .  In the AFDs I also found WP:SPORTSEVENT which says: Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats .  For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted.  Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page .  This would be directed for at least the doubles and singles articles of the challenger tournaments for which already exist in most of the cases a main article.  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 14:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge This is a valid split - NOTSTATS doesn't apply as a result - but the Astana Challenger article isn't very long, so this could be validly up-merged.  I don't recommend it, but we shouldn't lose this information.  SportingFlyer T · C 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It (info) must be maintained but it could be merged.  The thing is all the other ATP Challengers have split the draws.  You can't have this as the only one to be different.  The event is certainly notable per project guidelines .  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 08:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not entirely clear if the article should be kept or merged… Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  12:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Fyunck(click).  Kante4 ( talk ) 17:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"The Queen's Head (Portland, Oregon): Only existed for 1 year.  Could not significant coverage except in local publications.  Even a search in oregonlive.com yielded nothing.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Business , Sexuality and gender ,  and Oregon .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the WP:RS the place is notable per WP:NTEMP .  We also have no requirement that RS be national or international, just reliable.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep interesting and substantive article, which is currently being edited for improvement, bringing its sources up to date.   Definitely informative and worth keeping.  — Maile ( talk ) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator).  The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and in my opinion, this is too much content to merge into LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon .  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given the quickly dwindling number of gay and lesbian bars in North America, they are by and large all notable.  Foxtrot620 ( talk ) 22:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Zhengzhou No.47 Middle School: Most online articles repeat the existing Wikipedia wording which reads like an advertisement.  The only exception I can find is Deloitte - who say the school offers classes to international students ( https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/at/Documents/Tax/Chinese%20Services%20Group/kr_cbc_investment_henan-zhengzhou_en_201612.pdf ) Newhaven lad ( talk ) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , which says: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations , the general notability guideline , or both.  For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.  (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES )  Sources ""叶小耀：郑州47中的发展是郑州教育史上的奇迹"" [Ye Xiaoyao: The development of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School is a miracle in the history of education in Zhengzhou].  China Daily (in Chinese).  2016-05-27.  Archived from the original on 2024-03-09 .  Retrieved 2024-03-09 .  The article notes: ""郑州市第47中学（下称郑州47中），一所只有20年历史的学校。每年都有毕业生成功考入清华、北大、浙大等名牌大学，连续多年高考国家级宏志班一本上线率达到100%，2013-2016年连续四届国际班毕业生全部被世界500强名校录取。2015年，郑州47中获得了河南省“十大最具国际特色学校”荣誉称号，2016年被评为河南省唯一一家国际教育类“河南教育名片”。"" From Google Translate: ""Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School (hereinafter referred to as Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School) is a school with a history of only 20 years. Every year, graduates are successfully admitted to prestigious universities such as Tsinghua University, Peking University, and Zhejiang University. For many years, the admission rate of the national-level Hongzhi class in the college entrance examination has reached 100%. From 2013 to 2016, all graduates of the four consecutive international classes were admitted to the world's top 500 universities. In 2015, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School won the honorary title of ""Top Ten Most International Schools"" in Henan Province. In 2016, it was named the only international education ""Henan Education Business Card"" in Henan Province.""  Tan, Ping 谭萍 (2022-10-10).  ""优质教育资源扩容！郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）正式揭牌"" [Expansion of high-quality educational resources! Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (East Campus) was officially unveiled].  Dahe Daily (in Chinese).  Archived from the original on 2024-03-09 .  Retrieved 2024-03-09 .  The article notes: ""郑州市第四十七初级中学1996年建校，先后被授予“全国文明单位”“全国文明校园”“全国国防教育示范学校”“郑州市首批新优质初中”等国家省市级荣誉百余项，连续20年荣评“郑州市教学创新先进单位”。此次优质教育资源的扩容，将推进优质教育更加均衡。"" From Google Translate: ""Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School was established in 1996. It has been awarded more than 100 national, provincial and municipal honors such as ""National Civilized Unit"", ""National Civilized Campus"", ""National Defense Education Demonstration School"", ""Zhengzhou City's First Batch New High-Quality Junior High School"", etc. Xiang has been rated as ""Zhengzhou Advanced Unit for Teaching Innovation"" for 20 consecutive years. This expansion of high-quality educational resources will promote a more balanced high-quality education.""  The article notes: ""大河报·豫视频记者现场了解到，郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）位于金水区杨金路街道。... 郑州市第四十七初级中学（东校区）在建项目工程计划将于2023年5月经过验收，2023年9月投入使用。该校区占地40余亩，建筑面积60000平方米，可满足48教学班的正常使用。"" From Google Translate: ""Dahe News·Yu Video reporter learned on the spot that Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (East Campus) is located in Yangjin Road Street, Jinshui District. ... The project under construction in the middle school (East Campus) is scheduled to be inspected and accepted in May 2023 and put into use in September 2023. The campus covers an area of ​​more than 40 acres, with a construction area of ​​60,000 square meters, which can meet the normal use of 48 teaching classes.""  Wang, Guoyong 王国勇 (2023-10-25).  Zhao, Na 赵娜 (ed.).  ""郑州市第四十七初级中学校长夏霞：把铿锵誓言照进现实"" [Xia Xia, principal of No. 47 Junior High School in Zhengzhou City: Turning the sonorous oath into reality].  祖国 [ Motherland ] (in Chinese).  China Economic Media Association.  Archived from the original on 2024-03-09 .  Retrieved 2024-03-09 .  The article notes: ""1996年大学毕业后，被分配到郑州市第四十七中学，成为这所新建校的第一批教师。从筚路蓝缕的艰难创业到成为有广泛影响力的全国文明校园，夏霞见证了这所学校迭代升级的每一步，她也从一名教师成长为中层干部、副校长、专职副书记到分级管理后郑州市第四十七初级中学的校长。"" From Google Translate: ""After graduating from university in 1996, he was assigned to Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and became the first batch of teachers in this new school. From a difficult start-up to becoming a nationally civilized campus with widespread influence, Xia Xia has witnessed every step of the school's iterative upgrades. She has also grown from a teacher to a middle-level cadre, vice-principal, full-time deputy secretary to a post-graduation management The principal of Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School.""  The article notes: ""8月27日，郑州市第四十七初级中学东校区迎来了首批1000余名学子，为了保证新校区开学平稳有序，夏霞整整两周没有回家，吃住在校、时刻守护。"" From Google Translate: ""On August 27, the East Campus of No. 47 Junior High School in Zhengzhou welcomed the first batch of more than 1,000 students. In order to ensure the smooth and orderly opening of the new campus, Xia Xia did not go home for two whole weeks, living and eating in school and guarding her at all times.""  Xu, Hongli 许红丽; Zhao, Demin 赵德民 (2019-12-18).  ""法制安全知识进校园郑州市第四十七初级中学举行法制安全教育讲座"" [Legal safety knowledge enters the campus. Zhengzhou City No. 47 Junior High School held a legal safety education lecture] (in Chinese).  China Internet Information Center .  Archived from the original on 2024-03-09 .  Retrieved 2024-03-09 .  The article notes: ""据悉，郑州市第四十七初级中学除积极开展讲座外，还进一步完善了校园欺凌及校园突发事件处置的处理制度、措施，建立了校园欺凌事件、校园突发事件处置应急处理预案，明确了相关岗位教职工预防和职责。"" From Google Translate: ""It is reported that in addition to actively conducting lectures, Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School has further improved the system and measures for handling campus bullying and campus emergencies , established an emergency response plan for campus bullying and campus emergencies , and clearly stated The prevention and responsibilities of faculty and staff in relevant positions have been clarified. "" Guo, Xinyue 郭昕玥 (2023-06-19).  ""鄭州市第四十七初級中學東校區今秋將正式招生"" [Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior Middle School East Campus will officially enroll students this fall].  Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese).  Archived from the original on 2024-03-09 .  Retrieved 2024-03-09 .  The article notes: ""6月19日，記者從鄭州市第四十七初級中學獲悉，鄭州市第四十七初級中學東校區（以下簡稱東校區）將在2023年秋季學期正式投入使用，新七年級計劃招收8個班。"" From Google Translate: ""On June 19, reporters learned from Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School that the East Campus of Zhengzhou No. 47 Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as the East Campus) will be officially put into use in the fall semester of 2023. The new seventh grade students are planned to enroll 8 classes.""  Zhang, Kedan 张可丹 (2003-07-05).  ""郑州市 10所 高中戴上""示范帽"" "" [10 high schools in Zhengzhou awarded ""demonstration model"" status].  Dahe Daily (in Chinese).  The article notes: ""本报讯由郑州市政府教育督导室组织，各社区代表、学生家长代表参与，经过近半年时间的开放式评估，郑州市首批１０所示范性高中昨天脱颖而出。 据了解，从２００２年９月２５日起到今年６月１８日止，１０所示范性高中经过了开放性的评估方式，"" From Google Translate: ""This report was organized by the Education Supervision Office of the Zhengzhou Municipal Government, with the participation of community representatives and student parent representatives. After nearly half a year of open evaluation, the first batch of 10 demonstration model high schools in Zhengzhou stood out yesterday. It is understood that from 25 September 2002 to 18 June this year, 10 model high schools passed an open evaluation method.""  The article notes: ""这１０所示范性高中分别为：... 郑州市第四十七中学(高 中部) ...""  From Google Translate: ""These 10 demonstration model high schools are: ... Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School (High School Division) ...""  Zhang, Kedan 张可丹; Zhang, Qiaofu 张乔甫 (2004-03-30).  ""逃生演练 该跳楼时就跳楼"" [Escape drill: jump when it’s time to jump].  Dahe Daily (in Chinese).  The article notes: ""本报讯昨天上午9时15分，郑州市第四十七中学高中部的警报突然拉响，教学楼内外迅速弥漫起滚滚浓烟。三楼6名被困在阳台上的学生，在消防官兵的指挥下，纵身从10米高处跃向 地上的气垫(右图 )… …这是昨天该校在全国中小学安全教育日组织的一场大型逃生演练，200多名学生分别采用不同的方式安全逃离了“危险地带”。"" From Google Translate: ""This newspaper reported that at 9:15 a.m. yesterday, the alarm in the high school section of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School suddenly sounded, and thick smoke quickly filled the inside and outside of the teaching building. Six students trapped on the balcony on the third floor, under the command of fire officers and soldiers, jumped from a height of 10 meters to an air mattress on the ground (picture on the right)... This was organized by the school yesterday on the National Primary and Secondary School Safety Education Day In a large-scale escape drill, more than 200 students used different methods to escape the ""danger zone"" safely."" ""国际教育实验班进驻郑州高中 中学校园出现留学 ""预备军"" "" [International education experimental class is stationed in Zhengzhou high school, and a ""preparatory army"" for studying abroad appears on the middle school campus].  Dahe Daily (in Chinese).  2004-05-25.  The article notes: ""与此同时，郑州市第四十七中学也已通过中国教育国际交流协会，与新西兰国立西方理工学院签订协议，成立中国与新西兰友好实验班，并已在郑州市教育局备案，计划于2004年招收首批计划内学生。"" From Google Translate: ""At the same time, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School has also signed an agreement with the National Western Institute of Technology of New Zealand through the China Education International Exchange Association to establish a China-New Zealand friendship experimental class. It has been registered with the Zhengzhou Municipal Education Bureau and is planned to be launched in 2004 after recruiting the first batch of planned students."" ""宏志班里的碰撞与成长"" [Collision and growth in provincial class].  Dahe Daily (in Chinese).  2004-06-01.  The article notes: ""去年9月开学后，郑州市第四十七中、省实验中学等全省5所高中，开办了第一批省级宏志班。根据省教育厅的批准，共有150名来自全省各地贫困地区、家庭贫困却品学兼优的学生，走进了郑州市的两所高中。"" From Google Translate: ""After the start of school in September last year, five high schools in the province, including Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and Provincial Experimental Middle School, opened the first batch of provincial ambition classes.""  The article notes: ""在郑州市第四十七中，学生刚进校时，学校了解到，几乎所有的宏志生在英语和计算机两科上，学习起来都非常吃力，而四十七中的不少城市学生却又有着城里独生子女的骄横等通病。"" From Google Translate: ""In Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School, when the students first entered the school, the school learned that almost all Hongzhi students had difficulty learning in English and computer subjects, while many urban students in No. 7 Middle School had difficulty learning. He has the arrogance and arrogance common among only children in the city.""  The article notes: ""五一期间，郑州市第四十七中的老师到了全省多个贫困县乡进行考察。在那里，他们看到了更多家庭贫困的学生。"" From Google Translate: ""During the May Day period, teachers from Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School visited many impoverished counties and villages across the province for inspections. There, they saw more students from poor families.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School ( simplified Chinese : 郑州市第四十七中学 ; traditional Chinese : 鄭州市第四十七中學 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 11:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  One of thousands of similar schools .  Fails GNG.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found by User:Cunard .  I'm puzzled by User:Bearian 's comment – we have articles about many other secondary schools, and the fact that this is a secondary school doesn't seem like a reason for deleting the article. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 07:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably delete - I accept that the notability of schools is still a contested area and we still need clarity on how we are making AfD decisions. However following this RfC the consensus is that secondary schools need to show they meet the same notability standards as other organisations. Simply WP:ROUTINE coverage and regurgitated press releases are not enough. Cunard has supplied a blizzard of such sources in their usual way (I'm not criticising, having sources to discuss at AfD is better than no sources) but in my opinion these are simply statements that all schools everywhere aim to get in local newspaper coverage. I appreciate it is an example of systematic bias, but unless we see significant and independent coverage in a reliable source (which as far as I'm concerned essentially means pages in a book or a long press article) I'm !voting delete. JMWt ( talk ) 09:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NSCHOOL only requires GNG for public schools, and Cunards sources are sufficient to meet that bar. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per sources provided by Cunard, but also taking into account JMWt's arguments. S5A-0043 Talk 05:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Looking at those sources, they are all primary, aren't they? Do we have any secondary sourcing? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says that primary sources are ""original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved"". I do not consider these newspaper articles to be ""close to an event"" or ""written by people who are directly involved"". They are secondary sources that rely on primary sources in discussing the school's history and background. Cunard ( talk ) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, anyone want to take on evaluating the newly found sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: JMWt's statement that ""secondary schools need to show they meet the same notability standards as other organisations"" is an inaccurate reading of the guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations , the general notability guideline , or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ) The guideline says that for non-profit schools like Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School, passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is sufficient. There is no need for the school to also pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria . JMWt's statement that schools have to receive ""pages in a book or a long press article"" is a much higher bar than what the guideline requires and is contradicted by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which defines significant coverage like this: "" Significant coverage "" 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. Bearian wrote, "" One of thousands of similar schools . Fails GNG.""  This comment fails to explain why the school ""fails GNG"". That this school is like ""one of thousands of similar schools"" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. And calling this school run-of-the-mill is false because the school was designated an exemplar senior high school [ zh ] in July 2003. From this book published by Springer Nature (which is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ): Thus, the Chinese government had to develop a project of Key High School that classified a part of schools as key schools while others as ordinary schools in order to concentrate limited resources on quality assurance in key schools . In 1953, 194 high schools of the country were named as Key High Schools. 194 schools were a very small portion (4.4%) of the large number of high schools in China (Li, 2003, p. 276). According to related policy, the Key High Schools were given priority in funding, human resource, school facilities, and selection of students. By extraordinary input, the Key High Schools had constantly improved the quality of their teaching and learning and prepared a number of excellent graduates for the country since then (Feng, 2007). Historically, the project of Key High School made a great contribution to prepare quality graduates of senior high schools for China's universities and colleges as well as for the country's industry and agriculture by concentrating limited resources during 1950s and 1960s. However, with the increasing demand for senior high school education in the early 1990s, the issue of expanding the scale of senior high school education was put on the agenda of Chinese government. The State Council called on building up 1000 high quality senior high schools throughout the country in its RHD in 1994, Opinions of State Council on carrying out ""Compendium for China's educational reform and development (State Council, 1994). In this RHD, the old name Key High School was replaced by a new name Exemplar Senior High School (hereafter called ""ESHS""). Cunard ( talk ) 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Out of the 9 sources put up by Cunard above, 5 are from Dahe Daily , which amounts to a single source i.e. same publisher. Of the others, source 1 is brief but OK. Source 3 is about a teacher; the school is only mentioned. Sources 4 & 5 look like reports on press releases put out by the school — doubtful independence and no editorial analysis or commentary. Basically, there's coverage of the school in Dahe Daily and source 1, but this doesn't satisfy the multiple , independent requirement of GNG; multiple meaning 3 or more independent reliable sources. Rupples ( talk ) 02:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, ""There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."" ""multiple meaning 3 or more independent reliable sources"" is inaccurate. wikt:multiple says: ""More than one"". Merriam-Webster says , ""consisting of, including, or involving more than one"". Cambridge Dictionary says , ""having more than one and usually several of something"". I consider sources 4 and 5 to be sufficiently independent to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which says: ""Independent of the subject"" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. The sources are bylined and are not ""works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"". Source 4 contains the reporter's observations of a school lecture, while source 5 contains the journalist's reporting on the new East Campus expansion. Editors could try to make the argument that sources 4 and 5 do not meet the ""intellectual independence"" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources , but Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline has no such requirement. As a non-profit school, Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . Cunard ( talk ) 04:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I acknowledge your explanation over how you see the guidelines, but it is but one interpretation, albeit a valid one. ""Multiple"" could mean just two sources and could amount to satisfying significant coverage. I might agree with this if source 1 offered more indepth coverage than half a dozen short sentences on the school. I  assess the sources to decide what content can be employed in writing an encyclopedic article and evaluate whether there's enough such material. I'm not seeing sufficient depth in the sources, so to my thinking the GNG is not satisfied. The only reason I've held back from !voting delete is because of uncertainty over whether the designation ""exemplar high school"" makes the school notable, when compared with the 15,000 or so other senior high schools in China. Rupples ( talk ) 05:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Here are some additional sources about Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School: Zhang, Qin 张勤 (2010-05-28). ""教学有法，但无定法，贵在得法。走进郑州四十七中感受特色新课改。近50名外籍教师带来国际化教育开设中澳、中美国际班"" [There are methods for teaching, but there is no fixed method. The most important thing is to obtain the method. Enter Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School to experience the unique new curriculum reform. Nearly 50 foreign teachers bring international education and open Chinese-Australian and Chinese-American international classes]. Zhengzhou Evening News [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-25 . Retrieved 2024-03-25 . The article notes: ""其中，中澳班是郑州四十七中和澳大利亚阿德雷德大学附属中学安斯伯利学院合作开办的，是进入世界500强大学的基地。采取中外教师同时授课的方式，并将根据学生的综合情况，定制四个留学方向：美国排名前50的大学、美国排名前100的大学、澳大利亚五星大学、澳大利亚四星大学。美高中双文凭国际班（简称中美班）是由四十七中和美国华盛顿州教育局附属中学合作的项目。采用中英双语教学的方式，让学生同时完成中国和美国高中课程的学习，并获得受到中国教育部和美国教育部认可的中国高中文凭和美国高中文凭。学生的最终升学目标是以美国为主的前100名大学，及加拿大、澳洲、英国等的世界名校。"" From Google Translate: ""Among them, the Chinese-Australian class is jointly run by Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School and Eynesbury College, a high school affiliated with the University of Adelaide in Australia. It is a base for entering the world's top 500 universities. Chinese and foreign teachers will teach at the same time, and four study abroad directions will be customized according to the comprehensive situation of the students: the top 50 universities in the United States, the top 100 universities in the United States, five-star universities in Australia, and four-star universities in Australia. The U.S. High School Dual Diploma International Class (referred to as the Chinese-American Class) is a cooperative project between No. 47 Middle School and the High School Affiliated to the Washington State Department of Education in the United States. Using Chinese-English bilingual teaching, students can complete Chinese and American high school courses at the same time, and obtain Chinese high school diplomas and American high school diplomas recognised by the Chinese Ministry of Education and the U.S. Ministry of Education. The students’ ultimate admission goal is the top 100 universities, mainly in the United States, as well as world-famous universities in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.""  Zhu, Ruirui 朱瑞瑞; Yue, Changchang 岳常常 (2016). ""网球训练对大学生体质健康影响的研究"" [网球训练对大学生体质健康影响的研究]. 文体用品与科技 [ Culture & Sports Utensils and Technology Journal ] (in Chinese) (13). doi : 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8902.2016.13.045 . ISSN 1006-8902 . Archived from the original on 2024-03-25 . Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Wanfang Data [ zh ] . The abstract notes: ""采用文献资料法、实验法、数理统计法等研究方法，对郑州市第四十七中学高一网球选项班男生的体质健康指标进行测试、分析和研究，旨在探讨网球在高中体育课程中的开设对高中学生体质健康指标有何影响。结果表明高中学生通过网球课的锻炼，对体质健康指标有积极的促进作用，与传统的体育教学相比，高中网球选项课的开设，有助于激发高中学生的体育锻炼兴趣，对提升自身体质健康水平的效果明显。"" From Google Translate: ""Using literature methods, experimental methods, mathematical statistics and other research methods, the physical health indicators of the boys in the first-grade tennis optional class of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School were tested, analyzed and studied, with the aim of exploring the role of tennis in high school physical education courses. What impact does the establishment of a middle school have on the physical health indicators of high school students. The results show that high school students’ exercise in tennis classes has a positive effect on physical health indicators. Compared with traditional physical education, the opening of high school tennis optional courses can help stimulate high school students’ interest in physical exercise and improve their physical fitness. The effect on health level is obvious.""  Bai, Jiong 白泂 (2006). ""郑州市第四十七中学高中部建筑设计概述"" [Overview of the architectural design of the high school section of Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School]. 四川建材 [ Sichuan Building Materials ] (in Chinese). 32 (3): 217–219. doi : 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4011.2006.03.112 . ISSN 1672-4011 . Archived from the original on 2024-03-25 . Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Wanfang Data [ zh ] . The abstract notes: ""郑州市47中是郑州市规模最大的一所公立现代化中学,建校6年.初、高中学生达4 500多人. 为适应发展的需求,拟在郑东新区新建优质高中部.校园占地258亩,建筑面积达8.7万多平方米,拥有完备的教学、实验、体育和生活设施以及富有人文气息的校园空间,实行寄宿制管理,为学生提供充足的学习时间及良好、舒适的生活条件.""  From Google Translate: ""Zhengzhou No. 47 Middle School is the largest public modern middle school in Zhengzhou City. It was established 6 years ago. There are more than 4,500 junior and senior high school students. In order to meet the needs of development, it is planned to build a new high-quality high school in Zhengdong New District. The campus covers an area of 258 acres, with a construction area of more than 87,000 square meters, has complete teaching, experimental, sports and living facilities as well as a campus space rich in humanistic atmosphere. It implements boarding management to provide students with sufficient study time and good and comfortable living conditions.""  Cunard ( talk ) 08:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on additional 3 sources provided by Cunard. The first is helpful as it shows international links which may raise the school above 'run of the mill' criticism. The tennis one doesn't help with notability — it's the sort of 'research' I've seen with Indonesian schools on Google Scholar — as the report itself concludes ""the effect on health is obvious"".  The third is useful, but again brief, if that's all there is.  GNG coverage borderline, but there's suggestions the school is notable.  Good work by Cunard finding all these sources.  Rupples ( talk ) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for reviewing the sources.  The third source is three pages long, and the quote is from the abstract.  Cunard ( talk ) 06:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  It's unfortunate there's access restrictions on the architectural design of the school (source 3 Bai, Jiong ).  It is 3 pages in length and appears to be focussed on the school.  In my view when combined with the other sources there is now just about enough to take this over the line in respect of the significant coverage requirement of the GNG.  Rupples ( talk ) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Grace Choy: All other sources are self published.  ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Food and drink ,  and Hong Kong .  ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines; no primary independent sources found (only self published works or interviews).  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 17:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject .  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.  Sources Ziegler, Owen (2023-06-03).  ""At Grace Choy's table, a tantalizing portal to Cantonese cuisine"" .  The Japan Times .  Archived from the original on 2024-03-21 .  Retrieved 2024-03-21 .  The article notes: ""Until early 2020, she was splitting her time between her native Hong Kong and Tokyo, where she served as the driving culinary force behind a Nishiazabu restaurant backed by a Tokyo-based restaurateur and event planning consortium. When her annual contract she’d signed the year before was up for renewal, Choy found herself faced with a difficult decision: continue working as a cog in a successful, larger culinary operation or reclaim everything for herself. ... Despite the magnitude of the decision, Choy was no amateur embarking out on her own. It had been years since she had left her previous career as an office worker behind to focus on cooking, and she already had much to show for it. Choy’s 2018 cookbook, “Grace’s 60 Recipes,” earned the Best Woman Chef Book designation by the Gourmand Awards the following year, and CNN once described her private kitchen back in Hong Kong as one of that city’s best kept hidden gems. She also partners with several premium culinary brands — an explanation for all her Le Creuset cookware she puts to great use.""  Kwong, Yuet-kuen 鄺月娟 (2014-12-24).  ""私房女強人"" [Private kitchen strong woman].  East Week (in Chinese).  The article notes: ""脫離打工束縛夢想不再是夢出生於新界的Grace曾於英國修讀秘書課程，畢業回港很不習慣香港急促的步伐，其後在一九九八年與丈夫Ken結婚，便隨丈夫北上打拼 ，在廣東、東北兩邊走。 二〇〇六年返港後，她要再次適應香港都市生活，她坦言仍不習慣，直至二〇〇八年她加入著名廚具品牌Miele當行政人員，仍無法綁住她一顆驛動的心 。"" From Google Translate: ""The dream of escaping from the shackles of working is no longer a dream. Grace was born in the New Territories and studied secretarial courses in the UK. After graduating, she returned to Hong Kong and was not used to the fast pace of Hong Kong. Later, she married her husband Ken in 1998 and followed him north to work hard. , walking on both sides of Guangdong and Northeast China. After returning to Hong Kong in 2006, she had to adapt to urban life in Hong Kong again. She admitted that she was still not used to it. Until 2008, when she joined Miele, a famous kitchenware brand, as an administrator, she still could not restrain her heart.""  Yao, Shun 姚舜 (2023-07-22).  ""名．店．新．菜－香港私房菜女王Grace Choy客座紫艷中餐廳"" [Name. Shop. New. Cuisine－Grace Choy, the Queen of Hong Kong's Private Cuisine, is a guest at Yen Chinese Restaurant].  China Times (in Chinese).  Archived from the original on 2024-03-21 .  Retrieved 2024-03-21 .  The article notes: ""Grace蔡孫美華非餐飲科班出身，她在英國求學時念的是祕書資料管理相關科系，畢業後也是從事祕書工作，2011年她決定創業、在元朗開了家小餐廳賣早餐與輕食，有16個座位，用餐的都是過路客。後來，她將菜色調整並將餐廳改為預約制，經《東方日報》採訪報導並給了極佳評價，自此〈蔡菜館〉打開了知名度，其後並有不同媒體跟進報導，Grace與〈蔡菜館〉成了名廚與名店。CNN將〈蔡菜館〉列入「香港十大最佳私房菜」榜單，Grace撰寫的60道菜式食譜被世界美食家大獎（Gourmand International）評為「最佳女廚師食譜」。"" From Google Translate: ""Grace Cai Sun Meihua is not a catering major. When she was studying in the UK, she majored in secretarial information management. After graduation, she also worked as a secretary. In 2011, she decided to start a business and opened a small restaurant in Yuen Long selling breakfast and light meals. There are 16 seats, and the diners are all passers-by. Later, she adjusted the dishes and changed the restaurant to a reservation system. After being interviewed and reported by ""Oriental Daily News"" and giving excellent reviews, ""Cai Cai Restaurant"" became famous. Later, different media followed up and reported that Grace and ""Cai Cai Restaurant"" has become a famous chef and famous restaurant. CNN included ""Cai Restaurant"" in the ""Top Ten Best Private Kitchens in Hong Kong"" list, and the 60-dish recipe written by Grace was named ""Best Female Chef Cookbook"" by Gourmand International.""  Au-yeung, Hiu-sze 歐陽曉思 (2014-04-26).  ""賞味：10萬粉絲　村屋飄香"" [Appreciation: 100,000 fans, the fragrance of the village house].  Apple Daily (in Chinese).  p.  E8.  The article notes: ""Grace雖沒替人把脈，卻好像中醫師一樣，很注重客人的健康，主張客人要品嚐食材原味，菜式均以簡單方法烹調，全無味精，讓客人吃得安心。 在新界長大的Grace，自小熱愛入廚，但從沒有想過將自己的事業跟興趣掛鉤，在英國讀書回港後，她一直從事文職工作十年，之後在內地幫丈夫打理生意， 回港後在廚具公司Miele工作兩年。"" From Google Translate: ""Although Grace is not checking someone's pulse, she is like a Chinese medicine practitioner who pays great attention to the health of her guests and advises her guests to taste the original flavors of the ingredients. The dishes are all cooked using simple methods and contain no MSG, so that guests can eat with peace of mind. Grace, who grew up in the New Territories, has loved cooking since she was a child, but she never thought of linking her career to her hobby. After studying in the UK and returning to Hong Kong, she has been working as a clerical worker for ten years, and then helped her husband manage his business in the Mainland. After returning to Hong Kong, he worked for Miele, a kitchenware company, for two years.""  There are additional sources listed on her website including ""Media"" Internet Archive and ""Japan Media"" Internet Archive .  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Grace Choy ( traditional Chinese : 孫美華 ; simplified Chinese : 孙美华 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It would be helpful to evaluate @Cunard's analyses.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 🍪 Cookie Monster 12:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I fully agree with @ Cunard that Grace deserves a Wikipedia article.  She has been featured in many reliable sources, showing her importance.  Although the current article may be brief, I'm confident that as more media covers her life, editors will expand and enrich the content over time 102.88.70.122 ( talk ) 10:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — 102.88.70.122 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Can we get an assessment of these newly found sources?  Thank you.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY .  Dramatic improvements have been edited in.  Great job.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify I don't see the HEY at all.  The article does not do a good job at explaining what she is primarily known for, or giving biographical background.  Four out of nine sources currently in the article are primary, as far as I can tell.  The top 10s are hardly in-depth, or at best indicate that the restaurant, and not the chef, should be the article subject.  There is still promotional and vague material: "" Choy appeared as a guest chef at various platforms, including government events, charity functions, and 5-star hotels .  What does that amount to?  Now, Cunard's sources are something else, but seeing as the article is fairly new and that there was a small scuffle to move it in and out of draft space, the best course of action (and maybe for the creator to learn more) would be place it firmly in draft space, and craft this page a little less hastily through the whole Articles for Creation process.  Geschichte ( talk ) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Geschichte ( talk · contribs ), I edited the article to remove promotional content and expand and add sources.  Cunard ( talk ) 09:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Japan Times article is a 1000-word feature on her.  It absolutely should not be sent through AfC, since it will just get stuck in the queue only for an AfC reviewer to observe that she has a 1000-word feature in the Japan Times and send it right back to mainspace.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shadow311 seems like there's a clear consensus to keep?  Mach61 14:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah I will revert the relist.  The big pause with the source section made me mess up.  Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mach61 Actually should I just close the AFD as keep?  Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shadow311 please do Mach61 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems like it would be really complicated to revert the relist.  I also want to make sure if its okay for me to close it as keep because normally if I close a AfD people get somewhat mad at me.  Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Alan Fearnley: No other sourcing found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I can only find verification for his date and place of birth and school.  Running a WP:BEFORE I can see he exists and sells prints of cars and trains painted in a certain style.  The references are mostly promotional or native advertising.  I don't think he rises to WP:ARTIST .  The books, though, make me wonder if he is a notable illustrator.  WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found a source in a car magazine artist Alan Fearnley describes in detail.  Automobile quarterly by Princeton Institute for Historic Research .  On this page link , clicking on Alan Fearnley's name in the left column shows the rest of the page. -- Товболатов ( talk ) 13:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found another source in an American bulletin mentions Alan Fearnley The Railway paintings of Alan Fearnley - National railway bulletin by National Railway Historical Society , 1988.  page 43.  End quote: Despite the fact that this book is expensive for its size, it nevertheless serves to highlight and celebrate the work of one of Britain's finest masters.  Artists are railroad workers whose work must be universally recognized.  -- Товболатов ( talk ) 19:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources above are good.  I've also found 500 words, only 1 sentence of which is a quote, on ProQuest [1] .  Here's another likley source that I don't have full acess to [2] .  We have WP:GNG here, so do not need WP:ARTIST , but that may be met as well.  — siro χ o 07:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks siroχo, there is also a mention of the artist in two sources Railway World Railway World by G.M.Kichenside Publication date 1978-04-01.  SETTLE - CARLISLE RAILWAY DIRECTORY OF RESOURCES by Nigel Musset.  Publication date 2016.  Товболатов ( talk ) 11:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo The 2 sources you provided are behind a paywall, so I will skip voting on this one.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 01:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability .  Regarding WP:ARTIST (taken from my comment here ), Per WP:NBIO , "" People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [such as WP:ARTIST in our case]. "" In reference to various additional occupation-specific criteria, such as WP:ARTIST, the policy also states, "" Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. "" Thus, even if the subject does not the meet WP:ARTIST standards, this alone is not valid reason for deletion, if WP:NBASIC is still met.  I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists.  Here is a source assessment table: Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Automobile quarterly Story is written by an independent entity.  Source appears to be an authoritative source with standards.  An entire article is focused on the subject.  ✔ Yes National Railway Bulletin Written by a third-party.  NRHS is reliable.  An entire chapter/section is dedicated to Alan Fearnley.  ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 01:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of cult films: There is a huge number of films with huge popularity and large fanbase.  The previous nom was noted for del unanimously and arguments remain the same.  - Altenmann >talk 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete You may have to tag all the individual articles.  ""Cult"" is a very broad and somewhat vague term.  All it means is that there are some people who really like it!  That it retained popularity among some people after its release, or that it may not have a particularly broad fan base.  But this is not an intrinsic or distinguishing characteristic.  When the inclusion criteria here is that one person used a certain term once to describe a movie, that isn't necessarily a relevant commonality or a useful description.  This is simply too broad of a concept to justify us maintaining such a large context-free list.  Cult film could use some subsections for readability, but that's the place to go for significant examples and appropriate context of what makes them cult films.  Navigating though two dozen pages with dozens of entries, most of whose own articles don't even mention what makes them cult films, is simply indiscriminate and not useful to readers.  Reywas92 Talk 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The other 27 articles linked to should be included in this.   Anyway, as I said in the last two AFDs for this, if the reliable sources refer to it as a cult film, that's what we go by, not personal opinions.   Every entry has a reference.  D r e a m Focus 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   If the page has resisted THREE Afds it may be that there's no need for a 4th, I would have thought.  Can we reformat the title of this page so that this is made clear: it's not the second nomination, it's the 4th!  WP:NLIST mentions that lists are notable if their subject has received coverage as a set.  It has.  One click is enough imv to attest of the notability of this list: https://www.rollingstone.com/interactive/lists-cult-classics-a-z/ https://www.theringer.com/movies/2021/1/25/22244344/cult-movies-ranking-top-50 https://www.timeout.com/film/the-best-cult-movies-of-all-time https://www.bfi.org.uk/lists/top-your-watchlist-23-cult-films-1980s And so on. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are all listicles, and do little to establish notability.   In any case, none of these pass the smell test for reliability, which I'll expand on more below.   Hell, the Rolling Stone one isn't even about movies, but media in general.   They include Andy Kaufman for crissakes.   You are also mistaken; it only survived two of those AFDs...it was deleted the first time around.   None of which particularly matters per WP:LASTTIME .  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then click on the Google Books link above.  You will find various books covering cult films as a set.  The term is not subjective and can be well-defined (etc, etc, etc, etc).  Thank you.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think these sources would be great for Cult film , but they don't justify 27 pages with 2,334 films listed without context.  We should absolutely have a good discussion of key examples of films with the strongest cult followings, but a list of any film for which this descriptor has been used in passing just becomes indiscriminate with little utility.  Even if people have provided a definition for the term, that doesn't mean it's used consistently or establishes it as a particular genre.  That writer defined it, but Cult film is clear there are inclusive and exclusive definitions and that there is ""difficulty in defining the term and subjectivity of what qualifies""!  I think the article's descriptor ""Overly broad usage of the term has resulted in controversy, as purists state it has become a meaningless descriptor applied to any film that is the slightest bit weird or unconventional; others accuse Hollywood studios of trying to artificially create cult films or use the term as a marketing tactic. Modern films are frequently stated to be an ""instant cult classic"", occasionally before they are released"" shows how pointless this huge set of lists has become.  Going though Template:Films by genre many of thes lists are quite large, but specific genres are clearer-cut and based on the films themselves rather than the various ways in which they could be received.  Reywas92 Talk 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as this is a vague, subjective descriptor term that's applied loosely, without any widely agreed-upon definition.    That one random author happens to call something a cult classic is meaningless.  There are no reliable sources for determining what qualifies as a cult film, because there are no criteria by which anyone can judge it objectively, and it's not as if there's any scholarly debate about what merits inclusion and what doesn't.   The ""sources"" listed above are all fluff pieces of little value.   This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even by Wikipedia standards.   Nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- what is the topic of this list? Is it ""list of cult films"" as the title implies? Because if so, WP:LISTCRIT states ""Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.""  And I think it's pretty clear that this most definitely fails here, as I and others have been trying to point out. But wait! , you say (and DF says above), we just go by teh reliable sourcez!!one! .  But this just circles back to the earlier point -- there are no reliable sources for determining ""cult""ness of a film, because it's a vague, subjective term without a clear definition.  So what?  , you say again, if a source says it's a cult film, then that's an unambiguous criterion!  .   But now you've changed the topic of the list to ""list of films that have been called cult films "" instead.   And that most definitely fails NLIST and is pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE too.  You might think I'm splitting hairs or lawyering here, but I say this is a pretty vital distinction to make for keeping dreck lists like this out of Wikipedia, and for very good reason.   Because invariably, lists like this turn into dumping grounds of every film anyone can find that the adjective ""cult"" has been applied to, and such lists have precisely zero encyclopedic value.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't need to be a ""dumping ground"" if you manage the list correctly.  Also, your reading of WP:LSC is incorrect, it specifically allows for Subjective criteria: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed. .  Green C 15:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But it is a dumping ground.   Even after all the pleading for keeping at the last AFD, nothing has been done to improve that, and there's no reason to expect it ever will.   Ant it doesn't matter anyway, because this isn't a valid list in the first place, per LISTCRIT and LISTN as I noted immediately above.   I think you're cherry picking LISTCRIT in such a way as to make it sound like it favors keeping, when it very plainly states what I said about clear, unambiguous criteria.   And again, as I said, there are no reliable sources, because there is nothing even remotely approaching a standard definition of ""cult""ness.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I were you, I would start a talk page discussion that proposes an extremely narrow inclusion criteria, then you can delete 90% of it and be happy.  Then every time someone tries to add something again, and it doesn't meet the criteria, delete it.  You have many options that don't require topic deletion.  I do this all the time in many lists.  I set tight criteria, delete everything else, and delete editors constantly who try to add things.  This is what it takes.  But deleting at a topic-level doesn't work because there is demand for a list like this and you will be wasting your time at AfD forever getting nowhere.  Even if you delete the topic, it will probably get recreated all over again, because the demand is there.  So you can either go with the flow and control it, or waste your time battling people and accomplishing nothing of value.  And if this sounds unappetizing (it's a lot of work either way) walk away and ignore it, wait for someone else.   -- Green C 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , what makes a film ""cult"" is very subjective and there isn't a widely accepted definition of the term.  Even if reliable sources call it a cult film, that's still using that source's own definition of ""cult"" because again, it is not a clearly defined term in the slightest.  Turtletennisfogwheat ( talk ) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question What are the WP:LISTCRITERIA here?  Absent inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources , this is fundamentally a non-starter.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources .  Many sources list cult films.  -- Green C 15:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't really answer the question: what are the criteria here, exactly? TompaDompa ( talk ) 05:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See you on the talk page to work it out. -- Green C 17:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In other words, there are none at present.  That's a major problem, I'm sure you will agree.  List criteria are an indispensable part of creating articles like this.  They are the foundation such lists must be built upon, not an optional step that can simply be skipped with the hope of working it out at a later point in time.  It's the equivalent of writing a prose article with an undefined scope.  Experience has shown (see e.g. Talk:List of fictional antiheroes#List criteria ) that even when there is a genuine concerted effort to come up with some kind of reasonable list criteria post-AfD, a consensus set of criteria is not necessarily settled upon.  Kicking this can down the road because of a presumption that proper criteria can in theory be created is a recipe for ending up back here in a few years with no progress done whatsoever—indeed, despite the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2 nomination) , this is in fact the third AfD for the article (and the fourth AfD for this title —the first discussion resulted in deletion).  There was a 2018 AfD that resulted in the article being kept—the idea being that the problems could be fixed by coming up with proper criteria.  There was another AfD in 2019 that resulted in the article being split (for size reasons, I gather)—and with general agreement that significant additional cleanup is required per the closer.  There was also talk page discussion in 2019 specifically about trying to come up with proper list criteria that went more-or-less nowhere—see Talk:List of cult films/Archive 1#Inclusion criteria and other matters .  This makes the whole argument that we just need to work it out fall very, very flat to me—that approach demonstrably has not worked here.  Compiling a list like this without proper criteria is plain WP:Original research by way of WP:Editorial synthesis even if the individual entries have sources—the conceit is that the listed films are somehow meaningfully part of a set, but what that set is is undefined and arbitrarily determined inconsistently by individual editors in the act of adding and/or removing entries.  And that's not even getting into the fact that weak (i.e. overly broad) inclusion criteria for such lists turns the scope into what is essentially an equivocation, where different entries do not represent the same underlying concept, and where canonical/uncontroversial examples and fringe/controversial examples are treated equally in direct violation of WP:NPOV .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per WP:LSC , selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.  This doesn't meet the first two points.  Cult is a vague and subjective term, and this list doesn't help by including super obscure films along with mainstream successes.  Like, everyone's heard of or knows about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Schindler's List.  This list does not have a clear inclusion category other than ""a source called it cult once,"" and cult itself does not have a clear definition.  Also WP:NOTTVTROPES .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:LSC says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources .  Subjective lists are common on Wikipedia and permissible.  There are many sources that are lists of cult films.  Just need to adjust the criteria.  Find the best lists of cult films, and include those that have multiple intersections and/or called a cult film by an academic source and/or etc..  -- Green C 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films participants who have edited in the last five years: Minskist popper ( talk · contribs ), Agent 86 ( talk · contribs ), EnsRedShirt ( talk · contribs ), Erik ( talk · contribs ), and Eluchil404 ( talk · contribs ). Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2nd nomination) participants: Rose Abrams ( talk · contribs ), Zxcvbnm ( talk · contribs ), XOR'easter ( talk · contribs ), Clarityfiend ( talk · contribs ), Dream Focus ( talk · contribs ), and Pikamander2 ( talk · contribs ). Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (3rd nomination) participants: Onetwothreeip ( talk · contribs ), Gonnym ( talk · contribs ), GreenC ( talk · contribs ), Barkeep49 ( talk · contribs ), Betty Logan ( talk · contribs ), Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs ), and Clarityfiend ( talk · contribs ) Cunard ( talk ) 04:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This isn't about what people think are cult films, but what sources have called cult films. Thus it is not subjective nor unquantifiable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is subjective in the sense that what makes a film a cult film is not well defined in the slightest. I've seen multiple sources call very popular films that heavily profited cult films. Turtletennisfogwheat ( talk ) 05:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And as I said above, the topic of ""what people think are cult films"" doesn't even remotely pass NLIST. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:NLIST . The Criterion Collection has a list, [45] as do Time Out , [46] Filmsite , [47] etc. Rolling Stone has a list of cult classics, which includes films, [48] as well as a readers' poll of the best cult movies. [49] There are books of cult films, such as Cult Movies and 100 Cult Films . [50] However, prune really dumb, badly sourced entries. Licence to Kill is not a cult film, and the sole ""reference"" doesn't say it is. Same with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and no doubt many others, which I will begin to cull. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NLIST . Wikipedia is listing what has been called in the real world a cult film. And the real world has listed cult films repeatedly. If someone is adding a film that no one in the real world has called a cult film, remove it. If needed, there can be more specific criteria for inclusion, like being on a reliably sourced list or having three individual authorities call it a cult film. But no need to delete a whole list. We would not delete lists of films by genre just because some films are not overtly part of a genre. The problem is with the additions, not the concept of a list. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per User:Zxcvbnm and others: refine the criteria, edit the list, but don't delete. -- Green C 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Final comment/plea to closer .   Please note the pretty blatant influx of keep votes from the canvassing by Cunard above (yeah yeah, maybe not technically canvassing because all previous participants were pinged, but it was still canvassing in spirit).   Also please don't be fooled by the numerical vote count that this caused and look at the strength of the arguments, which are heavily on the delete side.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not ""canvassing"" when all participants are notified, not in spirit, not in any way.  It's a risky gambit to notify everyone, because you don't know who will respond.  Only after the fact, when votes have not gone your way, do you feel the ""spirit"" of canvassing.  What if the votes had gone the other way in your favor?  I doubt your would complain.  And your wrong about the strength of arguments.  WP:LSC is being quoted inaccurately, there is no rule against subjective topics.  Nor is AfD a place to deal with cleanup.  Have you tried to fix the article with a talk page discussion to more narrowly define the scope?  Have you found it impossible to craft the article in a way you find acceptable?  Or do you see no acceptable solution?  Because lots of other people here see solutions.  Basically this entire AfD rests on WP:IDONTLIKEIT .  -- Green C 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Whitney_Wright: The only reliable secondary source about the subject relates to how this pornographic actor went to Iran, posted some photos on social media, and has cause a social media controversy online.  This doesn't establish notability as an entertainer, and is exclusively be tied to a single event that is largely unrelated to the subject's profession as an entertainer.  Davidwbaker ( talk ) 19:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Sexuality and gender ,  and Oklahoma .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.).  However the torrent of coverage W. Wright received for her political opinions shows her notability as porn actress is recognised outside WP and outside industry/adult coverage.  That's why I think the article could be retained.  NB-Coverage is international and includes reliable media, Guardian, Al Jazeera, Euronews, Hindustan Times, and so on.  Despite this being limited in time, my ! vote is based on the fact that it confirms her more general notability (since PORNBIO has been ""cancelled"").  (Note: I am the one who DPDd the page- same nominator, as I didn't judge deletion uncontroversial).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Iran , Israel ,  and Palestine .  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets GNG with the Guardian and the AP source.  Coverage in a few different news sources [22] as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions .  • Gene93k ( talk ) 13:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Coverage of her persists as she visits Syria: [23] Aintabli ( talk ) 10:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG.  Restored the section on her career that was missing to make the article complete.  gidonb ( talk ) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : They've gotten a lot of press for their political views, not just for their work in the adult industry.  This shows they're notable outside of that world.  Plus, they've been covered by major news outlets like The Guardian and Al Jazeera.  That kind of coverage is pretty significant.  Waqar 💬 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The fact that the nominator tried to delete this article through PROD is a disgrace.  PROD should ONLY be used when no opposition to deletion is expected.  In this discussion I see not even one person who supports delete.  gidonb ( talk ) 20:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you assume good intent, you must conclude that I expected no opposition to deletion, which is truly the case.  I am honestly surprised that a non-notable entertainer becomes notable when there's a social media controversy about going to Iran.  I don't think she meets WP:ENT nor WP:GNG .  She is a non-notable person who plays a major role in a single minor incident.  This doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me.  So, yes, I used PROD, expecting no opposition.  I moved it to the Talk page, tagged the author, and waited for some time for other editors to comment.  No one did.  So I went with AfD.  However, I see that my judgment of what is or is not notable doesn't agree with the unanimity here, and I'll be more careful in the future when proposing articles for deletion.  Davidwbaker ( talk ) 18:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem of course is not that of bad intent.  Just poor judgement.  When you do not have even the beginning of a case to delete, one should NEVER prod.  Thank you for using PROD more carefully in the future.  gidonb ( talk ) 00:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Yang Bing-yi: MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Taiwan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject .  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.  Sources Wang, Mei 王梅 (2001-01-01).  ""楊秉彝開創「鼎泰豐」傳奇"" [Yang Bingyi created the ""Din Tai Fung"" legend].  Global Views Monthly [ zh ] (in Chinese).  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The article notes from Google Translate: ""Yang Bingyi, the founder of ""Din Tai Fung"", was born in 1927, and his hometown is in Nao County, Shanxi Province, 240 miles away from Taiyuan City. At the age of thirteen, his hometown was occupied by the Japanese. Three years later, the Japanese surrendered. Bingyi went to the county seat to study a little. Not long after, the Communist Party came again, and the war broke out again. The Kuomintang and the Communist Party launched a fierce struggle, and the days were restless. Bingyi lived under bayonets and bullets all day long, and was terrified, worried that someday he would somehow get into trouble with his upper body? In the end, under the pretext of ""going to Taiwan to study"", he applied for leave to the army, left his hometown alone, and planned to go to Taiwan to join his uncle. That year, he was twenty-one years old.""  The article further notes from Google Translate: ""Bingyi delivered oil during the day and part-time at night. Boss Wang's younger brother was in the business of importing Shaoxing wine, and Bingyi also helped deliver the goods everywhere. Bing Yi came back from delivering the goods every day, and he helped wash them in the store. Boss Wang thinks that this young man is not bad, he is very diligent in his work, and he really keeps his duty. After two years, he was promoted to be the counter and responsible for checking the accounts. and manage in-store purchases.""  May, Tiffany (2023-03-29).  ""Yang Bing-yi, Who Brought Soup Dumplings to the World, Dies at 96. Starting with a modest shop in Taiwan in 1958, he built Din Tai Fung into a global dumpling and noodle empire, earning a Michelin star along the way"" .  The New York Times .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The article notes: ""Yang Bing-yi, the founder of Din Tai Fung, the Michelin-starred Taiwanese restaurant chain whose signature soup dumplings have attracted crowds around the world, has died at 96. ... Born in 1927 in Shanxi Province, China, Mr. Yang fled to Taiwan in the summer of 1948, when civil war erupted on the mainland. In Taiwan he found work as a deliveryman for Heng Tai Fung, a small shop that sold cooking oil. He later took charge of the shop’s accounts and inventory. When he was 28, he married Ms. Lai, a co-worker. The couple worked together until the shop closed, then opened Din Tai Fung as a cooking oil shop.""  Smith, Harrison (2023-03-29).  ""Yang Bing-yi, who built a soup-dumpling empire, dies at 96"" .  The Washington Post .  Archived from the original on 2023-03-30 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The article notes: ""Mr. Yang was born in 1927 in the North China province of Shanxi. According to historian Haiming Liu’s book “From Canton Restaurant to Panda Express: A History of Chinese Food in the United States,” he served “in a local warlord army” before deciding he was poorly suited to military life. In 1948, he moved to Taiwan, seeking new opportunities with help from an uncle who lived on the island. ... Mr. Yang started out as a delivery man at a cooking-oil company, rising to oversee the books. His colleagues included Lai, who he soon married; after the business went bankrupt, they started their own oil company in 1958. Its name, Din Tai Fung, combined the names of Mr. Yang’s old employer and new oil supplier.""  Hagerty, James R. (2023-03-31).  ""Taiwan Dumpling King Steamed His Way to Global Renown: Yang Bing-Yi, who has died at 96, founded the Din Tai Fung restaurant chain"" .  The Wall Street Journal .  Archived from the original on 2023-04-02 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The article notes: ""Mr. Yang was born in China’s Shanxi province in 1927. In the 1940s, he enlisted in the army of one of the warlords who then ruled parts of China, according to a history of Chinese food, “From Canton Restaurant to Panda Express,” by Haiming Liu.""  Feng, Emily; Cao, Aowen (2023-03-29).  ""Yang Bing-Yi, patriarch of Taiwan's soup dumpling empire, has died"" .  NPR .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 .  Retrieved 2023-05-18 .  The article notes: ""Yang went by boat to Taiwan at the age of 21 — as company legend has it, with only $20 in his pocket — to join his uncle, who was already on the island. They were part of a massive exodus of up to 2 million Chinese refugees who fled the mainland for Taiwan during the end of the Chinese civil war. ... In Taipei, Yang met Lai, who would become his wife. They dated in secret for years before marrying. Like many mainland migrants who came to Taiwan in the 1940s and 1950s, Yang was already married — but with all exchanges cut off between China and Taiwan, he was unsure if he would ever see his first wife again or be able to confirm if she was even alive.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yang Bing-yi ( traditional Chinese : 楊秉彝 ; simplified Chinese : 杨秉彝 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 11:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The WP:INHERITED essay says: The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article .   Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG .    Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar.  The essay says, that a person ""can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG "".  This applies to Yang Bing-yi.  He is known solely for founding Din Tai Fung , but because he passes WP:GNG , he can have an independent article.  Cunard ( talk ) 11:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I totally agree with keep but I think it would help if you could improve formatting.  Just link to the sources, you don't need to have 6 paragraphs of quotations that no one is going to read (and may also be potentially a violation of copyright).  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Cunard .  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 13:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:SIGCOV exists Lightburst ( talk ) 14:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Taiwanese businessman got extensive obituaries by CNN and NPR .  That should be more than enough for WP:BASIC .  AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Multiple international news sources reported his death; Global Views article [8] talks about him at length, and more.  Hard to see how notability can seriously be called into question.  Oblivy ( talk ) 01:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Coverage is sufficient to pass BASIC.  Rupples ( talk ) 00:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Evelyn Terry (artist): Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Artist of the year in a large  city, 1 , work acquired by a state museum, 2 , biography featured in state-wide media, 3 , and profiled in a book about artists from Wisconsin, 4 .  -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 13:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Noted Wisconsin artist.  Meets WP:ARTIST #4(d) with works in the collections of several notable museums.  Significant coverage includes a multiple page entry in Famous Wisconsin Artists and Architects .  gobonobo + c 10:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As per @ Gobonobo , seems sufficiently notable, a benefit to the encyclopedia.  CT55555 ( talk ) 22:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Marek Švec (footballer): The only secondary source I could find is SME's sub-website My Nitra .  It mentions Marek Švec scoring a goal in one paragraph after translation: ""The oldest and the youngest players scored a valuable draw. Anton Sloboda was everywhere, and we could see the 34-year-old fighter passing between the stoppers in the back, serving teammates in the middle and setting up a goal for the teenager Marek Švec in the front. The academy graduate scored his third goal, no one under the age of 18 in the top 30 European leagues has scored more in a season... Wow! The youngest debutant in the history of FC ViOn will celebrate adulthood only on New Year's Eve and has already made 22 league starts with five goals. "" The coverage of Švec is written in bold, but something tells me that the rest are more of a trivial mention.  If this article gets deleted, we should consider moving ""Marek Švec (wrestler)"" to just ""Marek Švec"".  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Slovakia .  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appears to have made appearances in the top division of Slovakia which surely meets WP:NFOOTY BFC Aspie ( talk ) 18:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  NFOOTY doesn't exist anymore, but that notwithstanding, I would add to those this one: [38] which contributes very well to GNG.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I believe the sources mentioned in this discussion go towards the notability criteria .  I also found [39] which seems to be connected to the TASR and covers his loan to Spartak Myjava in a fairly deep manner.  C 679 18:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep —Decent career, decent coverage.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 11:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my above comment, and there might be more.  Geschichte ( talk ) 01:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reliable sources Lightburst ( talk ) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Inés Marful: UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : award winning writer.  Pam D 07:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The award seems suspect.  The article links no real references.  Is it a notable award?  Glman99 ( talk ) 14:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Found this review [42] .  If another one can be found it perhaps be enough for WP:NAUTHOR .  scope_creep Talk 06:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just realised the same review in the article.  I could find much else.  scope_creep Talk Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, —⁠Scotty Wong ⁠— 05:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep beyond on what we already know, also note that the work Lorca y sus dobles: interpretación psicoanalítica de la obra dramática y dibujística has 31 citations on google scholar.  For a humanities non-english work this is a huge number for google scholar.  — siro χ o 06:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Unable to see not pass WP:NAUTHOR .  Meegvun ( talk ) 08:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - On JSTOR, I found a review for the 209-page essay Lorca y sus dobles (and have added it to the article); based on a publisher bio (which in addition to biographical and career information includes, Google translated: ""She is the author of the essay Lorca y sus dobles (Extraordinary Doctorate Award, which in its day was described as ""the definitive work on the poet from Granada"" (Manuel Alvar, Blanco y Negro )""), as well as the citation information offered above, this appears to be a notable work, and as noted above, another one of her works is reviewed in a scholarly journal.  The potential for non-English sources to exist about this academic writer and award-winning novelist and her work has me further leaning keep.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I found a source about her after she won the 2008 Premio de Novela Casino de Mieres award for one of her novels: Marful recoge emocionada el premio del Casino de Mieres ( El Comercio , 2008).  Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Dariacore (album): As I said in that discussion, ""few of the sources primarily focus on this album (e.g. That Pitchfork quote is a single line from a review of a different album), and those that do include Sputnikmusic which I'm still not convinced is actually reliable enough on its own to support notability that strongly.""  While there is promise in regards to an NMUSIC pass given the apparent notability of the Dariacore subgenre and this album's clearly very important role in establishing said genre, I don't think this album clears GNG with the present sourcing.  There are good sources, but not many and not enough.  I think a merge/redirect to Jane Remover would be most appropriate, but this is too great an edge case to go without a full discussion.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Along with the comprehensive review by a Sputnikmusic staff member , it was considered one of the best albums of 2021 by The Fader (with the article also having significant coverage specifically about the album), and created a genre ( source ).  In my view, this makes the album independently notable.  I also believe it has enough content to be its own article.  Skyshifter talk 01:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  There are 2, independent, reliable sources on the subject with sig cov.  ( The Fader 's best list and Sputnikmusic ).  Due to this, I don't have confidence putting a full Keep.  — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t ; c ) 04:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether additional sources are sufficient.  Coincidentally, Sputnikmusic was just deleted earlier today.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This is an edge case.  I'm not personally convinced that Sputnikmusic , which lacks editorial policies and has only some but not much USEBYOTHERS (i.e., Metacritic), is RS.  However, the music Wikiproject considers it to be a RS per here .  The review is full-length and SIGCOV, so I'm counting this as one source towards GNG/NALBUM even if it's not the strongest.  The Fader includes it in a list of best albums, and is RS & independent, even though the coverage here at merely one paragraph is at best borderline SIGCOV.  I am not convinced by other sources, which are non-SIGCOV or non-independent.  Though, it is worth noting that one RS, Insider (which is usually WP:MREL but RSP notes it's reliable for culture ) credited this towards contributing a subgenre, but to me the ref in question doesn't pass SIGCOV.  Therefore, at best this is a weak passing of GNG/NALBUM, and I'm neutral regarding whether keep or merge is better, but I would oppose redirection or deletion.  VickKiang (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  I think VickKiang described it best.  To me, when an article is borderline keep/delete, it's better to keep it.  I believe the Sputnikmusic source counts for both SIGCOV and is an RS + The Fader mention is helpful as well.  If the album was so well received (as described by The Fader), some other sources may pop up too, further strengthening this argument.  Regardless, the album in its current state barely counts as notable to me, but it still counts!  ULPS ( talk ) 20:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of lone wolf terrorist attacks: To quote Lone wolf attack : ""The term lone actor or lone wolf is not a legal term or a social science concept. It is an ill-defined and academically contested construct, manufactured by the media and by radical political actors.""  Groupthink ( talk ) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Lists .  Groupthink ( talk ) 20:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very tough call.  A couple quick search demonstrate that this very clearly meets WP:NLIST as despite the lack of an academic consensus, various reliable media discusses the subject as a group extremely often, often giving multiple examples.  But the inclusion criteria seems too subjective right now.  We'll clearly need to remove all unreferenced entries.  But, given the concerns the nomination brought up, I do not think a single reference for each would suffice -- we'd need to see a few reliable sources describing an attack as such before adding it.  Given the complexity of the underlying issue and the risk of DUE weight issues in the list, I think it's in violation of NPOV to keep this list in it's current state, so I'll say weak delete .  I'm not sure at this time what a sufficient cleanup would look like, but there's a hypothetical version of this list that could be kept.   — siro χ o 00:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only hypothetical version I can think of would be, like you pointed out, ""List of terrorist attacks the media calls 'lone wolf'"", which would be granular to a silly degree.  Groupthink ( talk ) 02:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While I have no disrespect to the Anti-Defamation League or any of it's contributors, the statement the nominator seems to be pulling from the lone wolf attack article seems to be from a weekly ADL opinion(?) piece from over 20 years ago, so I'm not sure that ""Lone wolf"" can be declared as this completely meaningless term simply from that (and in fact, it's use in the Lone Wolf Attack article seems to be conferring a bit more 'objectivity' to that quote that it should actually have).  Other, somewhat more academic takes on the subject as found here seem to be well defined and certainly not ""manufactured by the media or a radical political actor"".  Obviously there may be some discourse regarding what qualifies as ""direct leadership""  or ""direct outside command"", but I feel that that is rather weak grounds to delete an otherwise 'fine' list which serves a good and unique purpose.  Essentially, I both do not find the concept to be ""ill defined"" enough to warrant deletion, and I also do not feel that deletion is warranted to an otherwise useful list simply because some users or editors may disagree with the placement / omission of a couple given cases.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meaningless term?  No.  But is it an ""unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources"" term?  Also no.  However it is a term used to excuse and whitewash certain types of terrorism, such as Christian terrorism , that the western world is uncomfortable with.  Groupthink ( talk ) 03:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I... do not quite agree with you here.  I appreciate what you are saying - and I agree that it is best to not excuse/""whitewash"" any forms of terrorism, but I don't seem to understand how this list does either of those things.  This list existing does not stop a list called ""List of terrorist attacks motivated by Christian beliefs"" from existing (something else might, I'm not sure, but this list won't, and in fact Category:Christian terrorism in the United States already seems to partially serve this function).  So your reason for deletion seems to be one more of personal conviction and passion about the subject matter rather than the actual guidelines and merits of article preservation/deletion.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 03:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no personal conviction or passion about the subject matter per se.  My concerns are about POV pushing and loaded language .  ""Lone wolf terrorist attack"" is a concept which is so flawed as to be untenable.  Terrorist attacks cannot and do not happen in a vacuum.  Terrorism is explicitly tied to politics and/or ideology by definition .  Even setting that aside, what could an objective, non-arbitrary, verifiable gatekeeping principle be for deciding what is or is not a ""lone wolf"" attack?  Groupthink ( talk ) 04:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD is not really the place to engage in a philosophical debate, so I will only again point to the DOJ PDF which itself outlines (in my view) a perfectly fine, reasonable, and objective (enough) definition for the term ""Lone wolf"" in the context of ""lone wolf terrorist attack"".  Is there some degree of subjectivity?  Of course, the definition is in many way a guideline, just as we editors follow guidelines to determine what articles get kept.  Simply because there is potential for disagreement in the term does not de-legitimize any use of it.  At risk of crowding the discussion this will likely be my last reply, though again I feel that your personal opposition to the term (or even the idea of such a term) is perhaps biasing your position here.  The Lone wolf attack article is itself rather flawed (and largely created by one user, apparently a criminology student), though as we are not here for that article discussion regarding it is somewhat lost here.  I do appreciate the discussion.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 04:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the discussion as well.  We all have our biases: I hate big lists and I cannot lie .  But I'll have to agree to disagree with you that my [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria|selection criteria]] concerns constitute a bias, or at least an unfair bias as I feel you're implying.  Groupthink ( talk ) 07:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Addendum :Attached are several other references which include definitions of and 'credible discussion' of ""lone wolf"" attacks, from sources such as the Hauge, the European Comission, and various academic sources.  I do not think it's our place as Wikipedians to try to ""overrule"" these organizations by making our own conclusions regarding the validity of the term, or simply out of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT - adjacent perspectives.  It is a clearly used term by a vast number of governments, academic institutions, and NGOs across the world.  [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Groupthink ; it's a meaningless term and widely used to whitewash ubiquitous-but-only-in-the-US mass shootings , Christian terrorism and the rise of 21st century fascism and white nationalism in the US.  — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk ) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article needs a lede that clearly defines lone wolf.  Such a definition is not difficult to find in recent literature, and the emphasis on disagreements over the term appear to be WP:UNDUE .  Otherwise, the list is relevant and encyclopedic (or as encylopaedic as a List can be, but I gave up on that battle years back).  The nomination does feel very much within WP:IDONTLIKEIT , especially with a red-flag, patently untrue assertion that the term was manufactured by the media and by radical political actors .  The use of the term to describe a person who commits a crime or nefarious act alone, not as part of a group, community or other affinity, dates to Tillotson in 1909.  It saw significant use in the sixties (in US and AUS especially if I recall correctly) to describe those who abandoned non-violent groups to take direct action, usually in the form of a terrorist attack.  Cheers Last1in ( talk ) 17:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As stated above, ""manufactured by the media and by radical political actors"" is not my language, it's language from the Lone wolf attack article.  Groupthink ( talk ) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the term and idea is commonly discussed in academic sources per google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&q=Lone+wolf&btnG= Hardyplants ( talk ) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Blurring and media coverage of the term in our case is acceptable: this list, albeit not strict, is of great value to various kinds of researchers.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are multiple sources that discuss this topic.  A BEFORE search also shows a lot of results.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 21:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others, but mostly on WP:N which I believe this list covers.  I think the nom's rationale is on-point about media hyping a word that usually describes a ""social outcast"" rather academic sources that describe terrorists who act alone.  If anything, the page can be moved to something more appropriate, but there are enough sources where this list can exist.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete It seems to violate WP:NPOV in it's current state to me.  It seems that there is some WP:DUE concerns with some of the entries.  It seems fairly dicey to me whether this meets the criteria or not.  But for the aforementioned reasons.  I am going to say weak delete.  Seawolf35 ( talk ) 01:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of common misconceptions: So I think English Wikipedia also needs to discuss whether this article should keep or delete.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) 日期20220626 ( talk ) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  This is enwiki, not zhwiki.  zhwiki issues should be addressed on zhwiki, not enwiki.  Kinopiko talk 14:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural speedy keep .  No valid reason has been given for nomination.  There is no mention of any policy that the article might be contravening.  There is a list of inclusion criteria on the Talk page which seem reasonable to me, so there is no way that a claim that this is an indiscriminate list can prevail.  Any ambiguity concerning the inclusion criteria, or any issues with any of the existing entries, can be discussed on the Talk page.  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , that's a bizzare idea to bring Chinese wiki editor's discussion as a rationale for deletion of any article in en wiki.  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Check the talk page, there a note up top for the Inclusion Criteria.  D r e a m Focus 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Unclear on why concerns of three editors of the Chinese Wikipedia is justification to delete the English Wiki's article.  Mr Fink ( talk ) 15:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reason behind the deletion is invalid in my opinion.  I think this article is very valuable, because it debunks many misconceptions that unfortunately are very frequent.  JagodowyLis ( talk ) 17:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep because no valid deletion rationale has been provided.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , the inclusion criteria are pretty much as clear as they could be (of course, we can discuss changing them if anyone has a proposal), and problems with the fuzziness of the definition of ""common"" or of anything else are dealt with, as is normal on Wikipedia, by referring to reliable sources.  W. P. Uzer ( talk ) 18:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Guan Xueting: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating ,  and China .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Much more results if one searches for the name with hanzi, rather than with pinyin.  I've added a couple of sources.  / Julle ( talk ) 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Julle, but aside from the sources about her abduction that Julle added to the article (which I am worried that some may consider them as run-out-of-mill or 1E), I have further added three sources from Sohu and China Daily which detailed her figure skating and post-retirement coaching career.  Fulfils GNG.  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"204 (Tyneside Scottish) Battery Royal Artillery: The article has not been edited in 3 years and only contains two independent sources.  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom .  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is capable of expansion: the articles relating to the other batteries of this regiment are substantial and this battery has quite a history as well.  I will expand it a bit.  Dormskirk ( talk ) 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have expanded the article and added a lot more sources: hopefully the proposal can now be withdrawn.  Dormskirk ( talk ) 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dormskirk.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Rickfive you are our expert here, your thoughts would be welcome.  Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after Dormskirk's work expanding the article.  Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Matthew Levitt: Very sporadic updates since then.  Cannot find any independent secondary sources (Washington Institute is main source of all the info, his employer, and is also a pro-Israeli thinktank?), and this reads more like some kinda WP:RESUME than anything else.  I cannot think of any good way to salvage this without useful secondary and independent sources.  User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 22:30, 27 May 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 May 27 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Terrorism , Massachusetts , New York ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:Prof#c1 on GS cites.  Also WP:Author for books on counter-terrorism.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC).  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] all the sources saying he is an important figure in counterterrorism are from his own books or the thinktank he is a part of User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The books alone are not enough but I found and added plenty of reviews (11 for 3 books), giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR .  I agree that there is also a case for WP:PROF#C1 .  The nominator's interjection of politics into the rationale for deletion is also troublesome.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you for edits and review citations.  i didnt see matthew levitts citation count actually, kinda agree on wp:prof 1 now that he is notable, so i kinda change to weak keep maybe.  not sure about wp:author.  pointing out the politics is not troubling i think.  his page reads very much like a wp:resume and does not indicate that the think tank he works at has been identified by both nytimes and others as both founded by aipac, run with money from aipac donors, and very much proisraeli.  much of his work reflects this bias (i found his article by seeing folks uncritically cite his work as bedrock truth on wikipedia pushing that muslim brotherhood/hamas had infiltrated many if not most muslim orgs) much of it still reads like a wp:resume i think, especially as article takes significant amount of info from the thinktank.  User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 04:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] also for future help in determining the notability of these types of articles, how did you find such book reviews?  honestly asking, the first few page of google search when i was looking were all just his own work or the think tank, didnt know where else to search or find other sources and would love new ways to find sources for articles User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 04:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found many of them using a JSTOR advanced search with his name as a quoted string, checking the box restricting the search results to reviews.  With that as a base, I filled in some more searching Google Scholar for works whose titles included the title of the book.  E.g. search string intitle:""Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God"".  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , on WP:AUTHOR grounds.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Convinced by arguments and citation count (didn't see them).  Still think the article could use some work.  User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 05:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Pokémon Sage: The game is incomplete and has only released a demo, and is a fanmade project.  While it's possible it may become notable in the future due to the fact that it seems to be an ongoing project, it doesn't seem like that it will reach completion for quite some time.  There just isn't any SIGCOV or in depth reviews to help in this regard.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The Complex article seems good, and while International Business Times is considered unreliable, it cites this , significant coverage from a source that is at least considered by WP:VG to be situational.  Combining that with Kotaku, I see a case for erring on the side of keeping the article.  The completion status of a game has never been related to how notable it was, as Metroid Dread had an article for numerous years prior to the actual game being a thing.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - even if you can't find more sources, there's already three present in the article.  A game being finished, incomplete, or cancelled, has no bearing on whether or not a game (or any product) is notable.  Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My concern with that was that the sources had seemingly dried up and had been dried up for a while.  There wasn't much beyond the few in the article.  There are quite literally only a handful of sources, which is not satisfying SIGCOV for me, especially when it comes to an unofficial game that hasn't received significant updates in close to ten years.  It really just doesn't seem generally notable.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The WP:GNG (SIGCOV) requires multiple sources, and 3 is multiple.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly - even 2 significant sources could potentially qualify if they are big enough, like 2 books on the subject, but the bar's somewhat higher for games since they tend to get shorter online articles, 3 still passes that bar.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the arguments presented, I suppose I'll have to agree on this.  Can't really argue against guidelines.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage discussed above and in the article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Peak School: Many of the other ESF schools have had their articles deleted or redirected to the ESF page.  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand.  59.152.195.28 ( talk ) 08:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , which says: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations , the general notability guideline , or both.  For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.  (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES )  Sources Cheung, Sonia (2015-01-14).  ""英基山頂小學 百年歷史國際學校"" [English Schools Foundation's Peak School, a century-old international school].  Sunday Kiss (in Chinese).  New Media Group [ zh ] .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-02 .  Retrieved 2024-04-02 .  The article notes: ""今次記者走訪了英基山頂小學，創校於1911年，是其中一間最歷史悠久的學校，創校至今已逾100個年頭。 百年歷史 山頂小學見證了香港的歷史。在1911年，一位滙豐銀行的英籍職員的太太感到山頂區需要一個讓小朋友學習的地方，她與幾位朋友把5、6個孩子聚在一起，在附近的平房開辦小型學校。因為學生與日俱增，平房很快便不敷應用，漸漸由家庭式小學校，變成有規模的學校，在約50年前，學校正式遷到現址。"" From Google Translate: ""This time the reporter visited the English Schools Foundation's Peak Primary School, which was founded in 1911. It is one of the oldest schools and has been in existence for more than 100 years. A century of history the Peak School has witnessed the history of Hong Kong. In 1911, the wife of a British employee of HSBC Bank felt that the Peak District needed a place for children to study. She and a few friends gathered 5 or 6 children together and opened a small school in a nearby bungalow. Due to the increasing number of students, the bungalow soon became insufficient for use. It gradually transformed from a family-style primary school into a large-scale school. About 50 years ago, the school officially moved to its current location"" Evans, Annemarie (2001-03-11).  ""Topic: Peak School 90 years"" .  Radio Television Hong Kong .  Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries .  This is a 14-minute audio discussion of the history of Peak School from Radio Television Hong Kong .  ""Peak School"" .  The China Mail .  1922-12-15 .  Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries .  The article notes: ""PEAK SCHOOL. DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZE. Yesterday the pupils of the Rank School gathered together on the occasion of the annual prize giving successful scholars receiving their prizes, at, the hands of Mrs. Claud Severn. The earlier part of the proceedings was devoted to an entertainment and the children acquitted themselves in creditable style with songs, recitations and dancing. Amongst those present to witness the performance were the Hon. Mr. E. Irving (Director of Education) and Mrs. Irving, Mr. E. D. O. Wolfe, (Capt. Supt. of Police), Lady Roca Davies and the Rev. V. H. Copley Moyle. "" THE ANNUAL REPORT.  "" The Head Mistress, Mrs. P. Y. Stark, then read the report for 1922 as follows: The School opened on January 5 with 58 pupils; the number of pupils present this month is 68. The attendance generally has been more regular than in 1921; during the Summer Term there was a distinct improvement. The health of ""the school has been good, only one or two cases of eyes and teeth requiring attention. "" ""Peak School: Yesterday's Prize Distribution"" . Hongkong Telegraph . 1917-03-14 . Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries . The article notes: ""PEAK SCHOOL.  Yesterday's Prize Distribution.  There was a good attendance of parents end friends of the children attending the Peak School, in the lounge of the Peak Hotel yesterday afternoon, on the occassion of the annual prize dis.  tribution.  The presentation was performed by Lady May, who was 80companied by the Misson May, and Mr. E. Ralphs, Inspector of Sotools.  Among those alsa pre- Rent were the Bishop of Victoria, Mrs, and Mins Lander.  After the scholars had given several part songs and recitations —in a manner which proved they are being well trained--Mr. Ralphs read his report on the school, which was ai follows:-- The school has now completed its third year, which closes with 50 papile on the roll :"" The number now is 64.32.new.pupils have been admitted and 13 have left during this period."" ""Governor Visits Peak School"" .  The China Mail .  1954-01-14 .  Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries .  The article notes: ""His Excellency the Governor and Lady Grantham this morning paid a visit to the Peak. School. They were received by the Deputy Director of Education (Mr L. G. Morgan) and the headmistress (Miss Bicheno). They toured the classrooms, displaying interest in the work of the scholars.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Peak School ( traditional Chinese : 山頂小學 ; simplified Chinese : 山顶小学 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to satisfy WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The Peak School at Plunkett's Road has been listed as a Grade III historic building since 2010.  Added information + ref to article.  Underwaterbuffalo ( talk ) 15:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per the sourcing found by Cunard.  Newspapers as sources can be problematic in that they may be largely primary sourced information, but these examples contain a mix of primary reporting and secondary history and analysis.  That provides something to write the article from.   The listing at grade III on a national register, per Underwaterbuffalo, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (architecture) on its own (and, in any case, that guideline status is unclear), but even at grade III it does clearly add to the presumption of notability, which is based on the historical status of this school.  The school is small but has been open for over 110 years, and it is one of the oldest Hong Kong schools.  Sourcing is sufficient to write an article.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 17:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Arcee: Almost entire article was full of OR and unsourced statements (crufts).  WP:BEFORE shows nothing but full of trivial sources.  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article is mostly primary sources, nothing indicates it meeting notability requirements.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article is an absolute mess and there's no obvious place to merge.  However, Transformation: A Personal Journey Through the British Transformers Comic contains a page about Arcee from 219-220 discussing sexist portrayals.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone could actually find sources to back up an article.  I still think it passes the WP:TNT threshold where it's totally useless.  If notable, it should be totally rewritten from scratch to sound less like a FANDOM article.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG.  As a mater of fact Arcee is probably the most well known female Transformer.  There is a lot of sources that can be used to expand the article.  [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] .  Wikipedia's recent deletionism and hostility towards character articles instead of actually improving bad articles is a terrible trend.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mostly trivial mentions and a whole bunch of CBR stuff, which is a content farm created solely for SEO optimization.  This WP:REFBOMB does not convince me of notability.  If she was actually notable, only a few good sources would suffice.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As indicated on the website's page, CBR has won various awards.  Also, what kind of sources exactly are required to prove notability?  This is a character who has existed for decades and received coverage by a variety of sources.  Some mention her extensively, others only briefly.  If you take them all together, even the trivial mentions can be useful in building the article.  -- PanagiotisZois ( talk ) 17:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Arcee was the first female Transformers to be created, and the first to appear in a major capacity; as well as often being the only female Transformer around. That alone displays some degree of notability, and there are various sources discussing the character; whether it's development or response. While the article definitely needs work, as StarTrekker showed, there are various sources about the character; whether it's about the G1 cartoon, Prime , the upcoming movie, or IDW comics. And in the case of the latter, there's also various sources relating to that and her status as a transgender woman, and overall representation of female Transformers. -- PanagiotisZois ( talk ) 10:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  [28] [29] [30] Just looking through scholarly sources, multiple sources discuss Arcee to a significant degree, and under different lenses.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 10:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A single person's senior paper is not an immediate indicator of notability.  Scholarly sources have to be cited by others to prove their impact.  Don't confuse self published works with published peer-reviewed journals.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : There is a lot of sources that are still available.  CastJared ( talk ) 03:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think that the totality of the coverage in CBR is significant and usable, and additional coverage in books and scholarly works puts this over the line for GNG.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Rosguill, there is quite a broad level of coverage per BASIC, including academic papers.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 17:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Hussein Al-Bishi: Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 02:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football .  Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 02:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Saudi Arabia .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 16:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per IAR/COMMONSENSE.  Over 50 caps for national team, appeared at 3 major tournaments.  Will there be coverage of him in Arabic sources?  Absolutely.  Giant Snowman 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Seriously...  I found [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , and [49] , among many more Arabic sources... definitely has many offline sources having been significant Saudi player in pre internet age...  Article needs improve not deletion...  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , lazy nomination with no BEFORE done. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 04:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Al Riyadiyah has some coverage of Al-Bishi that looks significant: This interview includes a paragraph on his career exploits, and This confirms that he scored a goal in Al Hilal SFC 's 1989 King Cup final victory (definitely not significant coverage, but an important achievement for sure).  I'm going to look further, but unless someone has checked Arabic-language sources, we won't know if SIGCOV exists.  Jogurney ( talk ) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I checked online Arabic language coverage and it's pretty insignificant.  A few sources mention Al-Bishi's career achievements, but most of the coverage consists of interviews with the subject on recent developments at his former club or regarding the league or national team.  That said, he played in the 1980s and 1990s, and I can't access any coverage from that era online.  I understand that Al Jazirah (newspaper) has an online archive going back to the 1980s, but I'm not skilled enough in Arabic to use it effectively.  Overall, knowing Al-Bishi's importance to Al Hilal and the national team, and our lack of access to sources published contemporaneously with his career, I think this is a reasonable time to WP:IAR .  Jogurney ( talk ) 17:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Saman Amarasinghe: I don't see coverage that we'd use for PROF. Just a working educator, nothing notable here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Computing , California , Massachusetts ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , probably Speedy Keep .  Strong publication record with an h-factor of 74 and four pubs with over 1000 cites.  Two professional fellowships, so he qualifies under #C1 with the addition of #C3 to prove that peer recognition is not fake.  The page does need better citing, but not delete.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 00:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep WP:PROF category 3 -- fellowship in a highly prestigeous honorary society.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I concur that he appears to pass WP:NPROF on multiple criteria.  Article needs work, but deletion is not clean-up .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is probably going to be kept on the basis of what I consider technicalities.  Association for Computing Machinery may be prestigious, and a fellowship in it may be relevant per NPROF #3, but we wouldn't be able to tell it from the article; there's a link, but it announces that there's 58 new fellows--so how special is it?  H-factor is of course always problematic, as are publications and cites.  Let's not forget that we're writing an encyclopedia here, and if there's nothing to write because everything is based on organizational websites announcing ""fellowship"" or databases showing a ranking, what are we doing?  That's right, resume writing, where all the content is derives from faculty pages or from the subject's own publications.  Drmies ( talk ) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  ACM Fellow is an unambiguous pass of WP:PROF#C3 (potential COI: I am one too) and he has very strong citations, passing WP:PROF#C1 .  These are not technicalities.  One doesn't become a full professor in a tech field at MIT without significant accomplishments, and these indicators show that he has them.  The article needs cleanup but WP:DINC .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3 , as argued above.  Deletion is not cleanup , and the first pass at cleaning up was very easy.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clear pass of WP:Prof .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Comment .  This person fails to meet the notability criteria.  The citation rate of this person's work is not high enough.  This person does not even have any significant achievement or affiliation.  It is only right to delete this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.158.179.229 ( talk ) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This IP is not acting in good-faith, they are just WP:HOUNDING David.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per WP:NPROF #1 and #3 (ACM fellow).  The counter-arguments do not apply here, see NPROF.  -- hroest 07:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets NPROF for Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery which is backed by a citation.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  Meets two NPROF criteria; one is sufficient.  If an article needs cleaning up, let's clean it up.  Qflib ( talk ) 20:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of Fate/Grand Order characters: The bigger issue though is a notability one: while Fate itself definitely has reactions, the harder argument is that FGO's characters on their own do in an overarching way that makes it work for WP:N or WP:LISTN .  Even reception for Mash and Ritsuka would be more for them, and that could be worked into the parent game article (and as someone that tried to do a writeup on Mash, I'm not confident the sources are there) Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Redirect The article is massive with no substance, cites all of ONE source (Anime News Network), and it might as well be written in Martian for people like me who know nothing about the games.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Changing my vote to redirect.  Why the flip do I keep forgetting this is an option?  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above, article doesn't explain why this is a notable list/topic either.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - I don't think it should be deleted, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP , since it does have somewhere to be redirected to, which is the main Fate/Grand Order article.  While I find WP:TNT to be applied far too often to articles that are not in a very good state, I think this one of those articles that actually deserves it, should it ever be spun back out.  Mash and Ritsuka might be better off with their own articles in this case.  MoonJet ( talk ) 08:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Per MoonJet - despite character lists being valid spin-offs, Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and there has to be something to go on to show notability.  As it is, people are better served by checking the TVTropes character list.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Nothing more to say.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While there is lot of plot summary fancruft, I think this passes NLIST.  Aside of numerous game guides/tier lists and such that one can easily find, here are some more analytical sources.  Granted, some are not great (listiclis is common here), but IMHO likely sufficient for keeping this as a stand-alone list.  Here's a list of best sources I found - I think it gets stronger near the end :P  1) TheGamer 2020 - not a listicle: "" Fate/Grand Order: My Servants Have My Back "" 2) ScreenRant 2020 listicle - but I think it counts for NLIST: "" Fate/Grand Order's Weirdest Real-Life Historical Figures "" 3) TheGamer 2020 - article about a specific minor character How Lobo Broke (Then Fixed) My Heart In Fate/Grand Order "" 4) GameRant 2023 listicle "" Fate Grand Order: Best 5-Star Servants In The Game "" 5) ScreenRant 2022 listicle "" Fate/Grand Order: The Top 10 Servants Coming to English, Ranked "" 5) CBR 2020 listicle (overalps with TV show but IMHO still relevant) "" Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia: Character Guide To Every Servant "" 6) academic (if likely low tier journal) article profiling another FGO minor character: Baihaqi, Iqbal, Hafiz Aziz Ahmad, and Dana Waskita. ""Adaptation of historical figures into mobile game characters (case study: Hijikata Toshizo from Fate/Grand Order). "" Journal of Games, Game Art, and Gamification 7, no. 2 (2022): 21-28.  7) another academic article this time covering multiple characters Tomotani, João V., and Rodrigo Brincalepe Salvador.  ""Testing the Astolfo Effect on newly-released servants in Fate/Grand Order."" (2022).  8) again, an academic study of one of the characters Yosugandi, Evan Marchel, and Hendra Kaprisma.  ""Historical figures in “Fate/Grand Order”: adapting Anastasia Romanova.""  RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism 28, no. 4 (2023): 712-723.  9) there are various more or less SIGCOV-meeting discussions of FGO characters in a number of other academic works, I'll just leave two examples: academic book chapter on Community-based history learning: Fate/Grand Order's Online Fan Networks and an academic article Informal Strategies for Learning History in Japanese Mass Media Visual Culture: A Case Study of the Mobile Game Fate/Grand Order .  PS.  Last thought: this list is linked from Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia which otherwise might need its own list.  Even more relevant is Fate/Grand Order: Final Singularity-Grand Temple of Time: Solomon which features brief appearances of many characters.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ping participants so you can review my argument/sources: @ Beemer69 @ Greenish Pickle! @ Kung Fu Man @ MoonJet @ Traumnovelle @ Wcquidditch @ Zxcvbnm Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like some of these may work for individual character articles, but a bigger issue is that a lot of these are either about the game or the Fate franchise itself. Like the Astolfo article isn't commentary about the characters, but how introducing a new character into Fate as a series often supercedes search results for the real world counterpart (the Astolfo effect as it were, which is due to a character that originated from *another* Fate work). As useful as a lot of these can be for specific character, even I'm wary about the idea on building a list up on primarily valnet lists Piotrus...and I'm usually in favor of using Valnet as a source.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and cleanup/expand per Piotrus.  When someone who often advances a TNT argument on fictional topics thinks this is salvageable, we should listen.  Jclemens ( talk ) 15:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This reminds me of the case with the deletion request regarding the List of Paper Mario characters article in where while the initial article seems to be that of an unnoteworthy subject, references are clearly evident with Piotrus but that this article could use a rewrite in order to comply with notability standards as it's in a rough state as of writing this.  SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 23:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect The article is long.  I'll give the creator of it that.  But it lacks sources.  I agree with the nom as the main source is Anime News Network.  MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 12:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It seems like a split consensus between redirect and keep.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Keep .   LISTN specifically sets out lists where each individual member might not be notable, but the collective as a whole is notable, as a valid case.   I think that personally, FGO should be banned or the like (& other gacha), but it grudgingly is a big deal with zillions of dollars flowing around.   Sourcing is certainly tricky due to the game's most devoted fanbase being in Japan, but I have no doubt that a reception-of-the-FGO characters section can be written, albeit possibly with Japanese sources in addition to the ones linked by Piotrus above.   (Of course, I agree that part of the issue is that the reception is tied up across appearances across the franchise, so maybe there needs to be ""Characters of Fate"" article...  but it seems the existing style is separate articles per work, since stay/night has its own separate characters article.  And this article is already very long, and would get longer if it was turned into ""Characters of Fate"".  Oh well.).  SnowFire ( talk ) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per the sources uncovered here since my initial redirect vote, I'm in favor of keeping this.  Though, it does need a lot of clean-up.  MoonJet ( talk ) 17:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but needs both a ""Design"" chapter and a ""Reception"" chapter to better demonstrate notability.  From the discussion above, I believe there are plenty of sources for these chapters.  Supergrey1 ( talk ) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Joey D'Auria: The references in the article do not show notability and there don't appear to be other references available online.  -- Ferien ( talk ) 21:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly meets WP:NACTOR .  17 years as the lead of The Bozo Show and hundreds of voice roles in television and film.  Novemberjazz 05:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Per the subject-specific WP:NACTOR criteria that overrides GNG.  His contributions in the voice acting realm can rightly be described as ""prolific"" due to the vast amount of media he performed in.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you sure this overrides GNG?  It is under #Additional criteria and that says conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.  I thought that GNG overrides these specific subject-specific notability guidelines.  -- Ferien ( talk ) 13:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is infact the other way around, subject specific guidelines override GNG.  While they are also not definitive in stating something is notable, there has to be a really solid reason why it would be an exception.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not really correct either.  Everyone has their opinions, but both are merely different indicators of what may or may be notable.  Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   For sure an F-list voice actor, and the ""meat"" of the article will probably always be something of a stub due to the weak references, but the notability inclusion criteria for actors is pretty low.  SnowFire ( talk ) 16:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - To think someone could host a television show for 17 years and not be notable is.. .exceedingly bad judgement is exceedingly unlikely.  Please think hard about what exactly our notability requirements are aiming to do.  This...isn't it.  Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sergecross73 , I don't think saying I have exceedingly bad judgement was necessary.  I probably could have checked a little harder, I'm aware of that now, but I'm not an active editor at AfD, and considering we've now got to a level where my judgement is being unnecessarily attacked here, that is completely irrelevant to the article at hand, that's probably for good reason.  It was snowing heavily before you turned up – I already got the message, thanks.  -- Ferien ( talk ) 21:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize if my comment was over the top, I just find it frustrating when there's so many bad articles out there, and people target articles with a relatively easy-to-envision path to notability instead.  Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's understandable and I will certainly pay more attention in any future AfD nominations I make.  -- Ferien ( talk ) 17:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, let's not WP:BITE users who try to bring things to AfD.  I'd rather have some articles determined to be notable and kept than non-notable articles not be brought here at all out of fear of being called an editor with bad judgement.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He is a notable person.  Kinkordada ( talk ) 18:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the claims above.  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly fulfills WP:NACTOR .  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Hilary Critchley: Ozzie10aaaa ( talk ) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Medicine ,  and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , at least, is a pass of WP:PROF#C3 .  Likely some of the other fellowships also confer notability, and her Google Scholar profile shows high enough citations for a pass of #C1 as well.  The nomination is faulty, because it only considers WP:GNG -based notability; PROF is an independent notability guideline that does not involve the amount of publicity the subject has obtained.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not sure about... other fellowships also confer notability , IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk ) 23:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein, PROF#C3.  — siro χ o 00:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Agree Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh passes WP:PROF, and we have also counted FMedSci in the past.  Citations in GS [1] are very strong (1826,792,768,716,666 and a further ~30 over 200) and also meet WP:PROF.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : FRSE is a clincher (have added a link to the RSE source as extra verification).  The exhibition mentioned in the Herald source would be good too, but I can't actually find it in the online copy of the newspaper, sadly.  Page no in the ref would have been helpful.  But clearly notable.  Pam D 07:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thincat Thanks for finding the Herald source - I wasn't patient enough to zoom all the pages up and find that article!  Pam D 11:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , since meets PROF#C3.  @ Ozzie10aaaa , you are right that the other fellowships do not contribute to notability.  As in many British societies they are a senior membership level that one applies for and pays higher dues.  Often there is an Honorary Fellow level in those societies which does meet C3.  However there was an independent source for the RSE fellowship in the article when it was nominated for deletion.  The link was dead, as are many, since it was an http address and the society had converted to https addresses.  That security change has caused a lot of dead links for us, so something to check before nominating.  StarryGrandma ( talk ) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] StarryGrandma Purely for clarity, I'd say FMedSci definitely also counts, as an honorary elected fellowship of the Academy of Medical Sciences , which also checks out with source (though wasn't in the article at time of nomination.) I probably should not have rolled the other fellowships up into one sentence.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 18:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Espresso Addict , like the US National Academy of Sciences , members of the Academy of Medical Sciences are elected for ""exceptional contributions' as explained here , so definitely  counts as meeting C3.  StarryGrandma ( talk ) 02:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS record.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep .   Some of the highly-cited papers are highly coauthored, but enough are not to give confidence of WP:NPROF C1.   I also believe the WP:NPROF C3 case.   Time to close this as a WP:SNOW keep?  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 08:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per those above.  Sufficiently productive as an academic to merit an article.  BD2412 T 02:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice: Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it.  Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca.  It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources.  One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and California .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I definitely agree that it's surprising that aren't more independent sources featuring the Arch.  That being said, I was able to find a few independent sources discussing the Arch, namely: - A publication from from the San Jose Museum of Art - here - An article from the Social and Public Art Resource Center - here - A feature on GPSmyCity - here - An article by Mosaic Atlas - here (Admittedly, Mosaic Atlas is partnered with SJSU, but ostensibly they're an independent source) Personally, I think the article should be kept , but adding the More citations needed template and incorporating the above sources.  SammySpartan ( talk ) 23:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I saw the SPARC piece during my search, but Judy Baca is a [ of SPARC ] and the author of the piece.  It can't be independent.  The GPSMyCity piece appears to be copied from an official SJSU page here .  And the final piece published by SJSU cannot be independent when establishing notability of a structure at SJSU.  With only the SJMoA piece you found, we still need more sources to get this over GNG or NBUILDING.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per new sources above, and an artwork is usually kept if the housing institution, gallery, museum, etc., has catalogued it in some form.  This is a specific artwork, not a building, and already has enough to pass GNG related to Wikipedia visual arts pages.  As for its value to Wikipedia, please note the navboxes which now include it and the benefit of including this artwork within them (the page and this discussion inspired the creation of the {{ Dolores Huerta }} navbox, thanks Sammy Spartan and Dclemens1971).  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the artwork is one of the few highly visible landmarks of the SJ public art scene.  It has sources on its artistry, historical relevance to Cesar Chavez, and local relevance to San Jose.  Cristiano Tomás ( talk ) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  @ Cristiano Tomás I agree with you that it is a highly visible landmark.  @ Randy Kryn I'd also like to find a way to keep it.  But can you show any reliable, secondary, significant coverage that is independent of San Jose State University, the artist Judy Baca who made it, or of the organization she founded?  Those sources are what I can't turn up, and that's what is required under policy for GNG and SNGs related to art/buildings.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't a building, so building notability wouldn't apply.  Visual art pages are usually accepted as established with sources from the holding museum or organization, in this case the University mentions would apply toward notability.  And wouldn't the University mentions be secondary (primary would be the work itself)?  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no SNG for artworks, so it has to pass GNG, which requires independent sources.  Sources from the entity that commissioned the artwork (SJSU) and the artist who made it (Baca) cannot be independent from it for purposes of assessing notability.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No SNG for artworks?  I thought there was and, if not, there should be as sourcing to a museum or gallery (which the University would qualify as) has been the standard and used as the sole source on maybe thousands of pages.  Better call in (they may be tired of me calling upon their knowledge) Another Believer and Johnbod .  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Aside from that it would seem that the new sources added above, such as this from the San Jose Museum of Art , would qualify.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with new sources as previously stated.  Additionally, speaking purely from an art history perspective here, Baca is clearly notable enough and this work is clearly prominent enough to merit inclusion. -- 19h00s ( talk ) 19:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as even though there is a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion.  But there is a valid concern about sourcing so hopefully more can be located over the next few days.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Nir Yitzhak massacre: Not notable.  We have a dozen of articles of massacres about the 7 October attack.  We shouldn't give an article to every village where civilians were killed.  That's a very low and unprecedented threshold of notability.  This article is also pretty similar to most of the articles of that dozen.  It can easily be merged and covered in another one as it is short.  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 10:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine .  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 10:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't see why its a problem.  Common that events are broken down into components.  Especially with 2023 Israel-Hamas war article being so big.  Massacre mentioned by several sources.  [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] (A TV documentary filmed on the event).  Article is also extensive enough for it to be adequate.  [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] more sources that mention it.  Actually the event has a rather unique interesting story.  Also received lots of media attention, especially in Hebrew.  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Furthermore, the 2023 Israel Hamas War talk is trying to make more articles to take down the load from the heavy main article.  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel , where all of the less notable attacks on locales near Gaza should be clumped.  Worth noting that the source quoted for the three deaths at this locale refers to the '7 Oct massacre' as a collective - it's not really asserting that the events at this locale individually constitute a standalone massacre, but rather that the events at this locale form part of the wider '7 Oct massacre' across the Gaza-adjacent locales.  The NYT and BBC sources do not even appear to mention ""Nir Yitzhak"", making whatever information is linked to those particular sources WP:SYNTH , and leaving us with only the Times of Israel, Ynet and a few other Hebrew sources, and no WP:RSP .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel , not really significant enough to be merged.  AryKun ( talk ) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into article about Nir Yitzhak where it is already mentioned in a single sentence in the History section but not wiki-linked from that article.  This article should be a sub-topic of that kibbutz's history.  - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 22:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Hamas attack on Nir Yitzhak ; It's important to clarify that notability in Wikipedia is not based on the number of casualties.  As per WP:NOTABILITY , the key criterion is whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  In this case, the Nir Yitzhak incident has been reported on extensively by reputable sources, as evidenced by the links provided by Homerethegreat .  This coverage demonstrates the global and persistent interest in the event, fulfilling the general notability guideline.  Furthermore, the argument for a ""move"" rather than a ""delete"" or ""merge"" is supported by WP:EVENTCRIT , which emphasizes the lasting effects and historical significance of events.  The fact that a massacre was prevented (to a significant extent) by the Kibbutz's rapid response team who were able to repel the invaders, adds a dimension to the story, highlighting its significance in a broader context.  The term ""attack"" provides a more accurate description of the event .  Marokwitz ( talk ) 19:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP: Hi, I read the rules for this so hopefully my contribution is allowed here (did not see an EC tag).  :The Nir Yitzchak Attack is significant due to the resistance at the Kibbutz against Hamas - similar to stories from World War Two where there were select uprisings that fought the Nazis.  :We know that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was the largest and most consistent, but Wikipedia still has articles about the other uprisings much much smaller such as Czortków uprising and even the Lwów uprising.  These are not judged by casualties but significance of resistance.  :Also, for consistency with the following list: List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war the page serves as a valid link.  Chavmen ( talk ) 23:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC) The page is indeed covered by WP:ARBPIA and so related internal project discussions are EC restricted.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 05:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources in article meet GNG, eg: BBC, New York Times, Times of Israel.  // Timothy :: talk 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP: - As in similar events that have articles, also meet WP:NOTABILITY .  Ovedc ( talk ) 04:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : yet another article about a massacre that some'd like to conceal, I mean, suppress ?  are there massacres that deserve their articles and others that don't?  I'm in favor of keeping the article and I hope it will be preserved! thank you!  Sg7438 ( talk ) 08:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for that summary of all of our motives; unfortunately, some of us just think that this would be better served by a short section at the main article, for the same reason we haven't created an article for every Israeli bomb strike that kills 5 Palestinians.  AryKun ( talk ) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] hello, I understand, but I'm sad to see that some massacres deserve their own article, while others deserve a simple summary... trivializing the facts, smoothing out the thinking...  Sg7438 ( talk ) 10:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sg7438 , stop attributing hidden intentions to people.  There is no intention here to trivialize crimes nor of ""smooth out the thinking"".  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 10:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm just giving my opinion and my perception of this proposal to delete the article on this massacre...  I hope you're keeping the other articles on the other massacres. .  Sg7438 ( talk ) 10:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep even though the casualty count was indeed low, there were a few hostages taken from the village as well and this might evolve and become a longer and more significant article as time goes by and more information about the aftermath of the massacre will be brought to light, in my opinion, this is too early to decide whether or not this article is worth an article of it's own, or should it be merged to the main article about the war.  Elie goodman ( talk ) 11:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Sock strike Daniel ( talk ) 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: There is a clear split here, relisting for more discussion as opposed to a simple NC close.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Timothy.  \\ Loksmythe // ( talk ) 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Timothy.  With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per notability comments of Homerthegreat, and my previous comments on similar articles: notable, verifiable and neutral articles of this nature from both sides of the combat broaden Wikipedia knowledge of the combat.  If any civilians can be shown to verifiably have died then this article would be as notable as the others reporting Israeli or Palestinian casualties.  I do think the article can do with some additional referencing and copy editing, so I’ll add it to my to-do.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  As proven above, in the article, and elsewhere, all these massacres are inherently notable.  This particular article is long and unique enough not to merge.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Christopher W. Shaw: There is no coverage about the subject other than being a PhD holder and author of three books.  The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki.  I undeleted the page while it was in draftspace.  I would have moved it back to draft for possible expansion, but not doing it per WP:DRAFTOBJECT .  Jay 💬 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  Jay 💬 10:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment How is “The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki” a valid reason for deletion?  I think the extensive reviews could justify an article for at least one of his books.  Lack of mention demonstrates a gap in coverage on Wikipedia, not non-notability.  Thriley ( talk ) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration .  Thriley ( talk ) 14:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The books have reviews but no articles nor mentions on enwiki.  This is a bizarre statement to try and claim non-notability by.  Why would something have to be mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia or already have an article here in order to qualify for notability?  Regardless, the reason why the reviews matter is because that's why the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR #3.  And the article can be easily expanded with those reviews to discuss his career in making those books and why.  Silver seren C 17:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , possibly even speedy keep for the straightforward WP:AUTHOR pass and the lack of an accurate deletion rationale.  The article, as nominated, had more than sufficient reviews already cited to indicate that WP:AUTHOR was satisfied.  The no coverage about the subject claim is either irrelevant or erroneous, take your pick: the coverage that matters for an author is coverage of their writing, not about their favorite ice-cream flavor.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The book reviews support that WP:NAUTHOR #3 is met.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep reason for nomination is unclear, and he appears to meet N:AUTHOR to my reading.  Star Mississippi 21:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable author.  the article needs organization.  Lightburst ( talk ) 13:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"2023 Hyndburn Borough Council election: WP:TOOSOON presently, should remain in draft until there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG .   Currently there is not enough in-depth coverage.  Onel 5969 TT me 12:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage will be very local and this has always been the case for UK local elections results.  Analysis etc may come closer to polling day.  doktorb words deeds 12:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the election is in 5 days and coverage only happens in the local area, as each election is not national.  Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( talk ).  16:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - and neither keep ! vote is based in policy.  Onel 5969 TT me 21:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We've been through this hundreds of times.  Local councils in the UK are notable, elections to them are backed up with sources on the local council websites and the BBC local election coverage, and most of them have coverage on hyperlocal websites which didn't exist at the start of Wikipedia so through agreement they've been allowed to stay.  doktorb words deeds 21:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And still, not a policy-based argument.  Onel 5969 TT me 21:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability and sources are policy-based.  I can keep this up all night.  doktorb words deeds 23:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Plus all the other local elections in the UK work this way and are still live.  Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( talk ).  21:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the same reasons we've discussed on all the others.  Your interpretation of notability and sourcing is simply not supported by consensus for these UK local elections pages.  Stortford ( talk ) 19:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This latest 2023-page, is just a consistant-continuation of ALL the previous such-wiki-pages, submitted since 2010-onwards, to the present day, all of which have kept to the same guidelines throughout, regarding each and every Hyndburn local borough council election over more than a decade.  So,""PLEASE KEEP / DO NOT DELETE"".  Warrenlm ( talk ) 10:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bruxton ( talk ) 04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as these election results have (already) received direct and detailed coverage in several reliable sources, such as BBC , Manchester Evening News and a local newspaper group's website .  It therefore meets all five of the criteria under WP:GNG Markpackuk ( talk ) 21:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No reason what so ever to delete this, it forms part of the 2023 election series.  Littlemonday ( talk ) 21:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , though too many of these election articles are lazily (and prematurely) written using primary sources, I've now added several news articles which are actually about the election.  Sionk ( talk ) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Pernem railway station: Train stations are not inherently notable unless they meet general or a subject specific notability guideline.  Nothing special about this train station Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India .  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge with List of railway stations in India#P per nom.  The article is largely unsourced, with the only 3 sources concerningly being from Railway Inquiry.  The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 13:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with the article about the line it's on.  Deletion would be harmful.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: A target would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It sounds like there are two different target articles being proposed.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The line that it is on is Konkan Railway and that is very clearly the better target for merger, given that there are lots of things about the Konkan Railway that discuss its various stations together, in context, starting with Vaidya 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVaidya2003 ( help ) which has Pernem in the route description on page 300 for example.   Amusingly, the entire ""Location"" section of the article at hand, which is a fair fraction of the entire article content, is about the line and not about the station.   I wouldn't merge any of it, personally, though, because a lot of it appears to be Wikipedia editor speculation .  Quite a lot of the stations on the Konkan Railway, including the next two stops along Thivim railway station and Karmali railway station , have these woeful articles, sourced only to the railway company's own rail listings.   I suspect from a quick look around that there's enough sourcing out there to make articles for all of these, but no-one has been trying to write things properly for years.   There might be enough on the multiple Pernem tunnel collapses to make this a fully-fledged article, for instance, and in that respect I lean towards keeping rather than merger.   No need for the administrator deletion tool in either eventuality, though.  Uncle G ( talk ) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vaidya, Balkrishna C. (2003).  ""Konkan Railway transport — a case study in regional development"".  In Vaidya, Balkrishna C. (ed.).  Geography of Transport Development in India .  Concept Publishing Company.  pp. 294–314.  ISBN 9788170229575 .  Keep .  Sufficient references available to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above.  Referencing in India can be a bit of challenge.  Not a reson to delete or nominate all Indian railway stations.  This one is relatively well referenced.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"NYPD Cricket League: Non-notable tournament which ran twice, over 15 years ago.  No WP:LASTING .  Coverage is WP:ROUTINE .  AA ( talk ) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Cricket ,  and New York .  AA ( talk ) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 3,4 and 6 are perfectly acceptable, with coverage at home and in Australia.  Notability is not temporary, but the article does need updating.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Police .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This one looks to pass WP:GNG with sourcing in the article and more being found in a simple search.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this article seems to pass WP:GNG and has adequate sourcing.  -- WellThisIs TheReaper Grim 01:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Some sources are weak, but the article passes WP:GNG .  Waqar 💬 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Global Business Network: I did not see any reliable, independent sourcing that covered the company in detail and is not just a routine announcement like acquisition.  The main source that exists, ""Long Boom or Bust"", The New York Times , is not independent of the subject since it is a profile of its CEO.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , England , California , Massachusetts ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – there are plenty of sources even in the article.  Garreau (1994) and Levin (2009) provide significant coverage, and Turner (2006) discusses GBN at length.  -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  At least two out of three of the sources you gave are not Wikipedia:Independent which is required for the notability guideline.  Levin (2009).  Journalist is high-profile and established at Slate.com, but this specific article seems like a promotional/commissioned piece since it only talks about the company.  More importantly, it is about 60% an interview of the CEO (not independent).  For example, see this excerpt: Today, I’ve asked the world’s leading provider of futuristic consulting to help me think about America’s downfall.  Garreau (1994), https://www.wired.com/1994/11/gbn/ .  Not independent: First, see the excerpt For information about GBN, e-mail info@gbnetwork.com or look for GBN's World Wide Web home page at http://www.well.com/Community/gbn/ .  Second, on Joel Garreau 's CV, it's written: he has served as a scenario-planner with Global Business Network, and is principal of The Garreau Group – a network of sources committed to understanding who we are, how we got that way, and where we’re headed.  This leaves the sourcing lacking for WP:GNG let alone for the more strict WP:NCORP .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The last one also seems to fail WP:INDEPENDENT .  For example, see the sentence Most of all, I thank Stewart Brand, whose openness to this project has been a lesson in itself.  on page 10.  Stewart Brand is listed as one of the founders.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .  More than enough in-depth coverage found in multiple independent reliable sources, including The Economist (1998) ; The New York Times article by Steve Lohr (1998); the TIME magazine article (2004) by Chris Taylor.  In terms of coverage of its reports, there are articles like the one in Earth Island Journal about the GBN scenario planning for the U.S. Department of Defense.  Yes, articles that incorporate interview content need to be evaluated carefully, but the articles mentioned above do include independent observations, analysis, and assessment of the subject, in addition to fact reporting and fact checking.  Agree though that the most in-depth article of all, the one by Joel Garreau in Wired , does not count as independent, as the author himself was a GBN member when he wrote it.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree to retract nomination based the new sources brought forward.  New York Times article is a CEO profile so not independent however.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks @ बिनोद थारू but you cannot simply categorize articles in broad strokes as ""interview"" or ""CEO profile"" and then dismiss them.  You have to read and analyze the content and assess what is there.  In this case, the article is written by Steve Lohr, a respected business journalist for The New York Times , and when you read it, it's not a CEO ""puff piece"" like you might find in Inc. magazine; it is analytical and explores criticisms and shows that Lohr took time to do his own independent research and interview other experts for their opinions.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is the excerpt from the New York Times article: Peter Schwartz is a professional marketer of big, brow-furrowing ideas.  By 2020, he says, the internal combustion engine will probably have gone the way of the dodo bird as conventional automobiles are replaced by hybrid cars powered by fuel cells that mostly use hydrogen.  A telecommunications revolution, Mr. Schwartz believes, is coming even sooner.  Thanks to big satellite projects, connections for high-speed Internet, telephone and video will be commonplace in six years or so.  The world will be wired, inexpensively.  By 2005, teen-agers in villages in developing countries will be chatting on video phones as they surf the Net.  By 2010, Mr. Schwartz predicts, breakthroughs in biotechnology and gene therapy may enable science to reverse aging and extend life.  The prospect here, he insists, is not merely a prolonged old age but living for decades in one's biological 40's.  Yet these are mere ingredients of Mr. Schwartz's biggest idea, which he calls the Long Boom.  Its thesis is that the world is witnessing what Mr. Schwartz calls the beginnings of a global economic boom on a scale never experienced before, driven by waves of fundamental technological change and free-market economics.  Based on how it is written and how it lends all the attention to the CEO, I concluded that it is a promotional piece for the company.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why you have to read the article all the way to the end!  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"WakeyLeaks: Andre 🚐 03:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The scandal itself is clearly notable with cited significant coverage from The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Athletic , ESPN , etc. over multiple years and comparisons to other notable college football scandals.  The scandal is called ""Wakeyleaks"" in each and every article and has become the common name for the controversy.  PK-WIKI ( talk ) 08:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2016 Wake Forest Demon Deacons football team#Leaks of plays where it's covered in more detail and actually explained.  There's definitely reliable sources, but the article is a single sentence long and doesn't appear significant enough (long term) and seems better suited to be a part of the season article.  If the event were more significant in terms of long term impact, I'd propose redirecting to Wake Forest Demon Deacons football .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  Additionally, the Wakeyleaks scandal (not the 2016 season) still has articles being written about it in 2023 that show the long-term significance vis-à-vis other events such as the Michigan Wolverines football sign-stealing scandal .  PK-WIKI ( talk ) 17:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article certainly needs some fleshing out, but the scandal is notable and worthy of its own page.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject easily meets the WP:GNG and is WP:SUSTAINED per the sources provided by PK-WIKI.  The article does need some work but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  If the decision is against keeping, I'd recommend a redirect to Wake Forest Demon Deacons football as a WP:ATD .  User:Let'srun 14:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"El Camino Real (Reed): Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: Armenian Dances ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The Hounds of Spring ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Keep Armenian Dances : This is one of the most performed compositions in the literature and is considered part of the core repertoire.  Would prefer keeping the other two as well, but there is limited information available online, it seems.  Here are some sources: Begian, Harry (October 1985).  ""Alfred Reed's ""Armenian Dances"" (Part I): A Rehearsal Analysis.""  The Instrumentalist Salzman, Timothy, ed.  (2003).  ""Alfred Reed.""  A Composer's Insight: Thoughts, Analysis, and Commentary on Contemporary Masterpieces for Wind Bands .  Vol.  1.  Meredith Music.  pp. 119–130 Gaines, David Alan (Fall 1988).  ""A Core Repertoire Of Concert Music For High School Band.""  Journal of Band Research Montellano, Raquel G. (2004).  On a Hymnsong of Philip Bliss and Armenian Dances, Part I: A Conductor's Study Guide of Two Popular Works.  (MM thesis).  The University of Texas at El Paso Thanks!  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 03:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Armenian Dances per",keep
"List of former Foothill Transit Bus Lines: If there is any valuable content, it can be merged to parent article.  I suggested PROD but the creator decided to drop an angry message on my talk page.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 06:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 06:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator .  The author of the only significant content has asked for the page to be deleted after it was blanked.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Robert A. Kinzie III: [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Hawaii .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They would have to contact wikipedia themselves.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have contacted Wiki, particularly because this was a first-time class project, and have been advised that I needed to initiate the discussion for this request.  It seems to me that a family should have some rights in what Wiki publishes about their loved one.  Akoawahine ( talk ) 20:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is dead so they have no say in this.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""He"" is their husband, father, and grandfather.  Akoawahine ( talk ) 21:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Family still does not have any say over an article about a deceased relative.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 18:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : No valid reason for deletion has been presented.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't think we should let people request a relative's article be deleted.  I don't see anything in the article that constitutes a privacy violation.  aaronneallucas ( talk ) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 , and no valid reason for deletion has been advanced.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well sourced article with an easy pass at PROF. ""The family"" doesn't seem aware that the individual is notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They are aware, they are grieving, and they request deletion because RAK III would not have approved.  Akoawahine ( talk ) 20:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia does not care about the wishes of the dead.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : To put it a little gentler: while we do sometimes take into account a living person's wishes if they are a low-profile notable individual, I'm not sure we've ever done so if the subject is deceased and it is their family who requests deletion.  If his research is significant in some way in the field of biology/zoology, as the article and his citation count suggests, then it is likely he is a notable figure as a leading academic in those fields.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looking at his scholar profile, he seems to be a prominent academic in his area of study.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : While unfortunate that the family feels this way about the article, he passes WP:PROF and seems notable.  ULPS ( talk ) 12:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Comment: I was assigned to create this biography for a college course, and if Kinzie's family would prefer for it to be deleted I would like to abide by their wishes Kmalco13 ( talk ) 20:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One it has been put on Wikipedia, it is up to the community to discus and an administrator to make the final decision.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep not a BLP, plenty of evidence of passing PROF. It's not maudlin, or especially laudatory, nor obviously an attack.  If there is a problem they can contact me or an admin with more details.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. If there is private information, such as date of birth, that can be removed without resorting to AfD.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Andrew J. Newman: No indication his work is significant in his field, no major award or position, no prestigious position.   This looks like a garden variety academic of no special note.  Bonewah ( talk ) 14:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria #1 as equivalent to a named chair at Edinburgh (holds two chairs in fact) Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe it's one chair, whose designated subject area is ""Islamic Studies and Persian"" (not one chair in ""Islamic Studies"" and another in ""Persian"", which would be weird).  XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Enough published book reviews (of at least three books) for an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:AUTHOR did not state published book counts, but rather notability of work, and this person has not published any notable work.  Hadal1337 ( talk ) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I didnt actually put in my ! vote.   According to @ Necrothesp : here and his bio at University of Edinburg, he holds person chairs, not named chairs (if there is a difference).   Additionally, Hadal1337 is correct, WP:AUTHOR calls for his work to be ""a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"" in addition to that work being reviewed.  Bonewah ( talk ) 17:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have struck your ! vote, because like all other participants, nominators are not allowed to ! vote twice (the nomination itself counts as a !vote).  Anyway, you are looking at the wrong criterion.  AUTHOR 4(c) merely states that the work has ""won significant critical attention"".  The number of published reviews of three of his books is indeed significant critical attention, and also makes these individual books themselves notable works (even if we do not yet have separate articles about them).  Additionally they give an obvious pass of WP:GNG : we have 22 in-depth reliably published and independent sources about the subject's scholarly work, which is exactly the sort of thing one would expect GNG-worthy sources about an academic to cover.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well over the threshold to pass WP:AUTHOR (multiple scholarly reviews of multiple books is enough to indicate significance).  XOR'easter ( talk ) 12:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Reasons: Looking at Andrew J. Newman#References , I see three works with enough academic sources for the works to pass GNG.  The reviews directly comment directly and indepth on the professional work of the subject.  They do hold an endowed chair at a major university.  Under Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes , #5 ""The person has held a named chair appointment or ""Distinguished Professor"" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research"" The number of reviews of their academic work in respected scholarly journals is an indication that Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes , #1 ""The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."" or more weakly #4 ""The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."".  There is no evidence their works are being used in higher education, but the reviews of the works indicate that it is certainly possible they are on many reading lists.  In this case there could be three separate articles on their works with bios of the author, or a bio of the author with sections for each of the works.  I think the reader would be much better served by having one article covering the author focusing on their major works.  // Timothy :: talk 05:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Rozalia Sultangareeva: Onel 5969 TT me 11:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There isn't an article in Russian?  No, but there is one in Bashkortian!  I didn't know the place, or language existed, let alone that it had a WP!  Now I do - and I also know that outside very specific limited interest to a Bashkortian audience, the subject is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG.  But interesting, nevertheless...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women ,  and Science .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Bashkir folklore appears to be a very low-citation subject, but if you search Google scholar for Султангареева rather than Sultangareeva you will see 185 citations for ""Семейно-бытовой обрядовый фольклор башкирского народ"" and 116 for ""Жизнь человека в обряде: фольклорно-этнографическое исследование башкирских семейных обрядов"" (as well as many less-cited works).  I think in this subject that may be enough for WP:PROF#C1 .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 13:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the article would certainly benefit from some cleanup, but generally I do not have any problem.  The subject seems to have an impact in their field, got some coverage on the state level, some media coverage, got an article by an academic publisher entirely covering her activity, looks good enough for me.-- Ymblanter ( talk ) 07:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Novomykolaivka, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast: Onel 5969 TT me 16:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This entry does not meet GNG or an SNG as worded.  Regrettably, an impartial application of existing guidelines requires that this page be deleted, irrespective of other considerations Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to be a separate settlement and thus meets WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 18:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 23:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : see here - Novomykolayivka is listed 9th (code UA12140050090012313), demonstrating that this is a legally-recognised place and thus passes WP:GEOLAND .  Mupper-san ( talk ) 21:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Def Dames Dope: Shaws username .  talk .  15:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Shaws username .  talk .  15:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain why this article would not have sufficient notability?  It has an article in Dutch https://nl.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Def_Dames_Dope And if I search on Google I get plenty of results.  This group is quite notable within the Eurodance scene.  Thanks for clarification.  Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply ) 15:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page has zero references, and the only thing that links to it is a redirect and a list of top-30 Number 1 singles.  This doesn't suggest notability to me.  Revirvlkodlaku ( talk ) 15:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then add {{Unreferenced}} Shadow311 ( talk ) 16:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable and easily meets WP:BAND #2 - many record releases in a national chart.   This include topping the chart - per the list here .  Resonant Dis tor tion 09:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an easy pass of WP:BAND #2.  It took the nominator 2 minutes from their previous edit to set this AfD in motion.  The following text: The page has zero references [...] This doesn't suggest notability to me appears to show disrespect for the golden WP:NEXIST rule and strengthens the impression that no serious WP:BEFORE was performed.  gidonb ( talk ) 20:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ivy, Iowa: According to Google Maps, the location is part of Altoona, Iowa .   The county website makes no mention of the place, but notes a few plats in the area with names such as Ivy Knolls.   There is a church in the vicinity with ""Ivy"" in the name, but that church's website says it is in Altoona.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions .  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to google maps it is actually its own location: Ivy, Iowa on Google Maps PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 04:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's what I went off of.  Also the fact it was on List of unincorporated communities in Iowa LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 15:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You shouldn't be creating articles based on Google Maps and unsourced lists.  Both trace their origins to the GNIS database which is known to be full of erroneous entries.  – dlthewave ☎ 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The GNIS is a government site PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] which means that the data is not erroneous, as it is maintained by the government.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ PaulGamerBoy360 , this is dead wrong.  See WP:GNIS for errors in this database like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington .  It regularly incorrectly classifies locations as populated places, and many populated places are not actually notable communities either.  Reywas92 Talk 13:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] acording to wikipedia gnis page it says that homesteads and ranches and farms are not populated places, bu they are as people live there.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 15:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, kid.  The USGS has actual definitions that match actual usage (one family's house or ranch obviously shouldn't be classified the same as a full populated settlement) and a populated place is ""Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding ""civil"" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes.""  A homestead is considered a locale , which is ""Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill).""  The GNIS's feature classes are regularly inconsistent with more accurate feature classes used in National Gazetteers, and they still do not establish notability or provide useful information to base an article on alone, even if Google Maps draws their labels from it.  Reywas92 Talk 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  We need to determine whether it was ever a named place.  Once notable, always notable.  This report from 1891 indicates that a woman who made prize-winning butter lived here.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the above basis Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - ""Named"" does not automatically mean ""notable"".  This place doesn't appear to be (or ever have been) officially recognized, and available sources are passing mentions rather than SIGCOV as required be GEOLAND.  – dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, I think it says it's in Altoona for postal reasonings.  LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 15:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Information on Ivy is low, but the part about it not being mentioned on the county website makes no sense because  1. It's not incorporated and  2. There isn't even a single other unincorporated community on that website either.  If we can find more information on its founding then then it's a keep, if we can't find any information within a week or 2, then, It would be fine to delete it LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning keep I am finding traces of this which seem to indicate it once was a small town.  It had a post office in 1900 , and a 1918 business directory lists a smithy and a general store.  There's also a state census from 1885 which lists it as a town.  If you take a street view drive past on the old road, there's the remains of a couple of businesses and the church.  Looking athte aerials, what happened was at at some point in the 1960s someone decided that the road needed to be widened to four lanes, and for whatever reason they decided to swerve slightly south at Ivy, literally obliterating the entire southern side of the town, where older aerials show maybe a dozen buildings.  I have to imagine that searching in the right local paper would probably find something about this, but newspaper searching is not a strong point for me.  But I'm pretty sure that Ivy was a town in the past of which a bare trace remains, largely in the name of the church.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I drove by it and actually into it the other day.  Some houses and a church on a small road.  As you found a source that it had a post office.  But no buildings with the exception of the church looked like it could be a post office, making the southern part being removed a very reasonable thought and making it as small  as it is now LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 23:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  07:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We've found more info, where it had a post office in 1900, was listed in the state census in 1885, and a business directory in 1918.  It also had a southern part of the town that was removed sometime inbetween 1955 and 1972 when Iowa 163 was extended to a 2 lane highway LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So i would say keep (I might be a bit biased due to me creating this page) LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 00:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , or leaning that way, or at least create mention in Altoona article and redirect to there.   No signup required, you can access historic newspapers at Newspaper Archive (and maybe also at Newspapers.com?) via https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/? next_url=/users/my_library/ (where you simply login to use a Wikipedia Library card).  First hit on search of newspapers in Iowa with Keyword ""Ivy, Iowa"" that I check is: Homestead Newspaper Archives October 1, 1897 Page 6 (perhaps you have to be connected in for that link to work) has article ""Horticulture at the Iowa State Fair"" which includes at least two mentions, as home location for two persons who have seedlings or other submissions in the fair.  Official notice given in Altoona Herald Newspaper Archives June 29, 1972 Page 10, for bids for construction of a Junior-Senior High School, 8325 N. E. University, Ivy, Iowa, for the Southeast Polk County Community School District , Ivy, Iowa.   Proposals are due to the office of the secretary of the Board of Directors, 9070 N.E. University, Ivy, Iowa.   The word ""County"" is included in the 1972 notice; this would appear to be what is now covered in Wikipedia as Southeast Polk Community School District .  Numerous mentions of persons ""of Ivy, Iowa"" in blurbs whose full articles I haven't visited.  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 19:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Automatically notable as a former populated place.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if the contention is that this used to be a named place (and that that is sufficient to have an article), I don't object to this being closed as ""Keep"".   However, in that case, the article should be edited to make that clear.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 19:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can agree with that LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 17:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ping (restaurant): 2 of the supplied sources are primary, and this source is a 1 line mention about its closure.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Oregon .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Hung Far Low (restaurant) , considering the brief writeup and existence of Ping (restaurant) .  Same space.  Maybe under a title ""Aftermath: Ping"" or something of sorts.  gidonb ( talk ) 10:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb : Thanks for weighing in.  I have expanded the article significantly and continue to find more sources to add.  I think there's clear evidence the subject has been discussed in detail by reliable sources.  Can you please take another look?  I'd like to see if I can change your vote to ""keep"".  Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to keep .  My concern here was the length of the article and excessive fragmentation, not notability.  Now that the text is longer a merge would create a situation of WP:UNDUE so this is no longer desirable.  gidonb ( talk ) 08:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG.  This is yet another nomination by LibStar, who seems to be nominating Portland restaurant articles indiscriminately, or at least without doing thorough source assessments before jumping to AfD.  I've asked them to slow down, or use tags/talk page comments instead of mass nominating, but here we are.  I've worked to expand the article and continue to find in-depth articles specifically about Ping, published by reliable sources.  The article should be kept and expanded, not deleted.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, Ping was a James Beard Foundation Award semifinalist. It was also included in Alan Richman 's list of 10 best new restaurants in the U.S. Are we seriously debating notability? Is the nominator even trying? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep easy pass of our notability guidelines with in depth RS.  Lightburst ( talk ) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep re-edited and updated since this nomination.  Informative article that needs to be kept.  — Maile ( talk ) 15:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"War of ideas: The article is about a vague general term that overlaps with Propaganda , Political warfare , Information operations and Soft power .  There was a deletion discussion in 2010 that resulted in a ""Keep"" verdict based primarily on arguments that there are sources out there that use the term ""War of ideas"".  However, it seems pretty clear that while sources use the term, there is no coherent, consistent use of the term.  It's also clear that the general ideas associated with the term are already covered in more clearly scoped articles for coherent concepts (such as Propaganda , Political warfare , Information operations and Soft power ).  Since the 2010 discussion, the fact that the article still looks like an WP:OR essay should make it clear that there is no consistent core concept or idea on which to build a proper encyclopedic article.  There are therefore good reasons to reconsider the status of the article and in my view delete it.  The mere existence of a general phrase does not mean it merits a Wikipedia article.  The phrase ""war of ideas"" is similar to phrases such as ""battle of wits"" and ""war of the wills"", yet we would not accept creating an article for the latter two phrases, even if there are countless sources that use those phrases.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please fix the header Thanks 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Philosophy , Military ,  and Politics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Information warfare -- this is duplicative of the concept cited in that article, which is far too heavy on a strictly military usage of the concept.  A merge would improve that article and reduce the complexity of the encyclopaedia.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a legitimate subject, as one can conclude by looking at the results of Google books search.  There are even books entirely on this subject, for example [19] .  In addition, this page maybe useful to creating page Political ideologies that we currently do not have (currently a redirect to Ideology#Political_ideologies ).  My very best wishes ( talk ) 19:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there are plenty of good sources in the article, plus many more online.  AfD is not for article improvement.  Bearian ( talk ) 20:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : very different article from Information warfare , the merge target.  Information warfare article talks about use of propaganda during war while war of ideas article talks about (ideological) war with propaganda.  War of ideas does not have any problem with WP:OR otherwise.  If you read it, all non-trivial sentences are sourced.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of Beavis and Butt-Head characters: However, the overwhelming size of the list ( WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE ) along with the lack of verification and reliable sources ( WP:V ) for many of the characters listed is of concern to me. I think an ideal way of doing this type of list would be similar to how List of The Simpsons characters handles it, but to get there would require a massive undertaking.  I think a better idea would be to just start from scratch per WP:TNT .  I did post my concerns on the talk page of this article but didn't get a response after about a week.  Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper - ( talk ) 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , Comics and animation , Lists ,  and United States of America .  Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper - ( talk ) 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not a Beavis and Butthead fan, but I agree with the nominator's rationale of TNT.  There are so many characters listed that I sincerely doubt all of them need to be in this list.  That being said, I'll vote Weak Keep so long as the article gets cleanup, but this should preferably be done by someone with more familiarity with the franchise than me.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree 100% with this take.  It's a reasonable page that needs a lot of work.  Vote weak keep as well.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 17:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep nothing weak about it: deletion is not a solution for articles that suck, that's what editing--including deletion of specific content within the article that is useless or inappropriate--is for.  Deletion is for things where no article should exist OR in the exceptional case where editing cannot fix the problems.  Neither of those applies here.  Jclemens ( talk ) 18:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where to start with editing it though?  In my opinion, any list would need to include recurring characters from the show at the minimum, but all of the added detail and the guest appearances to me seems an unnecessary addition, as well as all the exposition and WP:OR .  I mean, it is a massive undertaking.  I think we are talking about basically overhauling the entire article anyway regardless of if this gets kept.  Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper - ( talk ) 20:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And...?  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 23:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have something to say?  Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper - ( talk ) 23:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's irrelevant now it's been withdrawn, but ""overhauling the entire article"" and it being ""a massive undertaking"" are not reasons for deletion.  They're challenges.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 21:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep needs to be edited properly, not deleted.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deletion is not cleanup.  TNT might apply when something is just completely, totally, and utterly unsalvageable, which is not the case here.  It just needs some added context.  Not having the ability to clean it up yourself does not mean it's impossible to do so.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, many existing articles are poorly sourced and written .  InedibleHulk ( talk ) 01:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , I learned something today.  I'll take a stab at fixing the article, although again, admittedly I'm not sure what can be done other than chopping off a huge portion of it.  Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper - ( talk ) 12:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With the caveat I know SFA about Beavis & Butthead...  Suggestion would be to pick a threshold for appearances (3 episodes? 5?) and slice off anyone who doesn't meet it (they can always be recovered from page history if someone argues they're significant).  There's also a fair bit of OR in there, e.g. "" A parody of fitness guru Tony Little (Take a Lap)"" that arguably either needs citing or chopping.  It's questionable whether ""Dating Service Manager"" for example is even really a character.  There are a lot of quotes in there, a few of which just seem to be favourite gags of whoever wrote them.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Darkwell: Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 02:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music .  Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 02:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NBAND .5, released multiple albums on Napalm Records , which is an indy label with releases from multiple independently notable acts including some massive ones like Dee Snyder , Sevendust , Coal Chamber , Cradle of Filth , and Kamelot .  (Notability is not inherited, but being signed for multiple albums to a such a label generally implies notability) — siro χ o 05:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as the article's contents meets point 5 for Musical Notability .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DimensionalFusion ( talk • contribs ) 08:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NBAND#5 .  Maliner ( talk ) 06:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Pink Peacock: The café has now closed permanently.  It's only notability seems to have been the minor controversy surrounding some of the staff members actions Qcne ( talk ) 13:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  Qcne ( talk ) 13:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Reader's Digest source used in the article seems ok, it has enough coverage for GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Sexuality and gender , Judaism ,  and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , unless someone can show a WP:NCORP fail that isn't based on a No true Scotsman of what counts as a notable event.  theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs ) (she/her) 04:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Multiple reliable sources establish notability.  -- DH22 Mim ( talk ) 12:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article could be improved but sources such as Readers Digest, Glasgow Live and STV show sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. The fact that the cafe is now closed does not affect its notability. Mujinga ( talk ) 14:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly has significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 17:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sufficiently sourced to keep.  gidonb ( talk ) 15:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are enough reliable sources demonstrating this cafe's notability.  Furthermore, notability is not temporary; a subject does not lose its notability just because it's closed.  Epicgenius ( talk ) 03:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ballydonoghue GAA: Andre 🚐 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football ,  and Ireland .  Andre 🚐 23:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  In my own WP:BEFORE , I found and added a number of sources which support the text and contribute to a claim to notability under GNG.  At the very least there is sufficient notability/refs to support a merge/redirect (as an WP:ATD ) to Lisselton#Sport .  Outright deletion doesn't appear the correct action and isn't one I can support.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - county championship winning team, and current senior champions for North Kerry.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  12:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I've expanded introduction and added a History section with sources.  Club very relevant due to recent successes.  Fox&Pheasant 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Mohammad-Hadi Imanieh: I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the  article that contains the list of governors in Iran.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs ) 16:40, June 10, 2024 (UTC) Comment Fixing malformed nomination.   I am neutral at this time.   -- Finngall talk 17:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Medicine ,  and Iran .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge.  In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep no valid for deletion offered, subject passes GNG.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Jeffrey Northrup: There was no coverage of him until his death.   All coverage is related to his death and related trial.    Biographical sources are essentially obituaries.   No reporter is doing any serious investigation into his life before his last day, nor should they, since he was a private person.   The trial has had lots of coverage, but we're not a news outlet.    While tragic, its not historic.   -- Rob ( talk ) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If he's not notable, well, I think his death is.  No?  What if the article's name is changed to ""Death of Jeffrey Northrup""?  - EclecticEnnui ( talk ) 06:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a name change of the article would be most fair.  The relevant information could be retained while respecting the private life of officer Northrup.  142.126.191.237 ( talk ) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, sounds good.  Should we wait and see if other users are gonna give their opinion?  - EclecticEnnui ( talk ) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions .  Rob ( talk ) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE.  What was tragic was  (a) Northrup's stupidity in getting killed, and  (b) the fact that an innocent person had his life ruined for three years while the state tried to prove an unprovable case of first degree murder.  This article should be deleted and a new one about this whole case created.  -- 24.80.199.58 ( talk ) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to Crown v Umar Zameer, assuming the case was called that. Connor Behan ( talk ) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename . The story here is not the death of the officer, which is tragic, but the conduct of the Toronto Police Service (including possible collusion to commit perjury to lock away an innocent man), that has prompted an investigation. Coverage has gone far beyond the typical murder case. See [46] [47] [48] . ---- Patar knight - chat / contributions 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename : The story is about police undercover procedures, police bias, conflicts between police officer testimony and expert testimony, weakness in the prosecution evidence and prosecutor bias.  Perhaps the article title should be ""Murder trial of Umar Zameer""; there are several Wikipedia articles prefixed by ""Murder trial of"".  TheTrolleyPole ( talk ) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine if somebody wishes to close this early as keep except for the article body, subject matter, and all of the original content which is the clear consensus above.   I withdraw (I don't know how to close it myself).   -- Rob ( talk ) 00:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Capitol Hill's mystery soda machine: This article is about a subject that has no relevance to those other than the residents of Capitol Hill.  PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems to be plenty of decent sourcing.  The niche-ness is not a reason to delete, there are plenty of niche topics that receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as this one.  -- Cerebral726 ( talk ) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable per WP:RS so our rules say ""keep"".  I think the most obvious merge target, our Capitol Hill, Seattle article, is long enough already.  I wish my town had one of these.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Washington .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (weak keep, more or less).  When there are a whole bunch of local sources, we know that we have enough material to use to write an article, but we need to find evidence that it's of interest to a suitably broad audience.  So that's what I looked for, and found Boing Boing , Vice , and Slate (via Atlas Obscura, but nonetheless published to Slate which IIRC curated some of AO's content for a while).  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Several reliable sources have covered both its existence and disappearance, so it easily meets GNG.  It has more than just hyperlocal appeal, given the coverage from non-local sources.  Sounder Bruce 21:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While I agree it's a niche article, that's a poor argument for deletion.  Large swathes of Wikipedia are niche-but-notable, might as well nominate those too!  - dasime ( talk ) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article creator here.  It's obviously niche, which is true for many Wikipedia articles, what matters is that it's sourced and meets GNG.  Wikipedia doesn't decide what's relevant or not, the existence of sources does.  — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Modi'in Ezrachi: No indication of wp: notability  under GNG or SNG.  North8000 ( talk ) 02:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Police , Companies ,  and Israel .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I see no indication that this company meets WP:NCORP .  BD2412 T 02:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a quick search of the company name returns English sources with a company profile , Haaretz articles , and even a Pulitzer Center piece that notes the company as ""the largest security contractor currently employed by the Israeli government"".  There are even more sources in Hebrew -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 19:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the four refs found by DannyS712 plus 6 more that I found and added to the article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist to assess new improvements to the article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Remove all content that isn't sourced which is a fair bit of it and then re-assess after we see what's left.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's an older Israeli company and it is a larger Israeli company, on a national scale.  As pointed out above me, there is plenty of sourcing.  So absolutely no reason to delete.  IF IT WAS part of a larger group, a merge could have been considered.  From what I could find , it is a family-owned corporation and its own entity.  Which brings me back to the sourcing.  DannyS712 found sourcing in English.  That's awesome!  Between 10, 100, and 1000 SIGCOV sources in Hebrew, 100 would be my best estimate.  I added just one that was relevant to the rest of my answer.  gidonb ( talk ) 14:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Asuna (Sword Art Online): Those merchandise sources doesn't help either with notability and merely saying ""that it just exist"" (again).  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions and Video games .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question But what about the Creation and conception and Critical commentary sections?  How are they no commentary about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings ?  Daranios ( talk ) 16:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I actually refer mostly from reception only.  Re-edited my rationale, but that along isn't enough.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 21:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Sword Art Online characters .  Sources are largely about the anime's storyline, rather than Asuna as a character in particular.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe the Critical commentary is neither trivial nor based on passing mentions.  Together with the Creation and conception section this constitutes a non-stubby article fulfilling WP:WHYN , which is further rounded out by the other sections.  So I see neither a policy-based reason for deletion nor how deletion of this article would benefit Wikipedia overall.  Daranios ( talk ) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to agree with you, and vote to keep this article as well.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 13:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  At least one sentence long scholarly analysis in this book .  Not seeing much else, sadly.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the findings above.  Also, this is just a reminder that Anime News Network has links below some of their articles to WP:RS in Japanese.  They are only reporting the news in English as per this example ""via AmiAmi News"" .  - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly.  From some quick searching I found further sources in IGN , a chapter by Steven Foertsch entitled "" Metamodernity, American Transcendentalism and Transhumanism in Japanese Anime "" (description of Asuna on page 94) [Chapter 3 of Anime, Philosophy and Religion (2023) (ed. Kaz Hayashi & William Anderson, Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press), pp. 73-98 as noted here ], description of Asuna throughout the article "" Lost in communication: The relationship between hikikomori and virtual reality in Japanese anime "", small mention on page 532 of Zachary Samuel Gottesman's "" The Japanese settler unconscious: Goblin Slayer on the ‘Isekai’ frontier "", small mention on page 65 of "" Getting into the Schwing of Things: Hunter x Hunter’s Progressive Gender Depictions and Exploration of Non-Binary Possibilities "" (Masters Thesis).  And that isn't even including articles from CBR here , here , here and here .   So there are undoubtedly various sources about her.  I wish the OP had worked on improving the pages rather than an AfD.  As I say over and over in these discussions, such issues could be resolved through editing, rather an AfD.  This AfD seems highly unnecessary in more ways than one.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:TRIVIAL .  Significant coverage is more than just a trivial mention.  What are the WP:THREE best sources I'm supposed to look at to prove that she has significant discussion, and not in CBR, which is a content farm that does not indicate notability?  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep CBR featured a listicle... with Asuna as the focus, not an entry.  Plenty of RS commentary for arguably the second most important character in the franchise.  Jclemens ( talk ) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Websites like CBR and IGN never counts as a part of Asuna's character ability.  All of them are just a bunch of people's point of views, But not as a character written by a production stuff.  Other references are just a merchandise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.143.241.121 ( talk ) 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:RSP notes that There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided.  It has no articulated opinion in CBR, but we have repeatedly used it in pop culture topics like this one, so your perspective is essentially unsupported and deviates from working consensus.  Jclemens ( talk ) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the extensive sourcing discussed by Historyday01, clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed.  Also the ""listicles/rankings"" can still be a contributor to notability, WP:SIGCOV is unequivocal and clear that ""Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.""  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The ""Creation and conception"" and ""Critical commentary"" sections have decent sources and demonstrate notability.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of coverage of this character, and a lot of valid information in the article.   Wouldn't work to just merge it over to a list article.  D r e a m Focus 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm gonna burst a bubble here, This seems bias that Asuna is always a favorable character, People saying she's ""canon"" on every arcs.  But she's not a core or main character on some arcs like Phantom Bullet.  103.143.241.125 ( talk ) 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why keeping Asuna?  If Leafa and Sinon are just ""Nobody's Characters"" or minors being removed their entries 103.143.241.125 ( talk ) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It all depends on whatever random group of people notice and show up to participate.   I own the Sword Art Online Progressive novels, the writer stating the two main characters should be together at the start, she a main character there.   In the anime as well she was in most episodes.   Anyway, its about what coverage can be found and if that convinces people the article should be kept.  D r e a m Focus 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Current sourcing is competent enough to warrant notability and the references provided by Historyday01 surmount any doubt I have in spite that I admittedly don't care much for Sword Art Online.  Doesn't help that the arguments for deletion are either broad or ignore the other sources established within the article.  Yet another instance of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP .  SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep SAO is one of the most popular anime ever created, there is MORE than enough coverage to deem this article notable.  I agree with Historyday that this AFD was highly unnecessary and could have been avoid with a WP:PEERREVIEW .  Swordman97 talk to me 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see a whole lot of WP:ITSPOPULAR here.  What are these examples of ""more than enough coverage"" in your opinion?  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Once again, there are entire articles devoted to the character that are used as existing references, most of which are at least reliable enough to demonstrate notability.  There are also scholarly articles that can range from passing mentions to having entire paragraphs dedicating to the series and the characters roles within it.  The fact that is consistently used as an example regarding trends and tropes within anime demonstrates at least some academic notability.  Again, most of the arguments for deletion are really only vetted against the use of Valnet sources and either ignore or completely omit any mention of the other reliable sources already within the article and I have yet to see an actual and reasonable argument for a merger.  SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 06:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Paul Ford (technologist): Additionally, I'm having a bit of trouble finding 3P sources about this individual, seems non-notable.  Sohom ( talk ) 16:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Lots of articles published in Wired written by the individual, but nothing about this person found otherwise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've expanded the article with some additional details and various new references (mostly 3P).  Ford is notable in his field (tech/design, and technology journalism).  I do not know him, but I know his work.  Keep .  Agree with above commenter - subject is notable in his field.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : (as nominator) Per previous commenters, article has been sufficiently expanded and notability has been sufficiently proven.  Sohom ( talk ) 14:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"The Heroes of Desert Storm: If not TNT'd, it may be a candidate for merging into an article about Desert Storm or films related to same.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Military ,  and Middle East .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Added sources that attest notabilty. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd argue those fall under trivial/passing mentions and do not constitute SIGCOV.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A whole review in Variety , almost a paragraph in Devine’s book.... hard not to call this significant coverage...and none of the books mentioning the film briefly makes trivial nor passing mention only, no, sorry, that’s simply not true.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update : added review in LAT and other sources including NYT, which does seem to seal the deal. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of significant coverage such as reviews in Variety, and LA Times as well as reliable book sources, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Britain's Got Talent (series 16): It may also be too soon with no results or very few results to report.   There is also a draft, Draft: Britain's Got Talent (series 16) , by a different editor, which was briefly in article space and was then (correctly) moved into draft space.   Either references and substantive content should be added to this article within seven days for a Heymann result, or it should be merged with the existing draft and the merged draft left in draft space until there are substantive results with reliable sources .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 00:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 00:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources need to be added as far as judging changes, but it has started airing; it's not getting deleted at this point.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Obviously.  One of the biggest shows in the UK.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It is silly to delete this article when it would just need to be created again within weeks, as every season of the show gets sufficient coverage to cross the threshold of notability.  Beyond that, there are already nearly a dozen sources in the article, some high-level, providing reasonable coverage of the subject.  BD2412 T 00:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the show and this season pass WP:GNG .  The draft issue is another thing, but the article as it is now has several sources now, and yes definitely could still be improved, but I don't feel deletion or drafty is the best course forward with the season already started.  WikiVirus C (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep every season has one lmao Muur ( talk ) 02:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article could still be improved, but seems fine for now.  Absolutely no point in deleting.  CycloneYoris talk!  10:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Whirled: Fails the general notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST .  The game got SIGCOV from Kotaku , Engadget , IGN and VentureBeat .  It got primary interview from GamesRadar and Engadget .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The refs presented above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ suggest the topic meets WP:NVIDEOGAMES , even if the current article fails to ascertain it.  Owen× ☎ 15:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   the sources presented by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ are sufficient to establish notability under the WP:GNG .  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Alb Thomas: stub on an unnotable sportsperson.  ltb d l ( talk ) 05:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia .  ltb d l ( talk ) 05:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean keep on a first pass this extensive contemporary analysis by Andrew Gigacz would differentiate Thomas from the morass of obscure VFL footballers.  – Tera tix ₵ 10:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With such a common last name that's also a first name, he's a bit of a nightmare to research on Trove.  – Tera tix ₵ 10:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Aside from the coverage already mentioned in Gigacz's analysis ( [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ), I've tracked down a picture and discovered he was named as an emergency in a combined Junior Association team .  – Tera tix ₵ 13:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Good sources found by Teratix, that's enough for me to show he has significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Jenks24 ( talk ) 08:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Nasra Ali Abukar: Per WP:BLP1E , I don't think we can justify an article for her as she is only known for this one race and is otherwise a low-profile individual.  The incident was widely reported in early August 2023, but none of the coverage was sustained.  She doesn't seem to be known for anything else.  A PROD was declined.  Suggest redirecting to 2021 Summer World University Games where there is a section dedicated to the controversy.  gobonobo + c 16:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women .  gobonobo + c 16:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : there is notability, but about the controversy itself, not about the runner.  I'd perhaps write a new article about the controversy, or merge a small portion of it into a subsection in the event's article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I second this.  ~ Ivan Scrooge 98 ( talk ) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What would you think about simply re-naming this article?  The information is already there.  Joyous!  Noise!  01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Ali Abukar gained attention through a hotline from August 2023 to September.  Her involvement in corruption incidents led to turmoil within the Somali government , ultimately prompting the Somali Parliament to summon the Sports Minister to appear before the House of Representatives.  QalasQalas ( talk ) 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Eventify .  I agree with Oaktree b and the succeeding commenters.  Keep it but as an event instead of a biography.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Keep but rename"" is my ! vote, if that helps.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but as event.  Orientls ( talk ) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Sophia Smith (footballer, born 1978): A bit difficult to search for as she is overshadowed by the 2000-born USA player.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 04:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Football , Greece ,  and United States of America .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 04:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY .  One biographical article focused on Sophia Smith, ""Cornell grad plays for Greece"" in Ithaca Journal .  One paragraph in USA Today discussing her jersey and her awkward role as an American of Greek ancestry on the Greek national women's team at the 2004 Athens Olympics.  Another paragraph on her status as a local soccer player playing internationally in the Houston Chronicle .  In addition, during her college years (particularly her junior year), her match performance as the leading scorer on the team was regularly covered in Ithaca Journal .  Per WP:BASIC, it's just enough.  (Also...per her LinkedIn profile, she now works as legal counsel for FIFA in Zürich, but without coverage in reliable secondary sources, we'll just leave that aspect of her career for now.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  Match reports are routine coverage and can't be used to pass GNG.  Two paragraphs don't cut it either.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Cielquiparle.  Has good sources and defiantly has moremofflince sources, having played in the early 2000s and 2004 Summer Olympics .  Clearlyw as significant figure in Greek women's football.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the coverage here is not WP:ROUTINE , which would be e.g. inclusion of her name on a team list in a match report: there are multiple articles already cited covering her specifically, either as an individual or within a small group, so WP:GNG is passed.  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 16:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article speaks for itself and does explain why she passes general notability .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 02:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - speaks for itself is an essay not policy.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources which (just) show notability.  Giant Snowman 11:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Iggy ( Swan ) ( Contribs ) 15:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cielquiparle, enough coverage as an Olympian to meet WP:GNG .  S.A. Julio ( talk ) 18:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See Requested move 24 July 2023 for related move discussion for Sophia Smith (soccer, born 2000) and Sophia Smith .  Input appreciated.  Hmlarson ( talk ) 20:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG per sources on page. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Michelle Zacarias: She was a guest opinion piece writer on some of the sources listed, but the ones she actually works for don't have Wikipedia pages.  It's also missing significant biographical information.  I'm not sure how to correctly nominate a page for deletion this way, as the rules prevent me from doing it the usual way given how this is an appeal of a nomination removal with which I disagree.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brobbz ( talk • contribs ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Journalism ,  and Women .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Currently looking like a résumé isn't a reason for deletion, as long as sources exist that could allow it to be rewritten more encyclopedically; that's a matter for editing, not deletion.  People's World , where Zacarias was a staff writer from 2015 through 2019, has an article here.  (As do Teen Vogue and Latina [7] , as well as The Indypendent — not mentioned in the article, but Zacarias has written there [8] . Ditto the Chicago Reader [9] .)  So, the claim in the nomination appears erroneous.  That said, right or wrong, it's not relevant.  Whether an author's primary affiliation has an article or not doesn't have an implication one way or the other about whether that author is, individually, notable.  On the face of it, ""missing significant biographical information"" would be grounds to keep the article, i.e., it's saying that there's more to say.  However, looking at the page history, the ""biographical information"" to which the nominator refers appears to be a BLP violation, so that doesn't really factor in either way.  I'm tempted to suggest that WP:CSK#3 applies.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep - I agree with the above.  The sources demonstrate notability.  The page can be improved DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think the subject is notable enough to keep the article and improve it.  I tried to add sources and expand the article, sorry if it sounded too much like a resume but I'm sort of new and I tried my best.  I welcome good-faith edits to improve the article to make it more encyclopedic.  I think that the subject was nominated to the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame makes her notable.  I contributed to this article because I believe in decreasing the gender gap on Wikipedia (like the Women in Red WikiProject) and coverage on subjects that identify as LGBT, disabled, or other identities that are often overlooked.  NatFee ( talk ) 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- She won the Saul Miller Excellence in Journalism Award, given by AFL-CIO for excellent coverage of union issues.  This along with the arguments made by my colleagues above seems to me to be sufficient to meet the GNG.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems to meet notability even if the article needs to be improved.  Also, she has received a major award and other significant recognition.  Rublamb ( talk ) 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per all forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential primary campaign: These should clearly be combined.  I see no reason at all why these have remained separate for so long.  PickleG13 ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 15 August 2023‎  (UTC) Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 16 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 02:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets GNG and WP:EVENT .  Potential merges can be discussed on relevant talk pages.  — siro χ o 02:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As expected, it has extensive coverage in reliable sources.  Meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT + AfD isn't really meant for merge requests, which is what I presume the nominator wants.  ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 03:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Events , Politics ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  Wrong venue to discuss merging.  pburka ( talk ) 04:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly notable.  Start a merge discussion to merge.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Her 2008 presidential campaign was only a primary campaign so I don't see why there are two articles.  I would encourage PickleG13 to start a talk discussion if folks are going to get procedural here.  Reywas92 Talk 13:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether procedural or not, AfD really isn't the best forum for this type of merge discussion.  AfDs are fixed-length, general discussions about whether an article should be deleted based on policies and guidelines , and if alternatives can be found.  For the type of merge being proposed, if a discussion is needed, it should give chance for editors who have worked on the article to participate, often taking longer than an AFD, but sometimes being much quicker when consensus develops rapidly.  There's also the option for a WP:BOLD merge, with the understanding that it might get reverted if there's disagreement and a discussion ends up being needed anyways.  Honestly, for actual article editing, I prefer any of these ""less procedural"" options than AfD.  — siro χ o 16:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't realise there were two articles, but they're both lengthy and cover different topics.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per Siroxo and Pburka.  Clearly meets WP:EVENT , and any merge discussions can and should take place on the relevant talk page(s).  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep: Notable subject and as others have already noted, this is the wrong forum to discuss a merge User:Let'srun 01:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable.  If a merge is warranted discuss then discuss that at the proper place.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly notable, as others have explained.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep This article is nearly as big as main article on Hillary Clinton .  Editorkamran ( talk ) 12:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Witch Yoo Hee: Tagged for notability since 2012.  I looked at the 7 other languages pages, and they either had no citations or the citations were not usable toward notability requirements (primary/database/etc).  Donald D23 talk to me 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article already has references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Broadcast on a major national network; international distribution; rather notable ratings; some sources; rather notable cast.  All in all, Keep .  The article could do with some trimming and additional sources.  (NB- I deproDed the page with the comment Take to Afd or Improve, some time ago).  Worst case scenario, redirect to the List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System , but the problem, I found, with this kind of redirects is that many of those lists of programs by network have been recently challenged/over-tagged and end up deleted and so do those redirects.... , so I favour a plain Keep).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 15:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports: Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS , most of these are WP:PRIMARY .  Of the three remaining sources two of them is dead and one is nothing but listings and announcments, doing nothing to establish notability.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television ,  and Basketball .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : These crews get covered as a group in secondary sources such as [ [8] ], [ [9] ], [ [10] ] [ [11] ] and [ [12] ] (not to mention that these sources were just on the first page of results of a quick internet search).  I'd say it passes the WP:LISTN criteria and I'm not sure what part of WP:NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates (or WP:NOTTVGUIDE , since this isn't covering a broadcast schedule).  The current sources are mostly primary, but that is not a reason to delete any article on its own when secondary sources are shown to exist.  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found by Let'srun .  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I figured when we get up to the most notable sporting events in the US that we would get more WP:SIGCOV .  The article does need to be trimmed, but the sources provided by Let'srun suffice for WP:LISTN .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"CRRC Massachusetts: It should probably be redirected to CRRC , at least for now.  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 05:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation , China ,  and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How do you figure?  Then majority of online articles relating to CRRC factories around the world, would need to be deleted.  Yeahimaboss413 ( talk ) 15:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think it's fine.  Has decent sourcing and providing railcars for SEPTA, MBTA, and the LA Metro is notable enough as those are some of the biggest public transit networks in the US.  -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep definitely notable in context of regional infrastructure and economy.  This is not corporate self promotion, it’s valuable information.  Sourcing needs work.  Llajwa ( talk ) 16:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It has gotten plenty of notability.  I worked on this as a draft for a while.  And there will be some more coming when the HR4000s enter service.  QuarioQuario54321 ( talk ) 05:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Heather Kuzmich: All significant coverage in secondary sources dates from October to December of 2007, coinciding with her appearance on America's Next Top Model.  Since she has had no significant coverage before or since, and all coverage is directly related to her appearance on the show, it is clear she is only notable for being on ANTM.  Wikipedia doesn't have specific notability guidelines for reality show contestants, but people who are not notable outside of appearing on a single season of a reality show usually don't have their own Wikipedia article.  Baronet13 ( talk ) 22:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - she appears to have received some sustained coverage after her performance on ANTM, in addition to in-depth sources such as Asperger's Syndrome Gets a Very Public Face (NYT, Dec. 2007), She's a Top Model—and Autistic ( People , Oct. 2007), and Medical Condition Won't Stop Model From Competing (ABC/GMA, Nov. 2007).  In 2008, she received local news from the Post-Tribune for ""MTV wrapped up shooting video of her [...] back in town to do a photo shoot for Wedding Essentials, a local quarterly bridal magazine.""  ProQuest 344156560 .  In a 2008 Visalia Times - Delta article titled ""Autism keeps parents, schools busy,"" she is also listed with a few other people as examples for ""Autism symptoms vary widely, from debilitating to these high-functioning cases:"" ProQuest 416349134 In 2009, Glamour writes, ""The attention, good and bad, has made it somewhat easier for adult autistics to find acceptance in the world. Former America's Next Top Model contestant Heather Kuzmich—who has Asperger's syndrome (considered an autism spectrum disorder) and who had trouble making eye contact in TV interviews—has become a role model.""  A 2009 Edmunton Journal article ""Asperger's: A powerful identity, a vanishing diagnosis,"" she is mentioned: ""Heather Kuzmich brought national attention to Asperger's syndrome after appearing in America's Next Top Model in 2007.""  ProQuest 250606052 .  She is also mentioned in Grinker, Roy Richard.  “Commentary: On Being Autistic, and Social.”  Ethos , vol.  38, no. 1, 2010, pp. 172–78.  JSTOR : (""Despite the persistence of stereotypes of the autistic person locked inside his or her own world, the image of the person with autism today is as likely to be Heather Kuzmich, the model who competed on a popular American television show, ""America's Next Top Model,"" or ..."").  via the Wikipedia Library , in April 2010, she was mentioned by North & South : ""Since reality TV outed 21-year-old Heather Kuzmich on America's Next Top Model, Asperger's has become an international pop-culture epidemic.""  And she was included in a list of ""popular media"" representations in ""Autism, Rhetoric, and Whiteness"" By: Heilker, Paul, Disability Studies Quarterly , 10415718, Fall2012, Vol.  32, Issue 4.  In a 2012 New York piece, she is referred to as an example of a ""self-outer.""  A 2012 Press-Telegram article titled ""Learning how to fit in"" states: ""Those diagnosed range from model Heather Kuzmich, who was featured on ""America's Next Top Model,"" to Pokemon creator Satoshi Tajiri, to McManmon.""  ProQuest 923421005 The 2007 New York Times coverage is quoted in Parmentier, Marie-Agnès; Fischer, Eileen (1 February 2015).  ""Things Fall Apart: The Dynamics of Brand Audience Dissipation"" .  Journal of Consumer Research .  41 (5): 1228–1251.  doi : 10.1086/678907 .  after ""On ANTM, contestants like Heather Kuzmich (Cycle 9) embody the underdog type.""  I think according to these sources, there is support for notability that transcends ANTM and supports keep - the coverage mostly does not appear focused on ANTM, but instead on Kuzmich and a larger cultural impact of her participation on the show.  So according to WP:BLP1E , all three conditions do not appear to be met, because this event appears to be considered significant, and her role appears substantial and well documented, based on secondary sources, and the persistent coverage.  Similarly, WP:GNG / WP:BASIC notability seems supported.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The NYT, People and ABC articles are from the October-December 2007 time span when her season was airing and are not proof of sustained coverage.  As for the others, every single one of these mention her in the context of having been an ANTM contestant and are not significant, mentioning her in only a single sentence.  The relevant question is not whether or not she has been completely forgotten after her season ended, but if there any examples of coverage after 2007 that are both significant and covering her for something other than having been on the show.  Baronet13 ( talk ) 06:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination statement links to WP:SUSTAINED which states, ""If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual .""  That is a link to WP:BLP1E , which does not require further significant coverage ; and the persistent secondary coverage is about something other than the show, so she appears to be independently notable for her impact as a person.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 07:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLP1E criteria:  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.  Yes, she is only covered in the context of having been an ANTM contestant.  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.  Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view.  In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.  Yes, she has had no significant coverage since December 2007, so she is likely to remain a low-profile individual.  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.  John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.  It goes on to clarify ""The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.""  Since the coverage of her was only as persistent as her appearance on the show, she also meets this criteria.  She meets all three criteria for WP:BLP1E and, therefore, should not have her own Wikipedia article.  Baronet13 ( talk ) 17:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From my view, according to WP:BASIC , her notability is supported by persistent nontrivial coverage she has received in secondary sources, and per WP:BLP1E by showing her substantial and/or well-documented role as well as the significance of the event.  Years after her participation on ANTM, she is referred to e.g. as a role model, as having brought national attention to Asperger's/autism, and in scholarly works and popular media that examine or refer to well-known people with autism, etc.  Her independent notability seems well-supported by this secondary coverage, which appears to have a persistent focus on her and the significance of her actions.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 18:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What ""persistent nontrivial coverage"" has she received after her season of ANTM?  If you're referring to the single sentences mentions of her in the sources you listed earlier, those are trivial.  Can you provide one example of significant secondary source coverage of her after 2007?  Baronet13 ( talk ) 20:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cited secondary sources above that appear nontrivial due to the context and commentary.  The excerpts I quote above are attempts to highlight how she is discussed.  From my view, sources that have for years continued to discuss her, refer to her as a prominent example, and/or include her in scholarly analysis and commentary are not trivial.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Disability , Television , Entertainment , and Fashion .  Beccaynr ( talk ) 01:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Beccaynr's phenomenal WP:BEFORE sourcing, also noting that such as a non-low-profile individual WP:SUSTAINED doesn't apply (and neither does WP:BLP1E as Beccaynr mentioned).  — siro χ o 03:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She does meet the criteria for WP:BLP1E , which I have outlined above.  And if WP:NSUSTAINED does not apply, what is she known for other than being on ANTM?  Baronet13 ( talk ) 17:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP1E suggests ""We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:. ..2.  If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.  And as described in WP:LPI Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.  .  — siro χ o 21:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo and Beccanyr. -- TempusTacet ( talk ) 17:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Edward Pocock, artist: Fram ( talk ) 10:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England .  Fram ( talk ) 10:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This artist meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST ; his work is included in the permanent collections of several notable museums.  Netherzone ( talk ) 13:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per above.  Leutha ( talk ) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If taken literally, like here, that is a rather ridiculous rule.  Even if some objects are kept in the depots of rather local museums and aren't on display, and are just catalogied but not further described or noted, it supposedly means that the artist is notable?  The British Museum, for instance, has eight million objects , not every artist who has an object in that collection is notable (even though the British Museum is way more important than the musea listed here).  The very least one would need to meet this criterion is being (semi-)permanently on display, not just hidden in storage.  Fram ( talk ) 13:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Norfolk Museums holds over 30 pieces of his work in their permanent collection.  (These can be viewed by performing an advanced search of their collections online).  Netherzone ( talk ) 14:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which isn't an answer of course.  ""Norfolk Museums Service holds over three million objects "" [26] , being included in these collections is as such not a sign of notability.  Fram ( talk ) 14:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to our guidelines for notability of Creative Professionals it is.  This artist is in the permanent collections of several notable museums .  Netherzone ( talk ) 15:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ARTIST #4 .  Fram ( talk ) 16:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, I've responded there.  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His importance is underlined by the reproduction of his work in historical books, such as Great Tooley of Ipswich published by the Suffolk Records Society.  They often provide images of buildings which sometimes are no longer standing or have been substantially altered.  Leutha ( talk ) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Netherzone .  -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 17:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 17:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NARTIST per above.   I'd also comment that it is unreasonable for wikipedia articles notability to be subject to a potentially ever changing count of whether an artwork is on display or not - which is why I expect the SNG primarily requires presence in multiple collections.  Resonant Dis tor tion 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and snow per all of the above.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If the article is kept, I think it should be be moved to Edward Pocock (artist) -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 21:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes agreed.  I had the same plan - but we can't do that until after the Afd is resolved.  Resonant Dis tor tion 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above passes WP:NARTIST #4.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Alyssa Lang: GraziePrego ( talk ) 06:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , Sports ,  and North Carolina .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Our page might not be citing enough independent in-depth secondary source material to establish notability, but I'm a bit skeptical that such material doesn't exist, given how much professional TV airtime the subject has.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep a bit of decent coverage in local media [6] , [7] , [8] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Aquatic Ambiance ( talk ) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article has been mostly rewritten using sourcing from The State , Saturday Down South , The Clarion-Ledger , and AL.com (including those mentioned by Oaktree b ).  Best, Bridget (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , based on the significant media coverage available on her career that is now cited in the article.  Bridget (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions .  Bridget (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Easily has three sources that pass WP:BASIC .  –– Formal Dude (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the expansion since nomination shows the article passes WP:BASIC .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters: Many Star Trek shows have lists of characters (on top of List of Star Trek characters , as well as the longer alphabetical List of Star Trek characters (A–F) ).  Only two ST shows have 'recurring' lists - DS9 (here) and List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise .  I am unsure whether we want to rename this by removing 'recurring', or just redirect it to the List of ST characters?  I'll note that many entries in Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters are unconsistently redirected either here or the alphabetical ""all-ST"" lists.  Some cleanup is clearly needed here, and I think we can first discuss what to do with those two oddball ""recurring"" lists?  My preferred suggestion would be to keep them, and rename them by removing recurring, but I am open to other ideas?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Television ,  and Lists .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think both could be BOLDly renamed, perhaps adding either a series of {{main article}} tags or more likely a single {{main list}} tag under a section header, to point at the main characters or the cast lists which point at them.  — siro χ o 07:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 19 characters have their own articles.   If you want to prune the list of others, that can be done through normal editing practices.  It shuold be renamed to line up with other articles of this type.  D r e a m Focus 12:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess I will ! vote keep for the AfD discussion, renaming is fine.  — siro χ o 06:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters and add the regular cast.  ""Recurring"" really makes no sense for anything other than a soap opera.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters --to which the regular characters are added--would indeed be the best solution.  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters and add the standard cast, per others.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename and rescope as the consensus WP:ATD .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ajuran Sultanate: There is no academic or contemporary evidence that this ""empire"" ever existed.  Ajuran is nothing more then a nomadic clan that was at the head of a tribal confederation which controlled much of the Shebelle region in southern Somalia.  [38] [39] [40] [41] Mogadishu was never ruled by this ""Ajuran Empire"" it was ruled by a dynasty of local Somalis who were also related to the Ajuran clan called the Muzaffarids.  Sometime around the 16th century the city would fall under Ottoman suzerainty and later under Portuguese and then Omani control.  [42] .    The Somali cities of Merca, Mogadishu, Barawa were apart of the Swahili city states that were independent and distinct from one other similar to Pate, Mombasa and others.  [43] , [44] , [45] .  The Portuguese who sacked the cities of Mogadishu and Barawa never wrote about the existence of a Ajuran state and describe them as being separate entities محرر البوق ( talk ) 04:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Somalia .  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions .  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This AfD nomination rather seems like a gush of POV.  A search of Ajuran Sultanate gives us many books from well-known publishers.  We need quite a bit of authoritative sources that present this as fake news to delete this article.  Since there is a clan called Ajuran according to what you put here, a page move would be more appropriate; lack of WP:N is out of question.  Aintabli ( talk ) 05:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aintabli you stated that there needed to be more authoritative sources so i will give you sources from academics proving that this ""empire"" never existed.  well lets start with J. Spencer Trimingham .  you can see that Trimmingham describes ajuran as a clan that migrated to the shebelle region, he describes them as being a tribal clan and points that they did not inhabit the bendair costal regions p. 113/148 [46] according to Ioan Lewis the ajuran were a sub clan of the hawiye that occupied the land west to mogadishu and ruled the fertile lands of the shebelle region.  [47] Enrico Cerulli talks about them as well, stating that the Ajuran ruled a tiny state in the webi shabelle area that was allied to the muslim city states along the coast.  [ [48] ] I can provide even more sources [49] [50] [51] but the point is that there was never an entity called ""the Ajuran Sultanate"" from an academic pov.  From the sources, it seems like Ajuran was a small tribal confederation of pastoralist nomads that was ruled by the Garen dynasty in the Shebelle area.  I still stand by my statement that there is no academic or contemporary evidence that this polity ever existed.  If you look at the article it states some wild exaggeration with very limited sources.  (eg; Ajuran colonized Mozambique) محرر البوق ( talk ) 06:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggest you check whether the current sources in this article are RS and verify the content.  Then, you may edit accordingly.  For example, if a source talks about a clan instead of a sultanate, you may change it to clan in that specific sentence.  You can also crop clear non-RS or put some up for discussion.  When you're done, look back and if it seems that the article actually discusses a clan instead of a sultanate then, you can request a merge with Ajuran (clan) (which I didn't notice it exists in my first comment).  By ""authoritative sources"", I meant a great amount of sources that can disqualify all the content in this article and justify a deletion, which is difficult.  Aintabli ( talk ) 14:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ محرر البوق , I didn't recommend you to remove 35 thousand bytes in one edit.  What I meant was to scrutinize the article, check each source, and remove them, if they are non-RS, in separate edits, explaining why it should be removed, preferably in detail.  Such huge edits without much explanation will easily become controversial no matter what and may be considered disruptive.  Aintabli ( talk ) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aintabli @ Curbon7 I did check the sources for [52] and here is what I found.  the sources [53] [54] [55] [56] and many more do not mention the Ajuran Sultanate.  The rest are not full citations and have no links or pages example [1] [2] [3] [4] (on the Ajuran-Portuguese battles).  Infact out of all citations, only [57] [58] [59] mention the Ajuran sultanate will full citations.  Then there's other sources that mention the trading city states of the coast which Ajuran did not control.  If you thoroughly look through the citations in the reflist.  You will quickly come to the realization that the vast majority of this article is unsourced.  محرر البوق ( talk ) 21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) محرر البوق ( talk ) 21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ COINS FROM MOGADISHU, c.  1300 to c.  1700 by G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville pg 36 ^ Four centuries of Swahili verse: a literary history and anthology – p. 11 ^ The book of Duarte Barbosa – Page 30 ^ The History of the Portuguese, During the Reign of Emmanuel pg.287  Keep : With no comment on the veracity of the article itself, as Horn of Africa articles can tend to be ripe with misinformation, this polity did certainly exist and has received significant coverage .  Here are three literary sources I was able to locate with a quick perfunctory search.  [60] [61] [62] .  The citations of the latter source also list several additional works about this polity.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  This is clearly a botched attempt at drive-by vandalism through ‘official’ means, the mass deletion of content compiled by various editors over the years is a good example of bad-faith editing by the nominator of this AfD [63] , because none of those editors would have been given the chance to defend that content if it wasn’t reversed.  A simple google search returns multiple reliable sources about this polity from various respected scholars and institutions, some of which Curbon7 already highlighted above.  None of User:محرر البوق sources actually claim that the Ajuran Empire never existed, this is you superimposing your Original Research and POV on the works of scholars and academics that make no such claims, please refrain from doing that, it is frowned upon and goes against Wikipedia policies on Neutral POV.  The Portuguese never controlled the Somali coast, so their lack of knowledge on the politics of the region is not a surprise, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and as it stands, there are multiple scholars who do assert that the coast was under Ajuran suzerainty, so the exploits and fortunes of those coastal Somali cities in the period of Ajuran dominance will most definitely be discussed and highlighted in the article.  There are also enough scholars who refer to the state as an empire or a sultanate, so merging it with the article on the clan is out of the question, just as the Roman Empire and the city of Rome aren’t merged into one.  I advise you to discuss each change on the talk page of the article and add the designated Wikipedia tags for citations and additional sources if you feel a claim should be elaborated.  Vast undiscussed changes with vague summaries that hide multiple smaller edits will be scrutinised and overturned.  I also see no justification for the AfD to continue based on the comments already made by myself, Aintabli and Curbon7 .  — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk ) 18:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GoldenDragonHorn Even if this polity existed, large segments of the article remain unsourced and without full citations.  The claim that the Ajuuran founded colonies in the Maldives and Mozambique is completely false, and there isn't even one reference cited that mentions Ajuran.  Ajuran also wasn't involved in the Ottoman–Portuguese conflicts , there is no evidence of this and again there is also no evidence of a Muslim migration from Arabia, Persia, India and Spain into Ajuran territories as well, the source cited doesn't mention Ajuran.  You make some big claims such as the claim that there's respected scholars who refer to it as an ""empire"".  Can you provide the names of these scholars?  One shouldn't just look up content via google books and assume everything that comes up is reliable.  I've already posted links and the names of academic scholars talking about this so called ""empire"".  while I concede that cerulli does give it the name of a sultanate, NONE of the sources give it the name of an empire.  You also claim that the Portuguese never controlled the Somali coast which is false [64] [65] The Somali coast might of been under Ajuran suzerainty but they never formed a single entity.  The Somali city states and the Ajuran were always distinct and independent from one another despite being closely interlinked.  [66] For example, the Ifat Sultanate for a large portion of it's history was under Ethiopian suzerainty, does it mean that the exploits and fortunes of ifat should be highlighted in the Ethiopian Empire article?  There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the Somali coastal cities were independent and not under Ajuran rule, so there shouldn't be any reason why one should all this info into that article, this information should most likely be put under the Mogadishu or the Muzaffarids (Somalia) or even any other article dedicated to those city states.  Remember that this article should be exclusively about the Ajuran state, not about whatever polities it interacted with.  The only information about these cities that should be included is it's relationship with the Ajuran and what effect it had on the Ajuran.  Also it doesn't matter how much editors worked on this article.  If the content they added is unsourced or inaccurate then it can be removed per - WP:RVREASONS محرر البوق ( talk ) 21:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You nominated the article for deletion, that was an extremely negative and disruptive move and does not show good will on your part nor does it show that you were originally interested in improving the article or the encyclopaedia as a whole, your intent was to get rid of it as quickly as possible with original POV research while weaponising a powerful tool like the AfD, without actually doing the necessary due diligence.  When that didn’t fly, you attempted to mass delete the article by disingenuously misrepresenting a comment made by Aintabli , which again was thwarted by another member.  This is a clear pattern of bad-faith behaviour on your part.  No bueno.  You’re currently moving the goal posts and have switched from boldly claiming that it ‘didn’t exist’ and therefore not satisfying the benchmarks of WP:GNG (yet with no sources to back that up) to ‘maybe it existed’, but with the added red herring opinion that its not justified to discuss the economic arteries of an historic state like the Ajuran in the form of its port cities or their exploits in that specific time period.  In any case this AfD nomination is not the place to defend every single claim made in the article (which was not even my original intention).  The purpose of an AfD is to determine whether an article is academically and historically notable through verifiable sources to justify its existence and inclusion on this encyclopaedia, and the Ajuran Sultanate qualifies in both cases.  You can start multiple individual sections in the article’s talk page about your issues with some of the claims highlighted above and you will have a better chance at a constructive consensus.  I will certainly participate there considering the ethnocentric context of your POV, which is quite obvious from your recorded history of systematically cleansing any sourced content containing the word ‘Somali’ from multiple articles: [67] , [68] , [69] .  All this combined with your bad faith AfD nomination, and unilateral attempts at mass deletion of the article’s content, and I am now tempted to escalate this to the arbitration enforcement committee, since the Horn of Africa still falls under their contentious topics umbrella.  GoldenDragonHorn ( talk ) 01:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GoldenDragonHorn First of all WP:AAGF , you’re making all of these wild accusation and assumptions about my intentions.  I nominated the article for deletion because I believed that there wasn’t any adequate sources supporting its existence as I explained above, this is not disruptive editing.  The article presents Ajuran as a naval empire while in reality that is certainty not the case, as my sources show it was an inland confederation that existed along the shores of the Shabelle and Jubba rivers.  Also stop saying that the Ajuran had “coastal cities” I already argued that it did not (at least the major ones that were mentioned in the article) and you did not refute that.  I’m apparently moving the goalposts?  Have you ever heard of a concession ?  Something that is wildly encouraged on Wikipedia?  That’s how you find consensus.  I’m getting signals that you don’t really know what you’re talking about.  WP:AFD The AfD nomination is absolutely a place to discuss about the content of an article.  If there is a consensus to keep the article then Wikipedians should discuss about other ways one can improve the article, as other editors here have agreed this article is full of unverifiable information and unsourced content.  That “mass deletion” was nothing more then an attempt at being WP:BOLD when it was reverted I did not revert it back and discussed with the user who reverted it on my talk page.  What is wrong with those edits?  Do you have a problem with them?  The Walashma were from Ifat which is west of Harar so they were most likely not of Somali origin, the Al Kawnyen theory is only stated by one academic which I included.  Futuh Al Habesh first mentions Ahmad Gragn as being a young knight fighting for Hubat, there is absolutely no evidence that he was from Zayla, the ethnicity tab was a violation of WP:YESPOV as “most historians” do not state that he was an ethnic Somali.  It has been proposed alongside other ethnicities and I’ve added sources and the opinions of various scholars, I did not remove the ones claiming that he was a Somali.  And the claim that his army was “overwhelmingly Somali” is false as the ethnic composition of his army is described in Futuh Al Habesh as being 1/3 Somali 1/3 Harla and 1/3 Malassay.  As far as I’m concerned, those edits were 100% justified and I wouldn’t have added them if I didn’t think so.  If you truly believe that I am a problematic editor go ahead and let the administrators know WP:AN .  But you’ll probably have a hard time convincing them about the nonsense you’re spewing.  You’re just ranting trying to change the topic, you’re not addressing ANY of the issues addressed in the article.  You can continue to believe that the Ajuran was some great naval superpower with dominion over the Maldives and Mozambique, but including that in the article without any sources and reverting my edits accusing it as “mass deletion” is, in my opinion, a complete joke.  محرر البوق ( talk ) 17:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When there is a clear pattern of bad faith and ethnocentric POV pushing, an editor is not obligated to abide by WP:AAGF , much the same way an editor doesn’t have to assume good faith when dealing with an obvious sock puppeteer or a repeat 3RR offender.  Its a privilege not a right.  More importantly, two different unrelated users already pointed out to you that your unilateral actions could be perceived by other editors as disruptive and gaming the system.  Well, I perceive them exactly as such.  You’re also contradicting yourself by stating that the original cause for this nomination was because you confidently believed that the state didn’t exist, nor that there were any academic sources to prove its notability but at the same time push the narrative that it was an inland federation, so I guess it was an inland federation that didn’t exist?  What is clear is that you have made a lot of personal opinions and unsupported assertions in this AfD nomination about the Ajuran Sultanate, but provided no scholarly sources or references to back them word for word.  Its irrelevant whether you personally don’t consider the Ajuran polity; a sultanate, a kingdom or an empire.  What matters is that there are plenty of reliable sources that do: “ The Ajuuraan sultanate, a Muslim empire, is established in Somalia and soon controls large portions of East Africa. ” - Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia Page 34 And another: ” There have been empires throughout recorded human history, such as the Roman, Mongol, and Ottoman Empires in Eurasia, the Ajuran Sultanate in Africa, and the Inca Empire in South America.  They are often formed through military conquest or economic coercion.  ” - Law and Justice around the World: A Comparative Approach page 40 by Mikaila Mariel, Lemonik Arthur And another: ”The Ajuran Empire, in the Horn of Africa, began to decline in the 17th century, succeeded by the Geledi Sultanate. ” - History of Civilizations by Mason Kirby page 25 .  Its irrelevant that you personally feel that the fortunes and exploits of the coastal cities in the period of Ajuran suzerainty shouldn’t be mentioned in the article just because the Wikipedia articles of other historic polities aren’t set up that way.  What matters is that these coastal cities are discussed by scholars for their trade, politics and regional dynamics in a Ajuran context: ”An Ajuran family, Mudaffar, established a dynasty in the city, thus linking the two entities together; for the next 350 years. ” - Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A Historical Encyclopedia Page 253 by Michael Dumper, Bruce E. Stanley And another: ” The Ajuran are said to have been allied with the Mudaffar dynasty which governed Mogadishu , thus creating a link between coastal and interior politics .  The Ajuran leadership relied on this link to buttress its prestige and power.  ” - The Banaadir Past: Essays in Southern Somali History page 27 .  Its also irrelevant that you personally don’t consider the Ajuran polity a naval power or even question its involvement in the wars against the Portuguese, because we have sources that do: ” Ajuraan's era of greatness corresponds very well with the short but intense Portuguese activities in the Indian Ocean ” - Islamic Art and Culture in Sub-Saharan Africa page 122 by Karin Ådahl, Berit Sahlström And another: ” The Portuguese empire expanded into the Persian Gulf, contesting control of the spice trade with the Ajuran Empire and the Ottoman Empire . ” Ibid: “ The Portuguese were soundly defeated in their attempt to capture wealthy Somali harbor cities on the Somali coast such as Mogadishu, Merca, Barawa, Kismayo and Hobyo by the powerful Somalis of the Ajuran Empire during the Battle of Barawa and Battle of Benadir. ” - Portuguese empire during the period 1415-1663 and its relations with China and Japan–a case of early globalization by Pavel Stoynov - Journal of International Economy and Business 6 (71), 60-66, 2018 Sources are also unequivocal about Ajuran’s political domination over the South and Central regions of medieval Somalia, including the Indian Ocean coast for a period of over 300 years: ”AJURAN.  An imamate or dynasty that emerged in Somalia to control the Shabelle valley from Qallafo, on the upper Shabelle, to the shores of the Indian Ocean, and from Mareeg on the central Somali coast to the Kenyan frontiers in the southwest, thus controlling most of the south-central regions of contemporary Somalia, from the mid-13th to the late 17th centuries. ” - Historical Dictionary of Somalia page 35 .  However, be that as it may, your systematic removal of any reliable sources that mention the Somali people in various articles is definitely problematic and casts a shadow on your recent actions here, because in the other article you removed a sourced statement that categorically stated in relation to a historical figure that ‘most scholars consider him Somali’ and another sourced statement that directly stated that ‘the army was overwhelmingly Somali’ and replaced it with synth, because a medieval Adalite chronicle (a primary source), discussing the army of Adal, also mentioned other important groups related to the Somali people during that time-period and therefore in your opinion it has precedent over secondary sources (despite the latter being the bread and butter of Wikipedia).  What is even more disturbing is the fact that your mathematical calculation of the army being 1/3 Somali, 1/3 Harla and 1/3 Malassay is not even mentioned by the primary source in question nor do any of the secondary sources available make that specific calculation.  So this is the very definition of Original Research, but that edit and other problematic ones like it will be rectified in due time.  Now we are discussing the Ajuran Sultanate.  The place to look for consensus was the article’s talk page, you opted instead (without doing your due diligence pertaining to section C of the WP:AFD guidelines) to push for a deletion process that in most cases would mainly involve senior editors with a periphery knowledge of the region or the subject in question and who could only judge the case based on the merit of its notability, which they did.  The correct way to have gone about it was to  1) add citation tags where necessary,  2) create new sections on the talk page about the boldest claims,  3) trace back those specific edits in the history page and contact the editors that added them in the article with a friendly request if they could corroborate or clarify their statements.  If you were to still be ignored then look for sources yourself, and if you failed to find any, then apply WP:BOLD .  This would have accorded you good faith in my eyes and those of others, but your entire modus operandi was the opposite of this.  Nominating an article for deletion is not being bold or looking for consensus, its disruptive especially when there was clear easy access to a mountain of reliable sources proving its notability.  I repeat again none of your sources in any shape or form claim that the Ajuran Sultanate never existed, which was the foundation of your case for deletion.  I also reiterate once more that several dozen reliable sources have now been provided by me and by others that confidently determine that this article meets all the bench marks of notability, so I suggest you withdraw the nomination if improving the encyclopaedia and the article was your true intention.  — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk ) 04:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The first restule I get at GScholar is an entry under the same title in Wiley's Encyclopedia of Empire .  That's enough.  Srnec ( talk ) 01:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GoldenDragonHorn ""When there is a clear pattern of bad faith and ethnocentric POV pushing, an editor is not obligated to abide by WP:AAGF.... Its a privilege not a right.""  It's apart of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, please read WP:BF .  I really don't care about how you interpret my edits, if you think that I'm being disruptive then that's your problem.  Go ahead and report my problematic behavior to the the administrators because I'm not sure what your end goal is.  Yes, I still believe that there is very little academic sources about the existence of this polity (actual reliable sources from respected scholars and publishers not whatever crap you just cited), but I was forced to make concessions because there seems to be a consensus that the article should be kept.  You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia discussions work.  I have provided multiple sources in this discussion you're just dismissing them.  I don't need to provide a source word for word that is completely ridiculous, you're just finding every excuse just to dismiss and ignore them.  I gave you the PDFs of works from highly respected academics like Enrico Cerulli and Ioan Lewis , feel free to take a look and enjoy.  Those are not ""reliable sources"", you're obviously going on google books and looking up ""ajuran empire"" and whatever comes up you're trying to pass them off as ""scholarly sources"".  The first 4 and the last sources are tertiary sources .  Its irrelevant that you personally feel that the fortunes and exploits of the coastal cities in the period of Ajuran suzerainty shouldn’t be mentioned in the article just because the Wikipedia articles of other historic polities aren’t set up that way.  What matters is that these coastal cities are discussed by scholars for their trade, politics and regional dynamics in a Ajuran context: Scholars?  Who the hell even are these people?  They don't mention these cities in an ""Ajuran context"" that is straight up your own interpterion, it seems like they briefly mention Ajuran and mention the links these cities had to the interior polity, that's it.  Anything else is your own interpterion.  “The Portuguese were soundly defeated in their attempt to capture wealthy Somali harbor cities on the Somali coast such as Mogadishu, Merca, Barawa, Kismayo and Hobyo by the powerful Somalis of the Ajuran Empire during the Battle of Barawa and Battle of Benadir.”  The Portuguese were not defeated in those battles, most notably in Barawa where contemporary sources describe them destroying the city which was followed by a terrible massacre.  Here is one provided by Barnaby Rogerson [70] So the source you cited is obviously incorrect but you still parade it around as a ""reliable source"".  No offense at all, but it seems like you are lacking competence as you do not have the ability to assess the reliability of the sources you are citing.  Most scholars do not consider Imam Ahmad to be a Somali, some do some don't.  The Somali theory is out there but so is the Harla, Arab, Afar, etc. I merely removed that and stated the opinion of various academics, including those who consider him to be a Somali.  Reminder, we have to be completely neutral and state everyone's opinion WP:YESPOV .  As for the ethnic composition of his army, I replaced it with another secondary source from the University of Cambridge that includes Somalis.  is not even mentioned by the primary source in question nor do any of the secondary sources available make that specific calculation.  Please read page 53/284 on Futuh al Habesh.  [71] The army of Imam Ahmad was spilt into 3 divisions, 1 was Somali, 1 was Harla and the other was Malassay.  Not sure what you're whining about because I didn't add this information into any article.  If you attempt to revert those edits believe me, I will be there to dispute it.  Like I said I believe that there wasn't any academic sources proving the existence of this article so I nominated it for deletion, other editors disagreed with me so I talked about other ways one can improve this article.  That's it, don't feel like repeating myself.  create new sections on the talk page about the boldest claims,  3) trace back those specific edits in the history page and contact the editors that added them in the article with a friendly request if they could corroborate or clarify their statements.  You don't need to discuss or reach out to other users before making edits when being WP:BOLD ... that's kind of the whole point of ""being bold""....  Now please learn how to identify reliable sources and how to properly cite them instead of wasting my time.  محرر البوق ( talk ) 08:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As expected, after multiple sources (proving clear due weight and notability) were provided by us you are now nitpicking and shifting to wikilawyering on whether you personally consider them ‘reliable’ or not.  Despite four different unrelated editors pointing out to you that this polity does meet the benchmarks of notability you still refuse to acknowledge this reality, even terming some of the sources provided as ‘crap’ in your personal hierarchy.  This is not helpful.  But let’s use a scholar that you yourself recommended above (I.M Lewis) and see what he has to say about the Ajuran polity and the most important coastal city: ” Under a hereditary dynasty, the Ajuran consolidated their positions as masters of the fertile reaches of the lower Shabelle basin and established a commercial connection with the port of Mogadishu where some of their clansmen settled.  The fortunes of this Ajuran Sultanate thus appear to have been closely linked with those of Mogadishu, and the Ajuran reached the summit of their power in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century when Mogadishu was ruled by the Muzaffar Dynasty, an aristocracy related to if not actually of Ajuran stock.  ” - [72] Its important to highlight that you have provided several sources but none of which that support any of the bold claims you made in your original nomination post outside of synth.  None that question the existence of the Ajuran polity, or deny its notability, which was simply pointed out to you, and which made this AfD bankrupt at conception.  That’s not me dismissing your sources, that’s you not substantiating your bold opinions and assertions, which is a big difference.  Whether one scholar considers the violent Portuguese sack of Barawa as a victory, and whether another scholar considers it a defeat is not the subject matter in this discussion (and is still protected by WP:THISORTHAT ), what does matter is that I have demonstrated adequately that the Ajuran polity is most definitely discussed by academics in relation to the Portuguese and their medieval activities in the Indian Ocean, which is something you denied.  I will ignore the side discussion not related to the Ajuran Sultanate for now and your amusing comment on my cognitive skills aside, I do not think that your incompetent, which makes this nomination all the more sinister, because how could four different unrelated editors come to the same conclusion, but you didn’t?  I would never accuse another editor of pushing an nationalist POV unless there was a clear history in the form of diffs, see here another example.  [73] There is no need to defend your rationale behind the edit in this AfD like you did with the previous diffs.  I only use them to demonstrate that you do have an angle, much the same way a Russian nationalist editor mass deleting content or nominating articles for deletion about Ukrainian culture or Ukrainian history would have an angle and would be seen as problematic.  Its not a personal attack to point this out with evidence, but I can see that you’re getting frustrated, so from henceforth I will refrain my pointing this out any further.  However, I will remind you of the fact that the Horn of Africa and all the articles about the region fall under the contentious topics umbrella overseen by the Arbitration Committee for a good reason.  Unilateral actions such as mass deletions, sudden page moves that change the common name of an article or creating an AfD nomination without clear talk page consensus or discussion beforehand can be perceived as actively undermining the encyclopaedia, and are therefore potentially subject to sanctions, because editing a Horn of Africa related article is not the same as editing the Mickey Mouse or the Eiffel Tower articles.  I made my case for this article’s notability, and will defer judgement to the other editors.  — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk ) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GoldenDragonHorn That's not wikilayering, I'm verifying these sources to see if they're accurate or not.  As for I.M Lewis statements, he imo is referring to Ajuran as a clan based petty kingdom.  Enrico Cerulli also stated something similar.  This in contrast to the article which describes Ajuran as being a trading naval empire.  totally inaccurate.  But you misinterpreted my point about you not assessing the reliability of sources.  I did not say anything about your cognitive ability, but that you didn't really know how to cite and verify sources.  Which is an important competency to edit wikipedia.   When citing references you have to analyze the author, publisher and content to see if they are considered accurate, use the proper template, list the title, page number, url, isbn, quote,etc.  I used to lack skills in this too and it took me a while to learn this as well, but this is extremely important when editing wikipedia.  Also there is no serious scholar that disputes the outcome of the battle of barawa.  the source you cited was written by a bulgarian economics professor from the university of sofia.  and he list wikipedia in his references [74] , not an accurate source at all.  I did interpret your accusations as a personal attack.  And likewise under a contentious topics accusing users of certain behavior (vandalism, disruptive editing, etc) can be considered a personal attack and get you blocked from editing.  While I don't believe that you crossed a line or anything, your first reply was clearly written very combatively and was less about the content of the article and more of my motives and previous edits.  As for your opinion on the Ajuran Sultanate I respect it and don't wish to discuss further about this as this nomination should be closed soon.  Only wished to clear some things up before it does.  محرر البوق ( talk ) 21:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia has policies for tertiary sources which allows for its inclusion into articles when necessary, dismissing them solely for their status as tertiary is not productive.  There is also no need to patronise me, I have not added any of the secondary and tertiary sources listed above into the article, so your demand for ISBN numbers and other benchmarks as proof of competency, or a lack thereof, as a Wikipedia editor is kind of strange, since this is a talk page, where sources are regularly put forward, dismissed or accepted during a discussion.  I.M Lewis also quite clearly refers to the polity as the ‘Ajuran Sultanate’ not the clan, or a tribe.  Though I understand you might feel that me pointing out that you have POV is a personal attack (we all have one), that was not the intention.  More importantly, in doing so I have not broken any rules, either set by Wikipedia or the ArbCom, as I used clear diffs to demonstrate it.  However, since I have no interest in making this platform a toxic place for another editor, I will retract my previous statements, and we can start from a clean slate.  — GoldenDragonHorn ( talk ) 18:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Armenians of Julfa: We don't need this article.  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Armenia ,  and Azerbaijan .  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support : per nomination.  Nemoralis ( talk ) 06:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose well sourced, passes WP:GNG .  - K evo 3 2 7 ( talk ) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We can't have articles for the historical Armenian population of every place once inhabited by them.  I am aware of the cultural importance of Julfa for Armenians, but we have a lot of much better articles where this information can be perfectly covered.  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the history section to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History , but the cemetery portion is already covered by the dedicated article, so no need to merge that.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose per above rationale.  Archives908 ( talk ) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No consensus so far.  Also ""We don't need this article"" is not a strong deletion rationale as editors, in good faith, can disagree on what articles are ""needed"" on the project.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV .  Oppose merge through this AFD for procedural reasons.  The content could possibly be merged as suggested above but that should be done through a formal merge proposal at WP:MERGEPROP where notices can be placed at the targeted merge article and the threat of deletion removed from that discussion.  I advocate for this because in my opinion merging this content could create WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the suggested merge article, and it it might be preferable to either let it remain a stand alone article, or merge to one of the other articles mentioned by the nominator (such as Armenians in Azerbaijan which I think would be a better merge target than Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History ).  4meter4 ( talk ) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of sources and notability.  Nocturnal781 ( talk ) 02:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and do not merge per 4meter4 's thoughtful analysis.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Nadine Rohr: Fails WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina ( talk ) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople ,  and Switzerland .  Shinadamina ( talk ) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Beni Ebeid SC: At the moment I don't see enough WP:SIGCOV for this football club to have it's own article.  Unless I am proven wrong, I fail to see how this needs it's own page.  Suggest a redirect to Beni Ebeid .  Govvy ( talk ) 10:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 10:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While I admit that the current state of this article isn't the best, but it definitely passes WP:NOTE ; as it's about a club that played in a major national competition, the Egypt Cup , and were previously one step away from reaching the top domestic league in the country, the Egyptian Premier League .  There's also a lack of information in English language about this club, similar to other lower clubs from Egypt, so having a separate article for this and other similar clubs may be best for readers, to have at least a glimpse of information of that club.  Nevertheless, I will try to update and rewrite the article in the nearest possible time to improve its state.  Ben5218 ( talk ) 10:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you find and add Arabic-language sources to show notability?  If so, please ping me.  Otherwise delete due to lack of significant coverage.  Giant Snowman 20:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been rewritten and significantly improved with new content and more sources in both Arabic and English languages.  Ben5218 ( talk ) 14:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm with GiantSnowman here. While there may be Arabic-language sources, they are extremely difficult for non-Arabic speakers/readers to find. I am more than willing to change my vote if Arabic-language sources can be added, either here or, more preferably, in the article itself. Indeed, given the state of the article at the moment, this borders on WP:TNT . Anwegmann ( talk ) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per sources included in reworked article. Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have updated and rewritten the article. Ben5218 ( talk ) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Ben5218 : That is actually a lot better, I don't mind saying it's closer to a Weak keep for me, there a a few delete arguments, so it would help if both @ Anwegmann and GiantSnowman : are happy with the new updates or not for a withdrawal. Govvy ( talk ) 21:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping @ Govvy . This is indeed much better. I've changed my vote above as a result. It's weak, but it's a keep. Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Glad to hear that you liked the updated article! Once I have enough freetime, I'll do the same to the club's stadium article, Beni Ebeid Stadium , which is also nominated for deletion at the moment. That should happen today if everything goes right with my daily schedule. Ben5218 ( talk ) 06:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep following article improvement. Good work! Giant Snowman 09:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Christopher Green (legal scholar): Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Law , United States of America ,  and Mississippi .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not seeing evidence that the subject meets WP:PROF.  Possibly too early career, the subject appears to have received his PhD in 2006.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- found that he holds a named chair as a full professor at a well-established large institution which is an automatic keep category per WP:NPROF .  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Mscuthbert .  BD2412 T 02:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF#C5 .  His citation numbers are respectable but not huge (134 for ""Originalism and the Sense-Reference Distinction"" and then going down from there) but I have the impression that constitutional law is a low-citation subject so I don't find this particularly concerning.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Rugby League Conference Yorkshire Premier: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Rugby league ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found.  Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Alternative : Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 15:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Merge and Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League as successor competition.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Osirica: The concept is spelt as either 'Osirica' and 'Osiriaca'.  Although tagged as a possible hoax, it doesn't seem to be one.  The idea exists, though it's not notable enough and the works it appears in are rejected by most historians.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 13:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- In addition to the (probably not RS) books mentioned above this order is also discussed in C.H. Vail's ""Ancient Mysteries and Modern Masonry"" and ""African-American Artists and Art Students: A Morphological Study in the Urban Black Aesthetic."" which is a Penn State dissertation by M.N. DePillars.  This is enough to meet the GNG even though these sources aren't currently used in the article.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you mind specifying the page numbers?  I've managed to find online copies of both sources, but I can't find where the topic is mentioned.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 08:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as per Central and Adams .  - Samoht27 ( talk ) 18:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it documents a notable historical and cultural organization that significantly contributes to the preservation and promotion of ancient Egyptian heritage and African identity.  Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about Osirica's unique initiatives and influence, supported by reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance. -- Improvised but so real unicorn ( talk ) 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What are you talking about?  The article talks about a historic masonic order, not a cultural organisation promoting ancient Egyptian heritage.  It also has no sources, so where are these ""reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance"" you speak of?  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 11:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ronald Colson: Award won seems notable, but there is not sourcing that discusses him.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , unless I am missing something, this individual has been nominated for three Grammy awards thus meeting WP:MUSICBIO#C8 .  (some verification from a trade publication [72] ) — siro χ o 00:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I figured as much, but I was unable to locate sources that confirmed the nominations for the Grammy.  To me, it seemed like a name in a list of people; I'd assume for the article to be kept, we'd need some other discussion of the person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, the guidelines state notability is presumed, not guaranteed, so other discussion can help affirm that presumption, but with the SNG being met, we don't need to go so far as to meet GNG or WP:BASIC .  I think that when the notability guideline is met, we would need clear consensus that the presumption is not valid in the specific case to not use the guideline in that case.  I guess we'll see where the consensus lands.  Either way, we do need some amount of sourcing for WP:V .  — siro χ o 05:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The claim of notability is there and it's backed by sources like this one which provide in-depth coverage about the subject, with ample additional sources available to be added to flesh out further details about the subject beyond the list of songs.  With that, the notability standard has been met.  Alansohn ( talk ) 12:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to what others have noted, the Grammy  website has a page for Colson stating his nominations.  Significa liberdade ( talk ) 20:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tankeshwar Kumar: The page was declined via AfD, then moved by editor to main and a contested draftify.  Deletion seems appropriate as there is no evidence of an attempt to satisfy notability requirements.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Haryana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Our article claims that he has been head of two new-ish regional universities in India, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology and Central University of Haryana .  (In India, vice chancellor is head of a university; chancellor is a ceremonial post.)  Perhaps the nominator could address whether this passes WP:PROF#C6 ?  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did think about this, particularly in the context of the recent discussions at WT:NPROF#Deans, vice-presidents, vice-chancellors, etc .  As discussed there in most cases notability is established independent of the position.  I was influenced by the (very) spotty history of how this page evolved, plus that reference [6] does not validate him being a NAS member, the official site reference is needed.  This may be a case for a further community discussion on WP:PROF#C6 which I feel is warranted.  (While some months ago I accepted it as an OK criteria, I am now dubious.)  Let's see what others think, I don't have to always be right.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see why you don't think that reference verifies his membership in NASI (not the US NAS); it's a newspaper story that says exactly that.  I replaced it though with another from another newspaper that specifically talks about his election to NASI [1] .  Anyway that should also be enough for WP:PROF#C3 .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  His citation record is good [2] but in a high-citation field, so I would prefer not to rely on WP:PROF#C1 .  And I have no idea whether UGC Professor at Punjab University (his title prior to becoming VC) is the sort of thing that would count for #C5.  Instead let's go with #C3 and #C6.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My apologies for strongly disagreeing with you, but he definitely does not qualify for WP:PROF#C1 in Materials Science and Engineering (MSE), the US term for his field.  He has 4 decently cited reviews on popular topics in reasonable journals, but not those with the highest impact factors and he is not one of the big names in those topics.  He has several ~50 cited papers in decent impact journals (e.g. JPCC), but again nothing original in a high impact journals.  (Nowadays even to get hired as Asst Prof you need articles in the top journals.)  His publication record would just about get him tenure in the US, but not promotion to full professor at a major university.  In his area 50 is notablable, 250 puts your name into the nobel pot.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 07:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps I did not word my comment carefully enough to be understood.  I am neither claiming that he passes #C1 nor basing my keep opinion on #C1.  I am using different criteria.  As for impact factors: please no.  Judging someone by whether a few of other people's papers in the same journals happen to have sudden early citation spikes?  It's meaningless numerology.  If you're going to judge by whether the work is well-cited, judge by whether it is well-cited, not by whether it is well-cited-adjacent.  If you're trying to avoid citation counting for something more meaningful, then avoid citation counting, don't just keep doing it but more indirectly.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked not just at the citations of his papers, but also the topics and the journals -- it was not ""just counting"".  For instance his reviews/work on nanotubes is not even slightly close to that of Sumio Iijima or Pulickel Ajayan .  In terms of journal impact factors, sorry but again I strongly disagree with your comments.  It really does take a lot more to publish in Science (journal) than J. Phys.  Chem.  C. Not too far from the difference between a GA and a Start-Class article.  Academics, even PhD students and some undergrad look at impact factors, as do Chairs, Deans and funders.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - The individual the VC (highest functionary) heading a Central (Federal) public university.  Appointed by the President of India after open-applications, search and selection by the Ministry of Education.  Similarly, has held VC position at a State public university.  I do not agree with the nominator's view to cross-check everything academic from citations, and journal publications as also nominated here , given the flaws and MLM type model of this now discussed far more openly than ever, it is time that we keep academia free and open without any gate-keeping.  Non-relevant: There have been many people who have contributed much without joining the feudal/elite academic circles.  Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As David Eppstein pointed out, subject at a minimum meets #C3 and #C6 of WP:NPROF - and might meet #C5.  A subject need only meet one of these criteria to justify notability; this one meets at least two.  Qflib ( talk ) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Assuming everything is true , he easily passes the PROF test.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Courtney Niemiec: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Pennsylvania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  W C M email 07:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does not meet WP:GNG , with a complete lack of secondary sources.  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Note when searching for sources that her name is now Courtney Tole per her current employer .  - Socccc ( talk ) 22:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep.  The Oregonian ran a short feature on her going from undrafted to starter in 2014, as did CBS News Philly/KYW Newsradio ; unclear if that's enough.  The rest I could find were more clearly not SIGCOV.  The club appearances count was also wrong (21, not 27).  Also added detail about her post-retirement move to coaching and changed her name.  - Socccc ( talk ) 23:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ Wee Curry Monster : , @ Let'srun : , Per Soccc.  Has sources like [33] , [34] , and [35] , made 27+ appearances in the NWSL , regarded as one of best women's league in world...  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to sources listed by Das osmnezz.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 09:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY , per sources highlighted within this discussion which are now cited in the article.  Kudos to Socccc for improving the article which is in much better shape than when it was first nominated for deletion.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided by Socccc and Das osmnezz, enough to meet WP:GNG .  S.A. Julio ( talk ) 18:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I think there's just enough coverage in The Oregonian and CBS New Philadelphia pieces to suggest WP:GNG can be met here.  Jogurney ( talk ) 14:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Liv Bredal: WP:NOT an IMDB mirror.  The rest is a clear case of WP:INHERIT failure, with citations to a biographical dictionary and a who's who entry about her husband.  There is also a newspaper article about the marriage, a trait about a person which does not bestow notability.  The two remaining sources (Digitalarkivet) are census-related and are not significant coverage.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and Norway .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Liv Bredal is mentioned in various other books ( Film i Norge 1943 , Norsk film gjennom 35 år , Norsk filmografi: 1908-1979 , etc.) and the name appears 1,564 times in Norwegian newspaper articles.  The article is already better sourced than many comparable articles, and additional sources could be added.  Doremo ( talk ) 11:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can you post the best three sources from independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth so that editor can eval them?  // Timothy :: talk 09:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Among the currently cited 10 sources, those would be ""Liv Bredal blir bæring"" , ""Liv Bredal er 23 år og forlovet"" , and ""Da Liv Bredal ble Liv Caprino"" .  In addition, 28 book sources , 24 magazine sources , and 1,564 newspaper sources are available altogether.  The 1943 biography Liv Bredal by Reidar Lunde is a significant source, but it is not available electronically.  Doremo ( talk ) 13:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 07:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : When I first looked at this, I thought this was a good faith but poorly timed AfD; it was undersourced, but new and since then sources have been added.  I still think it was a good faith AfD, but based on the author's sources above and in the article, their editing experience, [35] and their obvious language skill, I think this is a keep.  Based on their clear and concise response, I trust that this author did the needed BEFORE and found the subject notable.  If they had written a wall of text as often happens, I'd have passed on reading it, but they presented a (much appreciated) concise and direct response.  If someone with the needed language skills can dispute the sources above, you’re are welcome to ping me; my first question will be if you have the language skills and access to evaluate the author’s response.  // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Antisemitism in Columbia University: Mostly just a list of vaguely related incidents.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 15:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Ethnic groups , Education , Schools , Religion , Judaism ,  and New York .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep You have at least three things going on here:  1) Historic antisemitism at ivy league schools, which have plenty of RS'es  2) current protest events being alternatively branded as anti-Zionist or antisemitic, also covered in a lot of RS'es but as current events rather than historical reflection, and  3) commentaries connecting the two.   I don't see how we can avoid covering this, even if the ultimate focus needs to be bigger than Columbia and the ultimate title needs to be different.  An AfD may be a good place to start such a discussion, but I doubt it will end up resolved well here.  Jclemens ( talk ) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, the protests themselves are already being covered at 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation .  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 17:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Some parts of this page might be merged to 2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupation#Allegations_of_antisemitism .  Or they might be used to cover the alleged recent wave of antisemitism in multiple US universities, not just Columbia.  However, given the framing of the subject of the page (i.e. it even covers 20th century), it seems to stand as a separate page.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 17:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Unfortunately given what's happened, an article like this needs to exist, despite the creation by a sock.  WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Why was there no discussion on the talk page before it was nominated for deletion?  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep by SNOW.  The issue of quality may be valid, and the creation issue definitely is, but it meets GNG (whether or not some content needs to be merged somewhere else), and no reason for deletion exists.  FortunateSons ( talk ) 11:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Bridge 9 Records: Graywalls ( talk ) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Companies ,  and Massachusetts .  Graywalls ( talk ) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I found these articles: [31] , [32] .   They seem sufficiently in-depth, but might be too interview-y to establish notability.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Certainly one of the more important indies in the sense used at WP:MUSIC ; the label released some of the most noteworthy punk rock of the last two decades (note that the nominator gutted this article of its discography immediately before nominating it for deletion, and it should be restored).  As for coverage, there's more beyond what WeirdNAnnoyed dug up: [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] .  Amusingly, the label even makes the punk tabloids when Ben Affleck wears their t-shirt .  Chubbles ( talk ) 18:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Also want to add: The Athletic: ""one of Boston's most influential hardcore and punk labels"" and Washington Post coverage .  Issan Sumisu ( talk ) 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Under the Radar Volume 2: Shellwood ( talk ) 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability.  These look useful, for instance: https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2017/0711/889410-robbie-williams-to-raid-old-songs-for-new-album/ https://www.nme.com/news/music/robbie-williams-announces-new-album-under-the-radar-volume-2-2107942 https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/3118657/robbie-williams-set-to-release-new-album-under-the-radar-volume-2-on-youtube/ (n.b. godawful as it is, I think The Sun is still considered an RS on Wikipedia?) https://www.digitalspy.com/music/a832882/robbie-williams-new-album-arse-out-again/ https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/film-tv/robbie-williams-gets-naked-on-cover-of-new-album-293288/ -- Jonie148 ( talk ) 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there's enough coverage for a short but helpful album entry here. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Jonie148's findings.  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"David Shimer: He doesn't seem that notable based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria , having only published one book and that book does not seem to be that impactful to me.  EvilxFish ( talk ) 10:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism , History , England , Connecticut ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The book reviews cited in the article exceed notability standards.  Showrunner312 ( talk ) 18:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably passes AUTHOR with book reviews in the Guardian, Washington Post and NY Times [61] , [62] and [63] Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : And a long, rambling NPR discussion/review/analysis thing [64] .  Not to be negative, but they always have lots to say about stuff...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the book reviews included above show that he passes notability standards for authors.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 04:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article plainly passes Notability standards.  81.134.244.122 ( talk ) 23:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This strikes me as having been written by the author.  Ambleside1805 ( talk ) 23:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Linux for PlayStation 2: There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk ) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep I found SIGCOV in PSM magazine , Linux Voice magazine and Official AUS PlayStation magazine as well as a New York Times article about how scientists made a PS2-based supercomputer, which I believe utilized the Linux for PS2 adapter kit.  It also got a Eurogamer article and WIRED article among other things.  The argument that there are no independent sources is totally incorrect and fails WP:CSK#3 .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article has been unmaintained for a long time.  Could you, please, add those references to the article, so other editors can validate those references?  Mdggdj ( talk ) 14:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be a more citations needed template tag.  The article may be poor but the PlayStation feature is probably relevant or at least possible to merge into PS2 article.  IgelRM ( talk ) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not the responsibility of AfD participants to fix the article to make it notable.  See WP:NOEFFORT .  All that has to be proven is that the article can be improved and is also not immediately WP:NOT , which it isn't.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In addition to the above, a quick search online shows quite a few independent sources.  GBooks alone for example has significant coverage in books on topics like computer science , political science , and a Spanish Programación para PlayStation 2 for Dummies book.  Notability requires the existence of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not that they be in the article at the time of nomination.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 13:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Feels like the nominator did not perform WP:BEFORE .  Sufficient sources have already been presented.  AFD is not cleanup.  -- ferret ( talk ) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Very threadbare nom with the nom actively removing content instead of trying to find further sources (which I've reverted; don't do this before the end of the nomination, Mdggdj.).  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The research done by zxcvbnm proves that the article is notable and can meet WP:THREE if and when the sources are inserted in the article.  The article does meet WP:GNG and as opposed to what IgelRM has stated saying that the article could be merged into the PlayStation 2 article, I feel the article requires it's mainspace and does not need to be merged.  MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 06:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Lionel Cristiano ?  19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"WiX: The majority of sources used are primary sources and therefore considered unreliable, such as the official website of Rob Mensching, the developer of WiX, wixtoolset.org, and Microsoft blogs directly related to the article's topic.  The remaining sources are also unreliable blogs.  There is a lack of acceptable sources in the article.  While the topic may be important for Microsoft, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards without extensive and detailed coverage from authoritative sources that could help establish its notability.  Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there is a reason why WiX is notable within software history with being the first open-source project developed by Microsoft (diverging from their profit-centric closed source model), but similar to other installer technologies and like most technical niches, detailed coverage is unlikely to be found outside of the industry, especially with it being a Microsoft-centric tech.  A large number of results are found on Google Scholar where it appears in a number of technical books [3] .  TubularWorld ( talk ) 13:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After looking at the nominator's edit history, I'm a little worried that there is some sort of vendetta, ulterior motives or conflict of interest going on here where aside from creating a couple of Armenian articles this editor appears to just be trying to delete installation technology-related articles, such as comments made by User:Vlad on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstallAnywhere .  Many of the articles that the nominator has suggested for deletion have been on Wikipedia for many years - in the case of this WiX article it must rank among the oldest articles having been started in 2004, so my question is why are these all being nominated for deletion all of a sudden?  TubularWorld ( talk ) 10:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your observation, I've tried looking for this deletionist user, as far as I can remember I hadn't intersected with her anywhere else (for such vendetta / ulterior motives) and while from the login / name she's obviously Armenian, I really don't know why she wants all these technology articles deleted.  With IA it finished finally with a redirect, so the history's not lost, but even I know WiX is more known than IA (InstallAnywhere).  -- Vlad | -> 10:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TubularWorld also, an interesting fact is that she doesn't like versions history in such articles, sometimes these sections are important in terms of size of text, deleting this first would make the article smaller as it used to be, then more prone to be deleted.  -- Vlad | -> 10:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 19:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's secondary sources elsewhere including at least two dedicated books and coverage in other books, at least one web article.  Just needs to be cleaned up so it isn't only cited to some guy's blog.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WikiPedia is highly referenced in Google, when searching for pretty much anything, the en.wiki article (if it exists) is returned in the first 10 results (if not the first 5).  It's a pity to click to such a link only to discover it has been deleted and / or transformed into a redirect!  -- Vlad | -> 14:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a valid reason for keeping.  If this were true, no articles would ever be deleted.  Industrial Insect (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This obviously meets GNG.  X ( talk ) 09:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Clifton Truman Daniel: Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors ,  and United States of America .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please keep this page.  His connection to Harry Truman goes beyond being his grandson.  The subject is very notable by virtue of being the child of a child of a US President, particularly that one.  He is the child of 2 very well known and influential individuals, either of whom would qualify him to have a Wikipedia page.  He wrote two books, each is about Harry Truman and others connected to him.  He has an oral account on the following site about his grandfather: https://themoth.org/stories/clifton-truman-daniel He has knowingly presented himself to the public.  According to the wiki page on him ""he is Director of Public Relations for Truman College, one of the seven City Colleges of Chicago.""  He has not attempted to remain out of public attention.  Who were the ones who initiated the deletion of this page?  And specifically why?  I speculate that those actions are enough to keep it.  Thank you.  100.36.90.181 ( talk ) 14:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, I was the one who nominated the page for deletion.  I can confirm that I have no agenda here other than holding to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly around notability .  To your points, please see notability is not inherited .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For those of us who are history and genealogy buffs, this is vital information.   The Wiki bio rules need to be changed to allow whatever info is available on the descendants of Presidents of the U. S. 2600:8804:4000:6E00:FCC5:1CF0:6C98:258A ( talk ) 15:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , he is an author, former journalist, honorary chairman of the board of a major Harry Truman related institution, and has appeared on television as an advocate of his grandfather's memory.  Aside from that, and because of the concerns of IP 100 above, please note that the nominator has been nominating many U.S. presidential relatives and not just this one, seems to be a concerning swath through a major portion of prominent U.S. historical families.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 04:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Randy Kryn : As with the other US presidential relative where you've voted keep, can you explain what parts of your rationale apply to WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO ?  This ! vote is a assertion of notability (from Wikipedia's arguments to avoid in deletion discussions).  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :  In spending about 30 minutes on this, and adding a number of new cites, its clear there's no question of notability. -- Milowent • has spoken 18:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep coverage in the article is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG .   There is no requirement that relatives of famous people be separately notable for there own accomplishments only that they have sufficient sources about themselves to write a proper article.   That standard is met here.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 04:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Milowent and Eluchil404.  Passes WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Roll No 21: It does not have in-depth analysis or substantial coverage in reputable publications.  The references cited are primarily primary sources or do not offer the necessary independent verification of the show's notability.  M S Hassan ( talk ) 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation ,  and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article in The Hindu.  Award.  One of the first Indian original production of Cartoon Network.  Maybe that would have deserved a more elaborate rationale for deletion this time?  See also https://showtimepandit.com/roll-no-21-shocking-story-behind-its-downfall/ (expert ""blog""); mentioned here (see table) https://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/tv-shows-for-kids-enter-golden-age-in-india-116101700922_1.html .  Absolutely opposed to deletion.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have elaborated the rationale for deletion, Thank you for your feedback.  M S Hassan ( talk ) 08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks!  I think the article in The Hindu is both in-depth and independent, though, and it's a pretty reputable newspaper.  The program has received an award and multiple sources describe it as very popular (see above, or this ) and significant .  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : passes WP:NTV and is a reputed and notable series.  Imsaneikigai ( talk ) 11:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:GNG .  Cartoon is popular and has won significant awards at Cartoon Network Super Toon Awards with CN Super Toon of the Year, Chatur Toon and Loser Villain.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Objectivist periodicals: This article is half about a list of periodicals that Ayn Rand wrote for, and the other half is about periodicals written by people who endorse her philosophy.  All sources listed in this article that are used to make statements about periodics that Rand worked in are written by people who have worked in these periodicals and/or were friends of Rand herself before she died.  Here are some examples: Robert Hessen wrote for two of such periodicals, according to Hessen's article Barbara Branden has worked for two of such periodicals, according to the article Anne Heller was a personal friend of Rand before she died.  Leonard Peikoff was also a friend of Rand Jennifer Burns seems to be the only person here who is independent of the subject.  All the other periodicals that were published independently of Rand are clearly not notable, given the poor sourcing.  SparklyNights 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Philosophy , Libertarianism , Organizations ,  and Politics .  SparklyNights 20:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An initial question for User:SparklyNights : The preface to Heller's biography of Rand says, ""I never met her"" and that Heller didn't even read Rand's books until she was in her 40s (i.e., after Rand died), so in what way was she ""a personal friend of Rand""?  -- RL0919 ( talk ) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yea, it seems like I got it wrong about Heller. In this case, she is probably independent of the subject of this article. SparklyNights 21:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Independent reliable sources already cited in the article include the books by Burns, Gladstein , Heller, Perinn, and Sciabarra . There is also coverage in other independent sources such as Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism , Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult , and the academic essay collection A Companion To Ayn Rand . Whether some of the later publications merit inclusion is an article content question, but the core subject is clearly notable. -- RL0919 ( talk ) 21:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per RL.  While the content of the article can be debated, the fact that objectivist periodicals exists trumps any argument for deletion.  Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 01:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ayn Rand page.  It is about the work about Ayn Rand and her legacy.  Topjur01 ( talk ) 14:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If a merger were desirable (although I don't think it is), then Objectivist movement would be a better target.  Other people were involved in these publications, and some of them continued after Rand's death.  Also adding another 1000 words to the 5800-word article about Rand is not reader-friendly.  -- RL0919 ( talk ) 15:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per RL0919.  Core subject is notable.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Twomad: --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage!  • 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Every third-party celebrity wiki I've found with a page on him ends up only citing his youtube and twitter accounts.  There's a few articles on his SA accusations, but I wouldn't touch them as they haven't met WP:BLPCRIME .  There's really not much to write with here.  mooshberry -> talk ; 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean its a little bit of wishful thinking assuming that they're going to site high quality sources.  There have been several mainstream and quality sources referencing him in the past, those could be used here.  MarkJames1989 ( talk ) 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm new to Wikipedia, and it seems like I see a lot of articles with information I find of use for me getting nominated for deletion.  I don't even care if there is one paragraph in an article because in my opinion, information is information, and Twomad is no exception.  Carnival200 ( talk ) 03:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being new, you should probably give a read to WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E .  --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Totally agree. There are plenty of times in which I've tried to find information on an individual with a deleted WP page -- only to look up the archived version and find exactly what I'm looking for.  Perhaps WP should consider amending its deletion policy.  Webmaster098 ( talk ) 03:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sadly WP isn't a fandom, so we can't just have barely notable information on here.  I'm sure you both are aware that there is a couple youtube/social media specific fandom sites out there?  You both should spend some time looking at our notability guidelines, WP:WEB and WP:BIO both apply in this is situation.   --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ( Talk ) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Pointing out that he did have a few news coverages even before his death- mainly surrounding his Zoom bombing series and live streams [1] .  He was notable enough to appear on TV few times.  [2] At the very least he has his own KYM page [3] .  I think it's relatively safe to say he broke the public sphere of relevance and is probably notable enough 7dn ( talk ) 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed MarkJames1989 ( talk ) 22:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A blog, a YouTube video describing trivial coverage in BBC (he isn't mentioned by name) and Know Your Meme do not count as reliable sources or an indicator of notability.  The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only coverage Twomad received were minor mentions in the BBC and a few other news sites, a cameo does not make someone notable for a Wikipedia page if that was the case my father would have one for starring as the background actor in some no name movie that one time.  InternetEnigma ( talk ) 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Entertainment ,  and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The only real significant coverage in WP:RS has come about today because of his apparent death.  Not much more than the odd passing mention otherwise.  WindTempos ( talk • contribs ) 21:51, 14 February 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 February 14 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There were many articles and notable sources covering him long before his death.  Including mainstream sources, like BBC.  I vaguely remember his article being much more detailed with sources in the past, however I must be misremembering.  Regardless I think the article should be kept, extended, and updated.  Does a persons death negate their notability even if it is only being revived because of their death?  Notability has nothing to do with being alive.  MarkJames1989 ( talk ) 22:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither does death.   The fact that someone died does not suddenly make them noteworthy.   Noteworthiness is achieved by what one does when they are alive.  Granted - how someone died could be noteworthy in and of itself - but that too does not stand the test here.  --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage!  • 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Refuting that argument, isn't it logical to argue that an individual with no degree of notability wouldn't be covered by publications and so using his alias.  Assuming twomad had absolutely no degree of notability, why would publications use the title ""YouTuber twomad dead at 23"" and not ""23-year-old found dead by overdose"" Célestin Denis ( talk ) 22:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because a subject is noteworthy by publications for one event doesn't immediately mean it's notable enough for Wikipedia.  TappyTurtle ( talk ) 04:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Just checked the article and it's low-quality.  There are not many reliable sources.  I think it is something that shouldn't have its own article.  Plus, twomad isn't notable for anything he was just a shitposting troller.  Autograph84 ( talk ) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say that the low-quality article should be an indicator that it needs to be updated.  And including all the stories, allegations and rumors can make people decide what they think is the case.  It can’t just be one sided because that will lead to conflict online where people who have already heard the allegations and people who already supported Twomad argue about how the article is incorrect because it doesn’t align with their opinion which is a result of reading many other opinions.  92.39.195.160 ( talk ) 08:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still, twomad isn't worthy of anything for him to have an article and again there's little reliable info about bro.  I just say add him in Deaths in 2024 and call it a day.  Autograph84 ( talk ) 20:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I've moved the article to draft space.  ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk ) 22:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You should've waited for consensus before moving to draft .  Regardless, I will be updating the draft with more information and sources.  I understand that the current article was not up to Wikipedia standards but I was actively working on the content before you draftified it.  I am confident this subject can pass WP:N and will continue my search for sources.  Célestin Denis ( talk ) 22:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the question of ""no reliable sources"" existing before death could currently be disputed by this South Korean article by JoongAng Ilbo : [7] Célestin Denis ( talk ) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His sexual abuse allegations were also covered by the Daily Dot which used to be considered reliable until 2022 switching over to a no-consensus as of now: [8] Célestin Denis ( talk ) 22:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLP / WP:BDP isn't a wait and see thing.  ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk ) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I’ve said this before but he lacks notability to have his own Article he only ever made small cameos on the mainstream news back during the Zoom trolling days which isn’t notable enough to be considered for an Article, a worthwhile comparison is the Vtubers Froot And Veibae who had an entire dedicated section on the BBC yet are still not notable enough to have dedicated Articles.  The Article itself is an incoherent mess and fails to mention pretty much anything he was known for on the Internet (Ex: Goodnight Girl, Zoom Trolling, Hasan Beef, Abuse Allegations, Etc.) which notably most of these don’t have reliable sources discussing them which furthers my view that he isn’t notable enough for an Article.  InternetEnigma ( talk ) 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""The Article itself is an incoherent mess and fails to mention pretty much anything he was known for on the Internet"" Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia in which ANYONE can edit, right?  Can't somebody just mention those and save the edits?  ""Notably most of these don’t have reliable sources""  Knowyourmeme exists.  NoahMusic2009 ( talk ) 13:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NoahMusic2009 : Somebody can edit the article and click Save, but they'd probably be reverted quickly.  Information included on Wikipedia has to meet some policies and guidelines, such as being verifiable based on reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  Knowyourmeme is a fun site, but it is user-generated (i.e. anyone can edit ) so it is inherently unreliable for our purposes.  The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  λ Negative MP1 03:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Based on a lack of notability, the article should be deleted.  There is no significant coverage in reliable sources aside from a single event and the article is based almost entirely on unreliable sources.  Daniel Quinlan ( talk ) 05:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article is of bad quality, and was only made because he died.  Simply not notable enough to warrant its own article - just go to Wikitubia or something.  q w 3 r t y 06:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay i get the idea, but i feel he can be the objection to this ruling.  Mainly because of the huge response this has been getting, especially all the dog-piling (rightfully so, guy was a huge pedo).  I suggest not for a deletion, but instead, a definite retooling.  I do agree with the fact the article in question is poorly done and definitely needs a lot of fixing to do.  He has a decent enough following and impact, that a page could be in place, however it is built upon haste Bruh32123 ( talk ) 07:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bruh32123 Sorry, but no.  There isn't a single person or topic in a million universes that's exempt from the notability requirements.  Even pulling the "" ignore all rules "" card, you'd have to provide a genuinely compelling, flawless argument on why he should be the exception.  So far, your argument looks like a "" right great wrongs "" type.  PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly that's fair, I just wanted to put my two cents into it.  There's definitely plenty of issues with it Bruh32123 ( talk ) 09:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Seeing as how a new article was created to replace the drafted version, I feel compelled to repost these two sources that might get us somewhere.  In addition to the ones pointed out above, this scholarly article writes about his content in several hundred words, and this NY Daily News (reliable per WP:RSPSS ) piece reported on his death alongside aspects of his career.  Not officially voting yet, however.  PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 09:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again - just because someone is mentioned in a publication does not mean they are noteworthy enough to garner a WP article.  I've been mentioned in RS more than a dozen times - yet the only appropriate WP pages I should ever have is my talk & personal pages.  This guy simply fails to meet the test for notability, and wasn't notable enough to have a WP Article when he was alive.  That does not change now that he is dead.   WP is not a collection of obituaries.  --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 14:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Picard's Facepalm 1: If you actually read the first source, it's quite disingenuous to say he's only just mentioned. It's a clear example of WP:SIGCOV from before his death. And 2: that ""wasn't notable when alive"" argument isn't as convincing as you think it is. When it comes to people in creative fields especially, a person may get little if any coverage about their life and career until the moment after their death. In that coverage, reliable outlets may write about their life in such detail that it contributes to their notability beyond just a WP:BLP1E context. PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: As per above, fails general notability aside from subjects expiry. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 ( talk ) 12:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He was known for popularizing ""zoom bombing"" and his collaboration with online creator Belle Delphine. He had a decently large social media following particularly on Twitter and Youtube. NoahMusic2009 ( talk ) 13:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a source for the ""zoom bombing"" claim? sixty nine • whaddya want? • 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Beemer69 See source table below. PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: Per the findings of Célestin Denis . But it's a weak keep because there aren't a lot of sources on Google News before 2024 . Not even his ""Good Night Girl"" meme was mentioned outside of Know Your Meme before his death. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 14:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article (and most news coverage) appears to mainly focus on twomad's death, which does not make him notable enough for Wikipedia. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ ( talk ) 14:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per comments by Green Star Collector. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO . The sources provided are mostly unreliable or WP:UGC , and what little coverage I've seen in reliable sources seems trivial and lacks the WP:SIGCOV we'd need to demonstrate notability. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting here that I would also be fine with a selective merge to Zoombombing as an ATD if there's any content worth saving. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom: article fails WP:RS , WP:GNG , subject was only notable for his passing. I have seen very little coverage before his death and most coverage for his death is not mainstream. -- Wesoree ( talk · contribs ) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A pothole can have a Wikipedia article but a guy that had over 2 million YT subs cannot?  I'm sorry, I didn't watch his stuff nor was I aware of each and every move of his but I was aware he existed.  So was the internet and there were articles and notable sources on him before his death.  It's not that hard to look over page 10 on Google's ""News"" section.  Anuchikibrikiivdamke ( talk ) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I agree with you that a specific pothole is a pretty ridiculous item to have an article about - unlike the topic at hand, it did pass WP:N - albeit for all the wrong reasons, lol.   Storied by the NYT, CNN, NBC, TWP, CST, the AP, Business Insider (really? c'mon man), CBS, Axios, and WFLD... all listed in WP:RSP .   Yes it is a sad state of our society when a pothole (or a pope chip hat, for that matter) is more notable than a human being.   But that should also be a pretty clear qualifying indicator too....  ""is [X] more notable than pothole or potato chip? .  In this instance - that does not at all seem to be the case. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Since people have said that Twomad's death is notable, People above have said that there are more sources for twomad's death than that of twomad himself, we could move this article to Death of Twomad or Death of twomad , instead of deleting. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 16:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Who said that? How was his death notable, exactly?  He apparently overdosed. ODing is not a notable method of death. Having a YT channel does not make one notable, either.  Is WP to start creating articles for every Joe that has a YT channel and ODs?  C'mon... --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. "" this should be WHY we keep it. wiki is meant to help people find info on topics, including youtubers who arent as socially relevant as they once were. there are pages on here that havent been touched in years and are more obscure than twomad, but they should stay because wiki is an encyclopedia that helps the people who want to learn about a certain topic. twomads death isnt the only notable thing about him, he was pretty important in the youtube sphere for a bit. he has been trending on twitter with 300k tweets and his channel was sizable enough to be known. THATS why his death is notable. not because he was some random bad dude who just happened to have a youtube channel and overdosed on drugs, but because he has over a quarter of a million tweets on him, was a popular meme figure for at least a year or two, and a youtube channel with more subscribers than the population of north macedonia. BobLavaBot ( talk ) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And I will say yet again - he apparently wasn't notable enough to have a WP article when he was alive. That does not change now that he is dead. ```` --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia isn't perfect. I'd be absurd to assume that it had an article for everything considered ""notable. "" The fact that the article didn't exist previously shouldn't stop it from exisisting now. Chelk ( talk ) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the only thing that has changed is the fact that they died - it absolutely should stop it. Dying other than by notable means doesn't change the fact that it wasn't notable before. It is pretty obvious that ""being a YouTuber"" and ""being a streamer"" didn't make him notable up to 4 days ago. Being a dead one still doesn't. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles are kept because their topic meets the notability guidelines, not because it exists. TappyTurtle ( talk ) 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry. I'll rephrase the !vote in a little bit. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:EVENTCRIT , deaths are usually not notable, particularly when the cause of death itself is not unusual. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 05:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom: twomad has evidently not been mentioned in enough actual sources to warrant an article. Overdosing while playing Overwatch does not make someone notable, and I don't see that his death in itself is notable either. Put his death in the Deaths in 2024 article, sure, but I don't see it as being any more noteworthy than that. DarkRevival ( talk ) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: As a general reminder, having a large following on any social media platform, on its own, is not proof of notability nor justification for a Wikipedia article. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ ( talk ) 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct, especially taken into consideration that followers can be bought. I have taken a look at his Twitter/X for example he has barely 200 interactions on most of his posts while having 566K followers and a few hundred K views (which may also have started mostly because of his unfortunate passing). On his YouTube a lot of comments and such only seem to be from after his passing went viral (again, a case of ""high views and subscribers but little interaction""). I don't want to accuse him of buying his views and subscribers but I'm giving extra arguments as to why followers != notability. FinlayDaG33k ( talk ) 21:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This! --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject fails GNG and ANYBIO. Maybe check back in five years to see if there was real coverage on subject. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Same happened with Etika 2601:405:4881:B730:6DE2:3859:8CB1:41CE ( talk ) 20:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Twomad was met with various controversies and news articles about his online meet trolling videos and his harassment towards the K-Pop fandom. CityLord92 ( talk ) 15:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep / merge to draft - Seems to have lasting enough coverage, but not demonstrated on the article. NAADAAN ( talk ) 17:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep / draftify - It is poorly written and sourced rather ineffectively, however, that can be fixed. The bigger issue is the lack of sufficient sources. I would say it is probably too early to delete this article. His death gave more coverage to him, however, I am skeptical that it is enough right now. I think WP:DRAFTIFY may be in due here, at least for the time being considering he did not die that long ago and more sources could cover him in the (unforeseeable) future. Not0nshoree ( talk ) 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/how-zoom-renders-private-classrooms-public-a-habermasian-consideration-432b24bc1fdb ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2KveJudVkM ^ https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/twomad Delete Death doesn't establish notability, and the article follows suit with mundane content like ""Sedik achieved growth and popularity online, accumulating millions of subscribers and views on multiple accounts on YouTube, as well as other social media platforms such as Twitter"". Yeah, no. Only three sources: two of his death and the other his own YouTube channel. Being a shitposting idiot dying of an overdose doesn't automatically make him worthy of an article. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 19:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Draftify , and a fairly passionate one at that. This article is not mainpage ready, not by a mile. But Sedik was a fairly big name on YouTube round about 2020-2021, which isn't terribly long, but the idea that he is only noteworthy because of his death is incorrect. IIRC we had the same discussion with Technoblade in 2022, a major Youtube name who didn't have an article in any form until his death. TwoMad certainly wasn't at the level of popularity that Technoblade was, but I think he still meets the bar of being notable independent of his death. DarkSide830 ( talk ) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This discussion is getting out of hand from both sides of the spectrum. To get us back on track, I compiled a list of potentially usable sources posted here and on the article itself. You may disagree with my assessment of the sources, but let's at least talk more about the sources. Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Technology and Social Change - August 2020 Created by researchers at Harvard University that have no affiliation with Twomad. Looks peer reviewed to me Discussed in several paragraphs about his ZOOM meeting content - at least one hundred words . Plus if a scholarly source analyzes your content in this manner, it is definitely a sign of notability, if only partial. ✔ Yes The JoongAng - December 6, 2021 Not affiliated with Twomad. Appears as a reputable South Korean newspaper. Main topic of article, discusses aspects of his content - in particular his relationship with the KPOP community ✔ Yes HotNewHipHop - February 14, 2024 Per WP:A/S Main topic of article, notes him as a controversial content creator and discusses aspects of his career prior to death rather than just the death itself. EDIT 2/21/24: Another source has been written about his career. ✔ Yes NY Daily News - February 14, 2024 Per WP:RSPSS - arguably one of the few sources I'd trust reporting on him right now. Not only does the source report on his death, but also touches a bit upon the allegations and his behavior prior. ✔ Yes The Daily Dot/Passionfruit - July 26, 2023 Reporter researched and analyzed claims independently of the creator. ~ Although considered fully reliable prior to late 2022, no consensus now emerges. At the very least, it should be considered reliable for internet culture. Ignoring the BLP allegations, there's a lengthy section describing his career in multiple paragraphs. You can easily cite this as SIGCOV of his content without including those allegations. ~ Partial The Indian Express - February 15, 2024 Unaffiliated with Twomad; facts also look written/verified by editorial team Per WP:INDIANEXP Also writes about his content and life before passing. ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Still not officially voting, but I will say one last thing. We can argue all we want about whether we feel this info about him is significant. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that these outlets clearly found him significant enough to write about him. EDIT 2/16: Found extra The Indian Express source, adding to table. PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per PantheonRadiance 's table. There are at least over 3 reliable sources here that are not (completely) related to his death, and thus makes him notable. Davest3r08 > : ) ( talk ) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources that PantheonRadiance has dug up could be used to write a yes, relatively short, but perfectly fine and verifiable article which meets WP:GNG . — V ORTEX 3427 ( Talk! ) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , several RS are all that are needed for something like this to be notable, and there appear to be more than a few. Also, just from a purely 'duh' standpoint, this person was clearly more notable to the general public than +90% of sports figures who have their own pages; if random cricketeers from the 1910's can have Wikipedia pages, obviously social media influencers with multiple millions of followers can, too. Joe ( talk ) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""several RS are all that are needed for something like this to be notable"" - that's really s t r e t c h i n g  the requirements & spirit of WP:N quite a bit. Just because someone has RS content about them doesn't necessarily qualify them as being notable. Neither does ""being a YouTuber"". I am mentioned in over a dozen RS, and I have 2 YT channels - and I sure as hell am not notable, nor do I warrant a page on WP outside of my talk & personal pages. If this is the criteria of notability that you have - then I presume you are also in midst of creating individual articles for each of the McDonald's and Little Caesar's franchisees out there? They have had more impact and influence than cricketeers and twomad put together. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there are reliable secondary sources about some of McDonald's or Little Caesar's franchisees, I'd be all in favor of making an article about them. I'm not sure I'd agree that ""They have had more impact"" than twomad or any given random cricket player, or how one would measure that, or why one would think that a certain amount of 'impact' was a requirement for notability (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), but I'd still support it if shown the right RS. Heck, if there are RS about you in particular, you may be more notable than you think, my good editor! Perhaps we should have a page about you. I'd have to see the sources first, of course, before commenting one way or the other. Joe ( talk ) 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO . The RS report his death due to the circumstances of the event, without being able to previously demonstrate the notoriety and interest of his career as an internet content creator. _-_Alsor ( talk ) 22:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We can't have a serious discussion about lack of sources or detail in this article when it's unnecessarily extended-protected (looks like it wasn't even autoconfirm beforehand?) Doublah ( talk ) 23:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So you are saying that only new editors to the project are going to be able to contribute anything worthwhile to the article in question?  That's a pretty bold statement. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are many non-new editors on Wikipedia who do not have over 500 edits, myself included. Page protection policy is such that protection is only to be used where proved neccesary, which is not the case here. Doublah ( talk ) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can empathise that the discussion seems to trail into the territory of subjective assessment of the worth of this person rather than whether the sources substantiate notability. I think the problem is that in line with things like WP:NARTIST there is insufficient WP:SIGCOV about his actual contribution as a streamer to his medium to warrant an article. Assembling significant coverage about his death, views on certain topics and allegations about him puts the cart before the horse in assuming a personality is notable because people talk about them. In terms of what this person is apparently notable for, streaming, is there signficant coverage that evaluates and discusses that? There doesnt seem to be. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 23:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I feel as though his notability exists only in the current short term, perhaps either himself or his death may warrant a page in the future, but as of now he is only notable in the short term because of his sudden death, the majority of his appearances in news articles etc are only in relation to either his death, or his ""zoombombing"" in 2020. AlfonsoBourbonCream ( talk ) 23:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Based on the findings of other editors, there are some good sources that document his career as a streamer, even if said sources are primarily over his passing, mainly through PantheonRadiance . That's not to say that I'm personally happy with the current sourcing but there is a degree of significant coverage and Twomad is far from being not notable to warrant his own article. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 01:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a streamer or tuber does not make one notable. WP:BLP1E --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Picard's Facepalm : If he were a streamer with say, 0 significant mentions on any major secondary sources then I would agree considering that just about any other streamer could have an article with that logic. However, my main point is that some existing sources document his career well enough that go beyond just his death. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete He wasn’t notable enough to have had an article before his death and dying is not itself noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The article itself is also low quality and poorly sourced. Archimedes157 ( talk ) 09:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Célestin Denis. Also, my two cents: we have articles about ministers and heads of political parties of pacific micronations whose total populations rarely exceed 50k people, which is equiualent of the population of the average village in my country, yet for some reason an influencer with millions of subscribers is not relevant enough for this encyclopedia? come on, boomers, give me a malarckey or however u say that Kasperquickly ( talk ) 10:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly. The guy was also on mainstream news, so I'd say we should keep the article. Chelk ( talk ) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To extrapolate that a streamer/tuber is as/more noteworthy than a governing entity (regardless the size) gives a pretty frightening reflection of the state of society, the direction it is heading & what is deemed as ""important"".  You do know that there is an entire world outside of the 5 inch screen you hold in your hand, right? Oy.  I will say that I am glad that your comment is documented here.  Hopefully WP is still around in another 20 or 40 years - cause I want you to set a reminder in your google calendar to come back and re-read what you wrote there... and see what you think & say about it then. ThisAintABoomerThing --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 15:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure that the same principle applies. A minister of a small country is still an important leader in that country, and what they say or do in that context is largely newsworthy no matter that the country is small. Having millions of subscribers doesn't carry any comparable weight or responsibility. FPTI ( talk ) 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about article X is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 05:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep PantheonRadiance 's table shows clear notability here, I would be inclined to say delete but I think this table of references is enough to show at least minor notability. Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment To be honest, there are even bigger YouTubers based on subscription/views that don't have pages, and to me this feels like there are arguments for both keeping and deleting it. I especially agree that, as an article, it's not really useful in its current stub state. A person's death (especially if it's not extraordinary in and of itself) should not make someone more notable. If it was legitimately rejected before, maybe it should be rejected again. For a case where a person's death made them more notable, I would point you to Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins , which otherwise probably didn't meet the threshold for notability prior to her death (and was still being debated even immediately after her death). Ultimately, I'm not entrenched enough with this corner of YouTube to make an informed vote. I can see the case for both sides. Electricmaster ( talk ) 14:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would like to point out that there is a LOT more to the situation than just the fact he turned up dead one day. I think, once there's enough information on the ongoing criminal case against him and Twomad's criminal record, the article should be updated (with veritable sources) to reflect that. Twomad isn't notable just because of his death, I'd argue he's notable because of the huge amount of controversy he was mired in during his life. (See Jameskii's Twitter posts for a rough rundown of what I'm talking about here - Twomad was a prolific sexual predator and, in addition to falling into drug addiction, reportedly tried to have people killed for investigating his ongoing criminal activity.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGooseWithAPhone ( talk • contribs ) Keep per PantheonRadiance's source table; I think that establishes a fairly clear notability. Generalissima ( talk ) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Zoombombing : He appears to be notable only for (1) Zoombombing; (2) pulling controversial stunts; (3) being accused of sexual assault; and (4) dying of a drug overdose. Number 2 is mostly WP:MILL coverage, 3 does not meet the notability guideline for perpetrators , and 4 is an all-too-common tragedy that does not confer notability. Thus, the most appropriate alternative to deletion is to merge information about his Zoombombing to that article, giving it appropriate weight . I also agree with Beemer69 and Chris troutman . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 05:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm on-board with this.  Updating my position on this to delete/merge.   Thanks for bringing this point & option up. --Picard's Facepalm • Made It So Engage! • 16:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Per source analysis by PantheonRadiance. He has been mentioned in multiple sources independent of his death. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Zoombombing : As voorts noted above, a mention on the Zoombombing article is certainly in order. Beyond this, while I see some coverage from reliable sources, I do not feel that the coverage is sustained or significant enough to warrant a standalone article, as this individual only appears to have recieved sporadic coverage regarding involvement in Zoombombing, his death, and allegations of ilegal activity. The latter two are not enough to establish notability for a standalone article, and I believe the connection to Zoombombing is better explored in that article than in a biographical article. As Picard's Facepalm has mentioned above, the existence of coverage in reliable sources does not necessarily make an person notable enough to have their own article. In this case I think that this individual is not remarkable enough, nor has he received enough sustained and significant coverage for a standalone article. Ethmostigmus ( talk ) 13:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Expand Twomad is already notable enough outside of Zoombombing , and as PantheonRadiance has demonstrated, there is multiple quality sources that mention Twomad. As for the and Expand part, this is because the only section in this article outside of the introduction happens to be his death even though he was for sure notable during his lifetime, regardless of if it was good or bad notability. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 16:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Edited to fix red link. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 15:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Zoombombing . I don't see evidence of notability in the brief death notices or other ephemeral media documenting Twomad the human, as opposed to the brief social media phenomenon. Nangaf ( talk ) 03:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Moderate keep - per GNG, given the amount of coverage, definitely meets notability now more than before (in which he arguably, already did, but now certainly does), and source coverage is about him. I don't see a reason to delete, and see reasons to keep. DarmaniLink ( talk ) 06:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per the general consensus given to youtubers and streamers. Weak notability isn't enough, and I don't think the article will be expandable like some above are suggesting with current verifiable and reliable information. We are not a fandom. I'd personally say leave it 3-6 months and reconsider making this article, when the whole situation dies down. Also, not many of the sources add new information to this, so really theres like, one 'source' about his death, per WP:BASIC ""multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other"". --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ( Talk ) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Weak) Merge with Zoombombing . I'm fail to see what else there is to expand, beyond the four points that voorts mentioned. If something big (besides those four things) is posthumously discovered then we can always create a new article.  But, today, I'm not seeing it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per source table. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 18:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - per the listed source table. I feel he has enough notoriety to have an article, even if short. zodiahk ( talk ) 22:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per PantheonRadiance 's table. IncompA 04:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Zoombombing per Voorts. Rusted AutoParts 04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Expand , as per PantheonRadiance . Roasted 5:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Keep per PantheonRadiance -- Chicken4War ( talk ) 21:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to coverage in reliable sources that meets the notability guidelines. Sahaib ( talk ) 23:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – there is WP:SIGCOV here. Pantheon's source table shows this. There's a lot of tabloids/blogs covering the late twomad, sure, but there isn't is sufficient WP:RELIABLE sources simultaneously. Merging to Zoombombing is just out of context, this subject is, clearly, known for a lot more than zoombombing. TLA tlak 02:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now The article was just created so let’s see if there is more reliable sources. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk ) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not enough reliable accredited sources to draw from. UlyssesYYZ ( talk ) 10:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this is the last comment I'll post about this discussion and probably Twomad in general. First off, I found another source from HotNewHipHop that retrospectively covers his life in significant detail. Not only does it discuss his career separately from the Zoombombing meme (in fact it isn't even mentioned in the source), but it demonstrates, even if only partially, that his career was defined by more than just one trend. I updated the table once more; unless there's any doubt about its validity, I believe it's safe to assume it contributes to GNG. In light of that, I secondly think that a merge to Zoombombing is no longer necessary nor appropriate. Ignoring the arguments that his life is inherently too run-of-the-mill or trivial to deserve an article (which in my opinion read more like subjective "" I don't like it "" rhetoric that speaks more towards Wikipedia's bias against internet culture than anything else), this source among others proves that he has had some demonstrable influence that goes beyond just one event he pioneered. He may not have been as popular as other similar creators, but that's beside the point. From his meme-based content to his controversies, there's enough info one can reasonably extract from these sources which prove, if nothing else, that his life is worth remembering. PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the table provided by PantheonRadiance above checks out. Password (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I am seeing coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events: Twomad's death: The New York Daily News The Indian Express New Delhi Television Times Nation Indy 100 Manilla Bulletin Allegations of sexual assault: PassionFruit PopTopic (Australia) 1 2 Assorted coverage of his career: HITC 1 2 (Belle Delphine partnership) Space Invaders: the Networked Terrain of Zoom Bombing (talks about his relationship with zoombombing) If this individual were alive today, I would think that they'd probably be below WP:GNG . But he's not, and the significant coverage of him and his death pushed him over the line from being on the margins to being a notable person. There is enough in the sourcing to write a brief and neutral encyclopedia biographical entry about him, and much of the coverage doesn't seem related to zoombombing, so I think that this article's subject is best covered in a standalone page rather than being merged to a topic on a particular social phenomenon that doesn't quite cover him fully (and seems to frankly be a minority of the coverage about him). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Chai Sirisute: Refs are a couple of small interviews and profile pages.  Nswix ( talk ) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts ,  and Thailand .  Nswix ( talk ) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Here's a piece of in-depth coverage from Black Belt magazine [7] , which suggests that he was indeed a significant figure in martial arts circles especially in the 1980s.  There are probably more sources out there that require some digging.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 08:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, by ""a couple of small interviews and profile pages,"" I assume Nswix is referring to the numbered website citations and not the book sources listed (without in-line citations) as general references at the end?  While the third one is written by the subject and can't be considered for GNG, none of them have previews available on Google Books, so they'll need closer evaluation.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 09:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not convinced of importance or significance of the subject which does not meet criteria WP:SPORTSPERSON and very hard to establish notability as per WP:GNG .  Not known as a fighter himself, fails WP:NKICK .  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 11:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the Black Belt article identified above, has been featured in cover stories for several martial arts magazines in the 1980s, [8] including Inside Kung Fu ( August 1982 ), Inside Karate ( May 1986 ), and another Black Belt issue ( November 1986 ).  While their content isn't available online, I am positive they constitute in-depth coverage that satisfies the GNG.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 07:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've got mixed emotions about this article.   I can't find significant independent coverage, but agree that the articles found by Paul_012 may well be it (but I can't be sure).   The fact that he founded a growing international Muay Thai organization is good and he seems to be fairly notable as a MT teacher.   However, it's hard to quantify that notability (unlike winning championships).   I think I'd like to vote to keep the article since it's not an obvious deletion to me, but it's also not an obvious keep.  Papaursa ( talk ) 16:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Went down some weird rabbit holes for this including http://www.amnet.net.au/~burnie/muay.html .  Also found a mention in https://asianjournalusa.com/the-surprising-history-of-muay-thai-in-the-united-states/ .  https://thaiboxing.com/about/muay-thai-history/ seems primary but is helpful as well.  I think we have to trust what sources exist, particularly the old magazine articles from decades ago that Paul_012 found.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 06:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Paul_012, Indefensible sources.  -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 02:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A closer look at the variety of magazines found by Paul_012, the number of cover appearances, and the asianjournalusa article found by Indefensible have convinced me this article is worth keeping.  Papaursa ( talk ) 00:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"James Scott (criminal): Any option would bring the content into alignment with WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO , as all of the sources about Scott discuss him in the context of the flood.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Missouri .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Unusual case with sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep James Scott has engendered considerable press coverage over the years and is considered by many to have been unjustly imprisoned.   The article about the Great Flood of 1993 covers very different material than the article about James Scott.  More recent article about James Scott also cover things other than the flood, such as his behavior in prison and efforts to free him.  SONORAMA ( talk ) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per the reasons provided by Necrothesp and SONORAMA Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I agree with the users before me.  Additionally, I suspect that Scott will soon be a topic of media sensation regarding the alleged misconduct of the prosecution, like we saw after the airing of ""Making a murderer"".  Xwedodah ( talk ) 05:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the main Great Flood article, with a subsection for Scott's biography where relevant.  Has no relevance outside the Great Flood ~~ Cliffordben1994 ( talk ) 23:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the main Great Flood article.  Although it has the sourcing to be a notable page, it runs foul of WP:BLP1E and would likely be more informative as a part of that article.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 02:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Keep per CT55555.  They make a very good point that BLP1E needs all criteria to be met to fall foul of that policy, however Scott doesn't.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the main Great Flood article per all editors involved.  CastJared ( talk ) 14:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s important for America to be taught about this.  It happened, he existed, did he cause the floods?  Idk.  This will still be taught in our history books, why are we trying to erase it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:D680:7E80:E050:CA2B:39A4:FCA3 ( talk ) 06:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Split between those advocating Keep and those seeking a Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge slimmed down and properly sourced content into the main flood article.  Article is a clearly a BLP1E.  Keep votes provided no sources showing this was anything other than a BLP1E.  // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is not BLP1E, which would be something random like the winner of a lottery or a random contest.  Subject is the subject of a full length book cited in the footnotes, for cripe's sakes!  Clear GNG pass.  Carrite ( talk ) 15:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; there is substantial source material, per Carrite, and the scope of the flood article is far larger than the smaller catastrophe this individual was convicted for; a merge would thus create a due weight problem in the proposed target.  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 04:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One more go… Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:PERP states ""The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role "".  A book about him published decades after the events is that.  And the book received a starred review from Publishers Weekly ; it didn't fly under the radar.  Some editors here might benefit from reviewing what BLP1E is not .  Compulsive Researcher ( talk ) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Editors have argued to not keep on the basis of WP:BLP1E but that guideline has 3 criteria that all must be met, including #3 which says If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented .  The event was significant and his role was substantial.  So WP:BLP1E therefore guides us towards keeping the article in my opinion.  So therefore I am looking at WP:GNG and noting that he hit the news many years apart, and had a book written about him, GNG is met.  CT55555 ( talk ) 15:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scott's conviction was also the feature of a 2022 documentary.  I've updated the article.  My ! vote should now be considered strong.  CT55555 ( talk ) 22:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the exhaustive reasons already mentioned above.  Beyond that, my personal experience is that this man is infamous over two states and should easily meet GNG.  Grey Wanderer ( talk ) 22:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything: — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and then redirect , per said discussion.  - Sumanuil .  (talk to me) 00:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a bit confused, as this article was BOLDly merged without opposition, and categorized {{ R from merge }} .  Today, the nominator restored the article and placed the AfD notice in a single edit",keep
"Bass management: However, how-to guides on home theaters seem like they might be off-topic for that project, too, so I'm bringing it up for discussion to see if there's a better home for this.  NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 00:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 00:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - Notabile topic.  Deleting would not serve readers.  No opposition to also covering this topic elsewhere.  If there are WP:HOWTO issues with the article, those should be discussed on the article's talk page.  WP:NOTCLEANUP .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's useful and just notable , eh?  NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 19:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to be asserting that this is a marginally notable topic.  You did not cite a notability issue in proposing this deletion so I did not address that in my original keep statement.  But, here's a book search that clearly establishes notability IMO.  To be clear, I think it should be kept because the subject meets WP:GNG and NinjaRobotPirate hasn't put forward a clear or valid WP:DEL-REASON in this proposal.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 22:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After reading deletion reason #14 in the very page that you just linked, would you like to retract your statement that I did not include a clear and valid deletion reason?   Also, I'll link you to WP:GOOGLEHITS .   Do you have a valid keep rationale, or are you just going to keep going down the list of invalid ones?  NinjaRobotPirate ( talk ) 14:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I've made my case as best as I am willing.  I'll let others have their say.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there may be a misunderstanding about the content of this article.  Granted, it could do with some improvement, but it is not a how-to guide; it describes how bass management is implemented, often (but by no means always) in A/V receivers.  This is about the design of the digital signal processing functions, and (in my opinion) is suitable for Wikipedia.  If it would help I can volunteer to try and improve it (but not if it's about to be deleted).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawny Brown Frowny Owl ( talk • contribs ) 08:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article has many issues, with the scope mirroring Audio crossover and the content mostly consisting of WP:HOWTO , but the subject of bass reproduction in multichannel audio systems is notable with sufficient coverage existing in Google Scholar .  PaulT2022 ( talk ) 21:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Sunny Wong (choreographer): Fails WP:NENT and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Entertainment ,  and Hong Kong .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  ""排舞师谈天王：刘德华敬业郭富城随机应变(图)"" [Choreographer Talks about the King of Heaven: Andy Lau Is Dedicated and Aaron Kwok Adapts to the Situation (Photo)].  Information Times (in Chinese).  2010-09-16.  Archived from the original on 2023-08-21 .  Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via Sina Corporation .  The article notes: ""他是刘德华、郭富城、谭咏麟、李克勤、古巨基、陈慧琳的老师——黄国荣(Sunny Wong)，香港最顶尖的舞蹈编排总监，纵横香港舞蹈界达二十余年，全香港每年的大型演唱会当中，近九成是出自他的手笔，连王菲、梁朝伟、梅艳芳也曾经跳过他编排的舞蹈。日前，来广州担任美在花城评委及决赛排舞老师的黄国荣接受信息时报专访，爆出不少明星练舞的秘闻，面对天王天后难伺候的小怪癖，黄国荣还自行研发一套训练招术。"" From Google Translate: ""He is the teacher of Andy Lau, Aaron Kwok, Alan Tam, Hacken Lee, Leo Ku and Kelly Chen—Sunny Wong, Hong Kong's top choreography director, has been in the Hong Kong dance industry for more than 20 years, and among the large-scale concerts in Hong Kong every year, Nearly 90% of them are written by him, and even Faye Wong, Tony Leung, and Anita Mui have danced the dances he choreographed. A few days ago, Sunny Wong, who came to Guangzhou to serve as the judge of Beauty in Flower City and the dance teacher of the finals, accepted an exclusive interview with the Information Times, revealing the secrets of many celebrities practicing dance. Facing the little eccentricity of the king and queen, Sunny Wong also developed a set of training techniques by himself ."" ""Man in the Mirror: An Interview with Leading Local Choreographer Sunny Wong"" .  Hong Kong Dance Magazine .  July 2021 .  Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via PressReader .  The article notes: ""A household name in Hong Kong’s dance industry, Sunny Wong’s work as a choreographer, dance teacher, and performer has been featured in numerous music concerts, music videos, and commercials. Though the spotlight is usually on the lead singers he works with, such as Aaron Kwok and Sammi Cheng, ... And for him, this passion started at the age of 5 where he was inspired by dance movies such as Grease. His real start in dance began in 1984 when TVB was hiring dancers, and sure enough Sunny was accepted! His contract began with intense training in a number of styles such as Jazz, K Pop, Latin Dance, Chinese Dance, and Tap Dance. Sunny performed on hit television shows like Enjoy Yourself Tonight, and was invited to dance as a backup dancer and eventually choreograph for these televised jobs.""  Lam, Anita (2001-06-17).  ""My hong kong"" .  South China Morning Post .  ProQuest 2420399817 .  Archived from the original on 2023-08-21 .  Retrieved 2023-08-21 .  The article notes: ""Sunny Wong Kwok-wing is a dancer, choreographer, model and actor. He has been choreographing dances for Canto-pop star Aaron Kwok Fu-shing for 10 years, and now teaches dance at Kwok's Studio Workshop and Cafe in Causeway Bay, in which he has shares. Recently he has been directing the dance scenes for Pala Pala Sakura, a movie starring Kwok and Cecilia Cheung Pak-chi being filmed in Shanghai."" ""見證排舞師Sunny娶老婆 城城冇結婚衝動"" [Witness choreographer Sunny marrying his wife. Chengcheng has no urge to marry].  The Sun (in Chinese).  2009-02-17.  Archived from the original on 2023-08-21 .  Retrieved 2023-08-21 .  The article notes: ""星級排舞師Sunny Wong昨日與拍拖兩年的模特兒女友洪華結婚，新郎豪擲逾百萬港元，在君悅酒店筵開40席打造豪華婚禮。出席賓客星光熠熠包括郭富城、陳慧琳、任達華夫婦、陳嘉容、側田、歐陽妙芝及周倩圯等。"" From Google Translate: ""Star choreographer Sunny Wong married his model girlfriend Hung Wah, whom he has been dating for two years, yesterday. The groom spent more than one million Hong Kong dollars in a luxurious wedding with 40 seats at the Grand Hyatt Hotel. The star-studded guests included Aaron Kwok, Kelly Chen, Mr. and Mrs. Yam Tat-wah, Karen Chan, Chia Tin, Ouyang Miaozhi and Zhou Qianyi, etc.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sunny Wong ( traditional Chinese : 黃國榮 ; simplified Chinese : 黄国荣 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 10:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented by Cunard.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard and the Chinese article which seems to have additional material for translation.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining: Most contributions to this article are from connected contributors, as noted on talk page.  -- Beland ( talk ) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering .  Beland ( talk ) 07:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep By definition learned societies lead research and thinking in their field, publish the authoritative journals, and have all leading figures in their fellowships.  There is rarely going to be a plethora of third party sources as there might be for k-pop stars, Pokémon or footballers.  Nevertheless a quick search brought up 1 , 2 and 3 .  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the Institute meets all the requirement for WP:SIGCOV .  It is THE institute for material scientists and recognised by both the UK Science and Engineering Councils.  IOM3 came to existence following the merger of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (founded 1892 which also a result of a different merger that involved the Iron and Steel Institute followed by the Metal Institute) and the Institute of Materials.  Actually the prizes/awards that this institute give defines the notability of multiple academics here (e.g., Bessemer Gold Medal ) not to mention their fellows ( FIMMM ) although their notability based on FIMMMM alone can be debated when compared to FRS and FREng .  I won't lie, I am bit baffled by this nom!  : FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 12:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mccapra and FuzzyMagma.  Passes WP:SIGCOV .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Jaxson Rahme: JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Lebanon ,  and Australia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Lebanese international rugby league footballer who played multiple times at the Rugby League World Cup.  Nine sources.  Fleets ( talk ) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Whilst not having an extensive coverage nor a known first grade career, we tend to keep articles of those who have played in the World Cup.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if editors arguing to Keep can address the nominator's concern about a lack of significant coverage.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : World Cup player, needs expansion.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"ALCO 251: Only sources are from railfan websites, which lack proper sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Info - Note to closer for soft deletion : This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum .  There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located.  This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.  Related discussions : 2011-06 V18 engine (closed as Kept - withdrawn by nominator) -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Since it has two general independent published sources, its age should give it grandfather rights to prevent deletion.  As for inline citations using RS, I note that one of the two listed sources (Steinbrenner) is heavily quoted on the ALCO 241 and ALCO 244 articles, and that there is a section on the 251 in Kirkland, John F. (1989).  The Diesel Builders, volume 2: Alco and MLW .  Glendale, California: Interurban Press.  ISBN 0-916374-81-5 .  .  Kirkland was not a railfan, he was a fomer Baldwin engineer.  So, I feel that the proposers supposition that there are no RS for this article is false.  — Iain Bell ( talk ) 09:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  It would be helpful if there was an evaluation the addition of new content to the article since its nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:HEY due to the added sourcing.  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"2023 British Library cyberattack: I'm not sure why the two paragraphs were not simply added to British Library , with its own Level 4 header if necessary, under British Library#Electronic collections .  Softlavender ( talk ) 10:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Softlavender ( talk ) 10:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events ,  and Russia .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A redirect makes sense, yes; the two paragraphs can easily be merged.  Drmies ( talk ) 14:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment after being unable to use the BL catalog I googled and found the NYer article and ""How to Lose a Library"" which both gave the distict impression that this was a signal event in the history of what used to be called the Information Age.  The attack seemed independently notable distinct from the institution at large (like Notre-Dame de Paris & Notre-Dame fire ) but maybe I overestimated the significance of databases being offline.  jengod ( talk ) 17:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into BL then delete redirect while the information herein is noteworthy, its independence from the British Library is unclear, and the info could just go into a sub-section.  Chumpih t 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why delete the history here?  This is a reasonable redirect.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 02:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair point.   Redirect is good.   Altered previous ! vote.  Chumpih t 04:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep having been swayed by Jfire 's arguments below.  Chumpih t 01:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to British Library -- Separately, it does not pass WP:NEVENT for lack of WP:SECONDARY sources.  I also cannot see this subject passing WP:LASTING , WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:GEOSCOPE as it didn't seem to make a ripple in international news.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 21:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to British Library .  The article is short and would fit well under a subheading PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the subject is notable and could be expanded.  Otherwise, merging the information into BL would not be a bad idea as it means the information can be kept and the article can be remade again in the future.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 12:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Nothing much to merge — the incident is already referred to in the British Library article see British Library#Online, electronic and digital resources under the Elecronic collections subheading, so all that's needed is a targeted redirect.  Another redirect/merge worth considering is to Rhysida (hacker group) .  Rupples ( talk ) 23:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this is certainly a notable issue and it will only get more important (to BL users and the rest of the world) as we learn more about what happened and how they responded.  Having this as a separate article means there is a special place for information on this significant event to be collected as news reports, magazine articles, and - eventually - the Library's own incident post mortem report - become available.  Why is this article important?  Because all similar institutions around the world need to learn lessons from it.  ZoneAlarm5 ( talk ) 15:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a lot of articles about this—not just one-off articles that appeared when it happened, but later-in-time articles that talk about its impact and implications.  Examples: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 .  It's also not necessarily an isolated event; the Toronto Public Library suffered a similar attack not long before ( see here ).  Whatever the state of the article now, it could easily be built out into a healthy standalone article.  -- Usernameunique ( talk ) 18:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NEVENT , which says that events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards .  All three of these prongs are met: this event had widespread national impact in the U.K., with the national library being taken offline for several months; it was widely covered in mainstream international news outlets such as the The New Yorker and New York Times , IT and cybersecurity-focused media such as The Register and Infosecurity Magazine , and museum and library journals such as Museums Journal and The Art Newspaper ; and many of these articles contain detailed analysis or commentary about the wider impact of the event, e.g. Museums, galleries and archives have been urged to tighten their cyber security following the massive ransomware attack on the British Library and what can arts bodies do to combat ransomware threats?  .  Jfire ( talk ) 19:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well argued.   I've changed my stance above.  Chumpih t 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jfire and Usernameunique.  It is essentially a stub right now but it turns out this isn't ""just"" your every day cyber attack – the implications for other libraries, museums, and arts organizations worldwide is significant, and the fact that the British Library still isn't back online, months later, tells you it's BAD.  That said, some of the coverage is still so recent that it's understandable why it was kind of hard to see what it all looked like in aggregate.  All our energy now should be directed toward expanding the article and incorporating the many sources that have been identified in this discussion, also to provide readers with vital information they are looking for.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources substantial reliable sources found that demonstrate the lasting impact of this event.  This is much more than a simple outage and newer sources show that.  As an aside, I only found this AfD because my research for another article was disrupted by the attack.  Schminnte [ talk to me ] 15:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Alexis Gomez: Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Television .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Dayton Daily News article is specifically about this singer, SIGCOV therefore GNG Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her hometown newspaper running an article after she was eliminated during the semifinals does not constitute WP:SIGCOV .  If she were a finalist, I'd just redirect the article, but she's not.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I haven't done much searching, so it's possible that there could be more sources out there, but redirecting this to the appropriate season article seems like a reasonable course.  She was a semi-finalist, she was on multiple voting round episodes, it seems reasonable to assume that some people will be searching for her on Wikipedia.  Deleting the article outright doesn't feel necessary.  But the one source from   Dayton Daily News is only about her time on Idol , and while I tend to support keeping standalone articles for American Idol finalists, we don't need articles on every semifinalist.  -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject .  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.  Sources Hahn, Kortny (2019-09-11).  ""American Idol Star lights up the Opera House"" .  Cheboygan Daily Tribune .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 .  Retrieved 2023-05-22 .  The article notes: ""Gomez got her start singing with her family band in Dayton, Ohio. Her first performance was when she was eight years old and she hasn't looked back since. Then, four years ago, she found herself on the hit TV show America Idol, which has produced famous singers such as Scotty McCreery and Carrie Underwood. ... After being on that show, she went on to start recording her own albums and going on tour, singing her songs to the public.""  Almeter, Danielle (2018-09-07).  ""Wright-Patt's Band of Flight joins Alexis Gomez for country concert"" .  Dayton Daily News .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 .  Retrieved 2023-05-22 .  The article notes: ""Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a Top 16 finalist on Season 14 of “American Idol” in 2015. She went on to compete as a Top 10 finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has continued her singing career following these competitions by performing around the local area this summer."" ""Gomez to sing at Versailles Christian Church"" .  Sidney Daily News .  2015-08-26.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 .  Retrieved 2023-05-22 .  The article notes: ""Gomez grew up in the Dayton area and has been singing and playing music for as long as she can remember. She plays guitar, piano and dabbles around with a few other instruments to include banjo, bass and drums. Her songwriting has been recognized in recent years as she has won a number of local contests where’s she’s been given the opportunity to showcase some of her original music. She plays locally with her band, The Mad River Band, as well as with a variety of bands in Nashville, Tennessee, on the Broadway strip."" ""Best of Dayton 2018: Meet Dayton's Top Rising Stars"" .  Dayton.com .  Cox Enterprises .  2019-02-15.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 .  Retrieved 2023-05-22 .  The article notes: ""Centerville and Wright State graduate Alexis Gomez is best known as the semi-finalist on the hit FOX show American Idol (Season 14). She also was a finalist in the Nash Next National Contest in 2016 to find the next Rising Country Star."" ""Gomez to perform with U.S. Band of Flight"" .  Fairborn Daily Herald .  2018-10-10.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 .  Retrieved 2023-05-22 .  The article notes: ""Gomez, a graduate of Centerville High School and Wright State University, was a semi-finalist on the hit show “American Idol” (Season 14). The multi-instrumentalist went on to compete as a finalist in “Nash Next” in 2016 and 2017, and has opened for artists such as Randy Hauser, Midland, Montgomery Gentry, Cassadee Pope, Clint Black and Old Dominion.""  Mowen Jr, Eddie (2022-08-18).  ""American Idol finalist plays PCHS"" .  The Register Herald .  AIM Media Management .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 .  Retrieved 2023-05-22 .  The article notes: ""A former American Idol contender played the Preble County Historical Society Amphitheater last Friday night, for an excited crowd of fans of all ages. ... Gomez played for a two hours and covered major country hits from artists ranging from Johnny Cash to Carrie Underwood. The concert brought in approximately 160 guests and 80 percent of them had never been to the venue, White said.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alexis Gomez to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 05:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard.  -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 12:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Cunard Do any of the sources that you found mention her self-titled debut album?  I'm somewhat leaning towards switching my vote to  a weak keep , on the basis of her performing as an opener for so many major acts, but it would help if there's any coverage out there for her album.  -- Jpcase ( talk ) 13:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for reviewing the additional sources I found, Jpcase ( talk · contribs ).  I think the coverage of her work as an opener and performer allows her to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria .  According to this entry in AllMusic , her album is titled Alexis Gomez and was released on 31 August 2015.  I searched for sources about the album and could not find coverage of it.  Cunard ( talk ) 06:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete She is not notable Dancing Dollar ( let's talk ) 14:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Hochheim, Thuringia: This article has only 3 sentences as the article has no references.  This article should be deleted.  Geko72290 ( talk ) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment This article is going to be kept, based upon the content of the German and French WP articles, which are extensive.  There is even a claim to notability (which our article on Meister Eckhart says isn't true, but...).  It has a population in the hundreds, so it's not just a dot on the map.  That said, it's a junk stub that could just as well be recreated from scratch as expanded.  Mangoe ( talk ) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is abundant material at German Wiki, some of which I've just added to get things going.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 08:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  From the German article, this is a notable village.  It could have potentially been merged upwards at nomination time, but thanks to Bermicourt now has enough content to stand on its own.  — Kusma ( talk ) 16:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND .  Markussep Talk 10:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Barry Hugman: Created originally by a WP:SPA and significantly edited by the article subject, particularly recently, attempting to own the article .  Reads like a resume and is primarily promotional of the article subject's publications.  Geoff | Who, me?  22:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , History , Boxing , Football ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Mainly written by the subject and highly promotional.  Definitely full on COI and with only one reference does not verify notability.  ww2censor ( talk ) 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - agree about the promo but we fix that issue via editing, not deletion.  I'm going to remove the promo stuff, and fix it up a bit.  Atsme 💬 📧 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Adding Per WP:NEXIST : The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable.  18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The first reference is the only one where Hugman is actually the subject.  The second mentions Hugman in two sentences, the third doesn't even mention Hugman as it is about Boxing Monthly and not Hugman.  The fourth is about one of Hugman's books and, again, not Hugman himself.  There is a grand total of one reference specifically about Hugman and it is archived because it is a deadlink.  I think this fails WP:NBASIC .  ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 19:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Uhm...Hugman co-founded Boxing Monthly and was the launch editor.  The magazine lasted 31 years.  His work is historic.  I highly recommend that the delete voters read the guideline WP:Author because Hugman fits #2, #3 & #4 under Creative Professionals.  He is unequivocally notable.  Atsme 💬 📧 19:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Boxing Monthly itself has one deadlink as a source and that was a link to a subscription page.  Considering that the magazine itself isn't currently meeting WP:NOTE you can't coatrack Hugman into notability by using it.  In any case, notability is not inherited .  #2 of WP:AUTHOR is ""originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"" which doesn't apply here.  I don't see how 3 or 4 quality either.  ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 00:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Atsme : Can you provide reliable sources?  If he is so historic there must be sources to verify his notability.  If you have sources please add them to the article.  ww2censor ( talk ) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He easily satisfies WP:Author, as I've already mentioned.  I neither have access to a library or old newspapers/magazines in order to do the kind of research you want done, nor do I have the time to spend on it.  Rest assured, the sources exist.  I already found a few sources in the limited amount of time I have to contribute here.  Keep in mind that Hugman was born in 1941; therefore, editors need to consider the years he was a pioneering statistician, and author of over 60 books, annuals, etc.  Those days were not like today's online social media; rather, those were the days of print media.  His body of work alone screams of notability.  Other authors of various magazines, reputable journals, reference works, and sports books have frequently cited him.  Quick example: this Cambridge article cites his book (footnote 41).  Dig into archived newspapers.  See my quickie list.  Over 118 sources to cite: Black Country Evening Male, pg 69, 04-09-1982 Daily Post, pg 24, 12-20-1987; Liverpool Echo, pg 70, 03-27-1993; Hull Daily Mail, pg 52, 10-29-1988; The Daily Telegraph, pg 45, 11-18-1998; ""The 20,000 in a league of their own"", Bryon Butler, ""Talking Football"" The Independent, pg 63, 11-18-1996; The Guardian, pg 72, 09-28-2000; Cambridge Evening News, pg 50, 11-02-1990 The Birmingham Post, pg 16, 10-30-1992 Happy editing!  Atsme 💬 📧 02:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please improve the article using these sources and explain how they show significant coverage of the subject?  I can then re-consider.  Giant Snowman 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If only I had the extra time, I would happily oblige.  I did remove the promo language; however, boxing and football are not in my area of interest.  You are welcome to use any or all of the sources I provided in my comments, and in the list below.  I have even included more sources today, and highly recommend a refresh read of WP:NEXIST to the delete ivoters.  This BLP should never have been an AfD nom.  Atsme 💬 📧 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Regardless of the multiple COIs, he is an authority in football statistics, [75] , [76] , you will need to look around for the right kind of citation to build the article correctly.  But WP:NAUTHOR clearly states.  The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; His published works fall into concept of sports statistics, he is cited by multiple organisations for this.  Btw, @ GiantSnowman : I am surprised you would say there is no notability for this person when I've even seen you cite his works.  Yes there is a degree of primary sourcing surrounding the article, but that shouldn't negate his importance towards sports statistics in his fields.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please explain how somebody running a reputable website means they are notable?  Giant Snowman 11:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just curious... how many times has Hugman been cited in WP?  Regardless, here's another source, this time it is one that is critical of Hugman's work: Playing Pasts.  But wait...there's more!  The Independent , 12-17-1993.  Specific to this BLP, WP:NEXIST also states that the evidence must show the topic has gained significant recognition .  Recognition includes one's work being cited by other authors, as well as thanked, appreciated and/or recognized in their books.  Internet Archive produced 90 results for Barry Hugman, and I reviewed quite a few books and forwards, as well as full paragraphs by other authors who provided recognition of Hugman's contributions.  See following examples: (pg 194) The Encyclopedia of Boxing (1989) by Gilbert E. Odd:] ""In 1985 Barry Hugman produced his British Boxing Yearbook, an extensive volume containing records and facts covering British fighters and their contests since the turn of the century. A comprehensive and invaluable volume for all connected with the fight game in a world-wide capacity. This has become an annual volume, subsequent editions having appeared each year since.""  (Page 19)  The official Football Association non-League club directory.  (1999)  ""It was at this stage that another friend, Barry Hugman, influenced the book’s future.  Happy editing!  Atsme 💬 📧 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : I didn't mention the website in the regards as to your reply to my last post and Atsme is a  long standing editor who has covered the same as what I am saying, the qualifier here is the Books Hugman has published.  Hence why I point to NAUTHOR.  Govvy ( talk ) 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How does he meet GNG?  Giant Snowman 19:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Atsme and Govvy.  Clearly notable sports writer and historian with sources.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Atsme, appears to have WP:SIGCOV .  Per Govvy, appears to also pass WP:NAUTHOR .  Since either would be sufficient to presume notability under WP:N , and the promo was easily dealt with by editing, I see no persuasive reason to delete.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG per above coverage. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 15:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Bushra al-Tawil: None of the following information that the article presents is significanct to warrant an entire wikipedia article dedicated to this living person:  1. She is a journalist and human rights activist - her contributions to the field to do not satisfy WP:JOURNALIST  .  2. Her father and husband are Hamas terrorists who have spent time in prison - neither are relevant to her notability as per WP:INVALIDBIO  .  3. She has been arrested numerous times - The perpetrator of the crime is not a renowned national nor international figure, and the motive of her crimes (although poorly documented) is unlikely to be unusual.  Therefore this is also not satisfactory under WP:CRIMINAL .  Given the article cannot establish her notability, I am suggesting that this article be deleted until (if) she does something noteworthy.  Dazzling4 ( talk ) 19:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails to pass the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and Palestine .  UtherSRG (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There is no coverage for her in Gnews, beyond being moved to ""administrative detention"", which seems to happen far too often, implying it's not really a sign of notability here as it's commonplace...  Still a sad situation, but nothing needing an article here in wiki.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Try searching Google News for Jordan (google.jo).  Sometimes Google News returns country specific (.com vs. .jo) and/or language specific results: [1] -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Nomination focuses on all the wrong things here.  The notability for this biography is clearly based on WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED , rather than a particular vocation  - news hits for the individual are prolific and span many years, as is plain from even a brief search.  The nominator's POV language, "" Hamas terrorists "", and evident fixation on this page, having previously nominated the page for deletion when not EC (resulting in a procedural close) , before diving right back into an AfD nomination after passing the 500/30 mark, do not inspire confidence here at all.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As you correctly pointed out, the previous nomination resulted in a procedural close.  The validity of the AfD nomination did not play a role in its closure.  Please refrain from personal attacks by claiming I have some ""fixation"" on the page or disparaging my edit count.  Dazzling4 ( talk ) 13:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I merely stated fact: you returned here immediately post-500 edits.  And while the validity of your arguments may not have played a role in the previous close, your opening statement here is clearly not neutral, per MOS:TERRORIST , but leans on a POV.  Are other editors meant to turn a blind eye to this?  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How does this fact contribute to the discussion?  My edit count and EC status are not relevant to Bushra al-Tawil 's notability . Dazzling4 ( talk ) 14:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Use of ""Hamas terrorist"" is also irrelevant to this discussion since talk pages are not subject to NPOV . Not to mention that the source used to include her family in Bushra al-Tawil#Family describes Hamas as a ""terror group.""  Dazzling4 ( talk ) 14:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. -- Orgullomoore ( talk ) 05:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Worth noting that this page currently exists in five languages on Wikipedia. The subject has a profile on Addameer in Arabic, and there is generally voluminous coverage in Arabic . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 05:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per coverage by CFWIJ and Reporters Without Borders , now added to article. Pam D 08:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The only reason to not keep this article would be if there is another article suitable to merge it into? But i would prefer to keep Palestine related topics separate (unmerged) in case they end up expanding rapidly in the near future. Irtapil ( talk ) 14:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keeping articles around in case the subject becomes notable in the future is not Wikipedia policy. Dazzling4 ( talk ) 14:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CRYSTAL . Clyde [trout needed] 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps it can be merged into Palestinian prisoners in Israel ? Homerethegreat ( talk ) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : After reviewing the arguments and the subject's coverage, it seems clear that Bushra al-Tawil 's notability hinges primarily on her detentions, aligning with the concept of One-event notability . This principle suggests that if a person or entity is notable for only one event (or in this case a series of detentions), they may not merit a standalone article. In this case, the references to al-Tawil predominantly focus on her detentions, with minimal coverage about other aspects of her life or contributions. Furthermore, the main source of information about her, the 'Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network', does not qualify as an independent WP:RS .  Notability on Wikipedia is not inherited by virtue of being covered in multiple languages or having transient news coverage.  It requires sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage by reliable sources, as outlined in WP:SIGCOV .  I also noticed that at the end of September 2023, Israel was holding 1,310 people in administrative detention, based on [2] , so being detained seems to be relatively common.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain how exactly are repeated arrests of a journalist, spaced over a course of more than 10 years, constitute only ""one event""?  We have multiple sources giving her WP:SIGCOV over a period of more than 10 years.  And even if you're right, then isn't that cause to keep this article and move it to Arrests of Bushra al-Tawil ?  VR talk 04:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her arrests are covered in Palestinian prisoners in Israel .  But, other than being arrested and released multiple times, she doesn't seem much different from many other people.  No evidence of notable journalism works; It is not clear what she was accused of, no details of her trial are presented.  If she was a notable person, then surely reliable sources would cover such basic things?  That's what 'significant coverage' requires.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""It is not clear what she was accused of, no details of her trial are presented."" - welcome to the Israeli justice system and the wonderful world of administrative detention .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She had a trial in 2011 and was then sentenced again by a court in 2015, so there was at least some judicial process here .  Marokwitz ( talk ) 15:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete She served in Israeli prison, is the daughter of a senior Hamas member...  I don't see what else is notable...   I do agree that its best she be merged into another article.  How about the Palestinian prisoners in Israel ?  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She is already covered there.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 08:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - At best, there is nothing more than WP:1E notability.  I'd suggest merge but this article violates NPOV with heavily biased and unreliable sources used that it would require a complete rewrite anyway.  The sources cited are all about the one event or non-reliable (except for [3] which is a passing mention in an article about her father's arrest as a terrorist).  Thmymerc ( talk ) 12:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - definitely not 1E, with coverage of her arrests in 2019 and 2020 .  There is extensive coverage in Arabic in al-Jazeera , al Araby al Jadeed , and el-Watan , and with further coverage by Reporters Without Borders and Coalition For Women In Journalism clears GNG easily.  nableezy - 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  First, she is one of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, so her detentions are not notable.  Second, her being the son of a senior Hamas leader, a relationship that has led to coverage of her detentions, is WP:INHERITED .  Third, entries in Adameer and Samidoun, advocacy groups and not RS, are irrelevant for establishing notability.  Fourth, most of the Arabic-language coverage cited above is also based on who her father is.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 01:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is determined by sourcing, not by how many Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons.  And no, the Arabic sources are about her, which anybody who even uses google translate can see.  That also is not what WP:INHERITED means, what that means is by itself being related, either a person or a topic, to some notable person does not make one notable, but where the sources cover that individual that gives them their own notability.  Addameer is certainly a reliable source, widely cited by other reliable sources.  nableezy - 04:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, gonna have to disagree with you on Addameer.  It's an advocacy organization.  Though I guess, then you'd agree that the ADL, AJC, UN Watch, et al are RS as well, as they are widely cited in other RS.  But this is prob not the place for this discussion.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 22:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ADL is widely cited on WP.  Those other groups are not treated as reliable by other sources, so we should not either.  Pretending like Addameer is treated like UN Watch is silly, and a basic association fallacy to boot.  Each of these things are evaluated on their own merits, not based on some random person on the internet saying ""it's an advocacy organization"".  So is Amnesty International, and that too is reliable.  nableezy - 22:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Hundreds of mentions in the press at least from 2014 to now.    Use the spelling ""Bushra al-Taweel"" to find many things that ""Bushra al-Tawil"" misses.  Zero talk 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there's actually more under that spelling.  Good spot!  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is/are diverse vast news/info/sites on the internet which can indicate her notability.  Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 12:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per above, there is coverage.  Seawolf35 T -- C 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"High Fidelity (Degrassi: The Next Generation): This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid.  In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.  Donald D23 talk to me 00:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada .  Donald D23 talk to me 00:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - FYI User:Donaldd23 , this was the 100th episode anniversary.  I've not looked, but given this was a flagship programme for the network at that time; and one of the most popular shows in the nation, with huge ratings, and frequent independent media coverage.  I'd be very surprised if there wasn't significant media coverage of the 100th episode.  Did you do a full BEFORE here?  Also, I've asked before - but why wouldn't an episode title of such a huge show always be a redirect?  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did a BEFORE, and I did not find any reviews for this particular episode.  Being the 100th episode is, indeed, a milestone, but unless there are reviews or even articles that mention it as a significant episode based on it's broadcast number, I felt a DELETE would be the best option.   However, I would be open to a REDIRECT if that is what the consensus is.  Donald D23 talk to me 22:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You found nothing?  In Proquest?  I found incidental mentions about the 100th episode six-months ahead of time (while checking something else).  And of course, I remember there was media coverage at the time.  I'd rather not waste time looking for what we all know will be found.  I remain concerned about your deletions of Canadian TV shows - I'm not sure you have the basic awareness of that topic to be editing in the area - or at least evaluating notability.  Nfitz ( talk ) 23:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you answered why I nominated this for deletion.  You said, ""I found incidental mentions"".  Remember, to pass notability guidelines there needs to be significant, indepth coverage.  ""incidental mentions"" are not that.  So, yes, I did see small blurbs in my search, but have yet to find any indepth coverage which is needed.  And, then your statement about remembering coverage and then saying you won't waste your time...that is not a reasonable arguement for keep.  You must provide proof that there was coverage, and supply it yourself...not pass it off with some crystal ball statment that others will find it.   Remember, WP:DIY .  I found incidental mentions in other stuff without even looking for something from the year that this was broadcast.  I have no doubt I can find in-depth coverage - but it's just such an odd and time-wasting nomination - and I'd sooner do my taxes right now.  Please don't twist my words.  Also, I consider your comments about my ""basic awareness"" to be WP:PERSONALATTACKS , which are not allowed.   I suggest you strike those comments.  Donald D23 talk to me 11:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost all of the nominations I see from you in the Canada Wikiproject fail.  I don't think wondering about your familiarity with Canadian culture is a personal attack, given you have nominated high-profile shows in the past, and just nominated a major episode of one of the biggest prime-time shows ever.  How long have you lived here?  I certainly don't mean it to be personal.  Nfitz ( talk ) 18:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still implore you to find sources that would justify keeping this article.  All your arguments are basically 'I remember coverage, but I don't wanna prove it right now' and 'almost all of your nominations fail so this one must too'.  How can you not want to ""waste your time"" finding sources to keep this article, but you have found the time to reply to this discussion by countering every delete/redirect comment.  You stated your opinion, you basically edited my comment above by inserting your comment within it (which is not how it's supposed to be done), and you denied performing what I perceived as a personal attack against me.  Let the process work...if sources are found that keeps the article, great.  If not, it should be deleted or redirected.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because it takes time and work to do a proper BEFORE; something that we've established you haven't done in the past; and clearly haven't done here, nominating 5 different articles within 6 minutes.  Throwing AFDs against the wall to see what sticks isn't a BEFORE.  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again...BEFOREs don't need to be done immediately before I nominate.  I do a batch of BEFOREs and then go and nominate the articles, improve the article and remove the notability tags, or do nothing because I didn't find enough to either improve or delete.  Where is the policy that I am breaking by listing these deletions all at once?  Maybe you cannot do research on multiple items and then come back to Wikipedia and present your findings, but I can.  Your rationale for Keep is incorrect.  Maybe you should do a BEFORE and check my talk page where I have been THANKED for doing proper BEFOREs.  Donald D23 talk to me 21:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My apologies, User:Donaldd23 , I realise now that I was thinking of someone else.  Now I look like a dick ...  I'll withdraw some of my comments.  I do remain concerned though why you'd think that the 100th episode of one of the biggest and longest-running shows in the nation wouldn't be notable.  And now I've finished my taxes, I'll try and dig deeper.  Nfitz ( talk ) 07:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you telling me that you didn't even find enough to redirect rather than to delete?  Did you check Proquest?  Nfitz ( talk ) 00:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 5)#Episodes where the episode already has a section.  Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM for a stand alone article, sources are all brief mentions and promo.  This is an unneeded CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk 06:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you check that User:TimothyBlue - you've proposed a redirect to this very article!  Nfitz ( talk ) 18:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue : The target that you are proposing is invalid, as it is located within the same article that is being discussed here.  CycloneYoris talk!  00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I found significant sources.  The first is a truly excellent 1000-word review that was published in the country's largest newspaper, just before it aired - ProQuest 438954018 .  I'm surprised to find one from the year before it aired, discussing the filming for the episode - ProQuest 362981291 The third is a bit of a fluffy piece in the Winnipeg Sun .  Nfitz ( talk ) 09:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Promotional // Timothy :: talk 19:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:TimothyBlue , how is a review in a major newspaper - one from the largest newspaper in the country, promotional?  These are regular writers, and if you search Proquest, you'll also find the CNW press releases that were made - that are very, very short compared to the articles.  The press release is only 240 words, covering two programs, and (unsurprising there's more devoted to Corner Gas than Degrassi; the press release says little more than "" the date not only marks the conclusion of its fifth and most successful season to date, but marks the 100th episode of the series ""; and are clearly not the basis for any of the GNG articles - ProQuest 455376916 .  Nfitz ( talk ) 00:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I think that the new sources are acceptable, but if others don't agree than a REDIRECT to the series or season page would be a viable WP:ATD Donald D23 talk to me 20:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources found by Nfitz suggest that WP:GNG is met.  Hopefully someone will be motivated to improve the article from its current state.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Abdoulaye Ndiaye (footballer): Fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 09:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Senegal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] ,  and [46] , among many many more French sources. Clearly signicaint figure in Senegalese and French league football with young ongoing career in international football as well as fully pro French Ligue 2 , both o which have a lot of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG per above. Proper before wasn't done.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. The first Wiwsport source is a copy and paste of the corsematin.com article. Tikgalsen.com is a blog and sc-bastia.corsica is SC Bastia's official website. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Tikgalsen.com source is originally from [47] , which is not a blog. Even though  the first Wiwsport source is a copy and paste of the corsematin.com article the corsematin.com article is valid. Besides those three sources, there is also [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , and [52] among many more French sources. Clearly topic of interest with an ongoing career in international football as well as fully pro French Ligue 2 , both of which have a lot of media coverage. ' Article needs improvement, not deletion .  Regarding most of the consistent pro-deletion users, I dont understand why they spend all their effort deleting other peoples honest hard work instead of improving them, especially most pro-deletion users I have encountered who have a double standard where they either support Wikipedia:SNG where the article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG or have sometimes created articles of people with less coverage than this one.  (I support article creation, but many pro-deletion users double standard is very frustrating).  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete BLP, Fails GNG and BIO.  No sources in article are IS RS SIGCOV.  BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Sources above are promo and mentions, nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS sources.  None of the above is IS RS with SIGCOV, just ROUTINE sports stories, promo, etc.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 14:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Wiwsport is very good.  I'm not sure if any of the others are good enough.  This is a borderline case imho.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be the best source, but I think the above is an interview with the subject with some background commentary.  Doesn't seem to be an IS and uses promo language.  // Timothy :: talk 16:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Wiwsport entry is actually this Corse-Matin article.  It certainly counts towards the GNG, but I'll have to see if there is anything else.  Jogurney ( talk ) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Responding to TimothyBlue, Firstly , your most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online...  (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever ).  Secondly , the sources do have secondary coverage, Thirdly , every deletion editor's entire arguments is basically repeating ""everything is routine"" (clearly not true) or ""deletion because the ""law"" said so"" ( Wikipedia:Wikilawyering ) without thinking about why the ""law"" exists in the first place...  the reason the secondary source ""law"" exists is objectivity, which this article does anyways... if a fair amount of independent, reliable sources, primary or secondary, can produce an objective factual article about a clear topic of interest , there's no logical reason it should be deleted at all (Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a ""yes"" to Wikipedia:The one question ).  Lastly , Ndiaye has an ongoing career as a important figure in a team in the French Ligue 2 , a league that receives lots of media coverage .  Article needs improvement, not deletion .  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  21:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think there is just enough independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG .  This Corse-Matin article contains a good amount of independent reporting aside from the Q&A interview.  Similarly, this Africanews article contains useful independent reporting aside from the Q&A.  There are a many other articles that don't go in-depth by themselves such as the Le Progrès piece, but together they add a little more to what is in these two.  Jogurney ( talk ) 17:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I agree with Jogurney.  This passes GNG by skin of teeth Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of gacha games: QuietCicada ( talk ) 13:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada ( talk ) 13:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ""A category already exists"" is not a valid argument to delete a list.  Lists and categories serve different purposes and can exist together.  The idea of a gatcha game passes WP:LISTN as a viable subject matter to merit a list.  The idea of it only encompassing English games is indeed nonsensical, but deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and I support this reasoning fully.  Killuminator ( talk ) 15:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm blanking on what the link is, hopefully someone else can find it - but it basically says that redundancy to categories are not an issue, so you may want to take another angle or this will likely be kept pretty quickly.  There might be some sort of WP:INDISCRIMINATE type argument towards deletion - there's a lot of gacha games out there these days - but I'm not sure.  Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're probably looking for WP:NOTDUP .  — siro χ o 20:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, thank you, that's it.  All I could think of was CATDUP which is of course irrelevant to this.  Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Defaulting to Keep , as it's been a few days and the nominator has failed to advance a rationale that doesn't violate WP:NOTDUP .  Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Took a moment to evaluate, readily passes WP:NLIST .  And indeed, WP:NOTDUP .   — siro χ o 03:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Yeah this passes WP:NLIST and I am not seeing anything else wrong with this list.  Mori Calliope fan talk 17:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Horatio Stockton Howell: Clarityfiend ( talk ) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I think the circumstances of his story and his role in that battle are enough for me to regard this person as notable and therefore would prefer to keep this entry.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Christianity ,  and New Jersey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per nom.  I don't see the notability here, but the sourcing at least gives me some pause against being fully for deletion.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  His actual role in the battle was minimal.  That there's sourcing for almost anyone who was at Gettysburg isn't surprising given the level of documentation that exists, but I'm not seeing anything notable here.  Intothat darkness 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Not an ordinary solider, but the only chaplain killed at Gettysburg.  "" There can be no discussion of military chaplaincy at Gettysburg without mention of Horatio Stockton Howell. ""  St Anselm ( talk ) 20:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I note that the references we have on him are very recent: the quote I give is from this year; there is a page devoted to him in this 2020 book .  St Anselm ( talk ) 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (edit conflict) Just FYI, the quoted author Bruce Davis heads the Gettysburg Civil War roundtable, so he's an expert.  BusterD ( talk ) 21:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on a quick google search.  I've applied three marginal sources already.  I'm seeing material like this which seems to indicate this person is a part of Gettysburg lore, being a chaplain who was shot for refusing to surrender his sword.  This book about Union chaplains seems to indicate Howell's death is the ""most famous"" of six Union chaplains mistakenly killed as combatants.  There's a heck of a lot of Gettysburg lore, I'll grant, not all of it warranting notability.  Looking at newspapers.com I'm seeing over three dozen Pennsylvania mentions over the years (including a few claimed eyewitnesses).  This book says of his commemoration “...the first battlefield monument to perpetuate the memory of a chaplain slain in battle...”.  Gettysburg figures are notoriously hard to kill at AfD, so to speak.  BusterD ( talk ) 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The scope and breadth of sources about Howell that are already in the article establish the claim of notability based on his life's work and death at Gettysburg.  Alansohn ( talk ) 01:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable book and newspaper sources in the article that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG , passing minor references insufficient to establish notability.  Mztourist ( talk ) 05:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is significant coverage such as several paragraphs here imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not WP:RS .  Mztourist ( talk ) 05:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Gettysburg Times is a regional newspaper printed since 1902 so seems to be a reliable source, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria: Fails WP:GNG .  - AlbeitPK ( talk ) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Islam ,  and Bangladesh .  AlbeitPK ( talk ) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article clearly meets the WP:ACADEMIC policy 4 no criteria.  Because, some books written by him are taught in the university of Bangladesh, See here .  ~ Deloar Akram ( Talk • Contribute ) 09:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Independent and reliable sources are available.  Also, several academic books are taught in university.  Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 14:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Policy-based arguments would be appreciated.  The fact that books written by the article subject are used in university courses is not a valid argument to Keep.  We delete plenty of articles on academics who have written books used in coursework somewhere.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm not able to find reliable sources in English that show his academic profile, I assume they must exist in non-English languages so would appreciate it if someone could offer them for consideration.  Currently there are claims on the page but, as far as I see, not much which can be verified per WP:V .  JMWt ( talk ) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JMWt : ""Dr Abu Bakar Muhammad Zakaria - Curriculum Vitae"" see here.  202.134.9.128 ( talk ) 03:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Friend, a self-published CV is not suitable for WP:V JMWt ( talk ) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep His tafsir is the only bengali tafsir, published and approved by Saudi government printed by King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran https://quranenc.com/en/browse/bengali_zakaria and his book "" Shirk fil Qadim wal Hadis is a famous book, many scholars quoted from it including Ali al-Sallabi , his Book Hindusiat wa tasur is the most famous Islamic academic book on Hinduism in Arab world after the book ""Fusulun fi Adianil Hind"" written by Ziaur Rahman Azmi , and he wrote the book as his thesis in Madinah University under the supervision of Ziaur Rahman Azmi and followed him, he is an official bengali representative of Saudi religious propagation ministry who supervise the bengali section of www.islamhouse.com/bn and he has also entry in shamila library https://shamela.ws/author/1532 and there is a  possibilty that he may be going to be an emeritus professor of Islamic University, Kushtia by university authority as his age is now 65. 202.134.11.243 ( talk ) 12:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is WP:GNG . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. We haven't had anything offered which meets this standard in any language, so we can't WP:V the basics. Those who want to !keep cam of course rewrite thr page as/when they find acceptable sources. JMWt ( talk ) 05:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JMWt Are you want to say that Offline Source is not acceptable? You should remain in WP:good Faith . ~ Deloar Akram ( Talk • Contribute ) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which offline source meets the standards of the GNG? I am remaining to assume Good Faith in the part of other contributors and don’t really see why you are suggesting otherwise. If there is an offline source that shows the importance of this person, which they’ve not written themselves, that I’ve missed then I’m happy to correct myself. JMWt ( talk ) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JMWt I mention my opinion in first comment.  [ Please see here ]. ~ Deloar Akram ( Talk • Contribute ) 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok. Well, as others have already stated, being the author of university textbooks is not regarded as suitable notability for en.wiki I'm not saying that you are not offering an opinion in good faith, but I am saying that this is not a policy reason for !keep JMWt ( talk ) 17:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1 see here, his book about hinduism is highly praised in Zad TV by Muhammad al-Munajjid and the presenter also telephoned the publisher and requested hum to translate the book in English. His book Hindusiat wa Tasur was highly praised by Abdullah bin Salam al-Batati in the program ""Al-Khajanah"" of Zad TV owned by Muhammad Al-Munajjid and wished to be translated in English giving the book highly importance as a detailed work on Hinduism from the Islamic perspective. [57] His book Ash-Shirk fil-Qadim Wal Hadith has been partially translated into Indonesian by Abu Umamah Arif Hidayatullah as ""Syirik pada Zaman Dahulu dan Sekarang"".  [58] [59] Besides, the same translator also translated some of his other works into Indonesian language.  [60] - 202.134.14.139 ( talk ) 16:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Murder in Small Town X: Spent 10+ years with additional citation requests.  Only lasted 8 episodes, and only claim to notability is that a contestant died after the show finished airing in the 9/11 attacks, which have nothing to do with the show.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Without exception, most American primetime broadcast series always meet WP:N and pass GNG easily (and will easily pass with one additional source), and I'd argue that a contestant being a victim of that tragedy only adds to that N/GNG.  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although this was MANY years ago, I provided a lot of information from every episode I have watched.  I don't think this should be deleted.  And the episodes should still be available on YouTube.  DarkFireYoshi ( talk ) 03:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added references from three newspaper articles: "" Fox's Murder in Small Town X turns players into detectives "" (Quad-City Times), "" Reality TV, 'murder' intertwine in new series "" (Lansing State Journal), and "" Tue Best Bets "" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram).  This is enough to satisfy WP:NTV .  Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are all routine, insignificant coverage and not enough to establish notability.  In my opinion.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 10:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first article is 12 paragraphs long from an independent, reliable source.  The second is 22 paragraphs long.  They discuss the subject in detail, including production information and quotes on the creators' intentions.  If this seems routine, that's only because, as Nate says above, American primetime broadcast series tend to get coverage like this, and are therefore considered notable.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tashika ni: Fails WP:ALBUM .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The single went to #15 in the national Oricon chart in Japan in 2007, per Oricon , so this does pass the requirements of WP:NALBUM .  Direct coverage (including interpretation of the composition and discussion of the commercial indicated in the article) includes this and this .  I'm sure there is more out there, so inclined to keep .  Dekimasu よ!  01:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The song went to #15.  The single is distinct from the song.  - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, Oricon does not distinguish between the song and the single.  The normal version of the song and an instrumental version of the same song were the entirety of the single, and this was before songs were generally being sold alone online in Japan.  If you want the article to be edited so that it is made clear what satisfies WP:NALBUM / WP:NSONG , that doesn't seem like a problem.  As far as the deletion discussion is concerned this seems like a distinction without a difference.  Dekimasu よ!  12:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 21:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dekimasu's analysis above.  Also, Oricon introduced its digital sales charts only in 2017 and the combined chart (which sums digital and physical sales) in 2018, i.e. the 2007 charting only belongs to physical sales, i.e. the single.  -- C avarrone 07:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Cecilia (band): Lots of uncited and BLP information.  Tagishsimon ( talk ) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Well, yes, what Tagishsimon says.  But MNewnham expressed a desire to demonstrate the band's notability a mere 17 years, 11 months ago.  Perhaps a half-century is needed?  ("" There is no deadline ."") -- Hoary ( talk ) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , New York , Virginia ,  and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on the basis of no claims of achieving anything notable, no suitable citations about the band found in the last 12 years. Sionk ( talk ) 22:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : La Santa Cecilia is a band, witg some sourcing. Nothing for this band, called Cecilia alone. Article is also unsourced, from the wild west days of wikipedia it seems. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't agree that this is such a case. Verifiable does not mean cited. Citations serve to verify that the information is verifiable , but verifiability of the information rests on the existence and availability of sources, not on the references themselves. The wild west days of Wikipedia are: There are no references + the content is NOT verifiable (could be subjective, could be made up, could be any kind of junk). This article was responsibly and neutrally written and prose is of reasonable quality. Important content points can easily be verified. I am now finding sources and adding citations to the article. — Alalch E. 11:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment they do have a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They also have this WaPo article written about them in 1999: Cecilia: All in the Family — Alalch E. 10:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another source, 2004 (this is RS for this purpose, find it in WP:RSP for an explanation): Cecilia’s family groove — Alalch E. 11:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another WaPo source with sigcov [4] — Alalch E. 15:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable band. See the sources in the thread above this comment. (AllMusic bio, The Washington Post ). They contain significant coverage. This was a regionally significant band for a period of few years that was signed to Atlantic Records.— Alalch E. 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging participants to respond to the WP:HEY initiative: @ Tagishsimon , Hoary , Sionk , Oaktree b ,  and Atlantic306 : Sources were found. They are in the article (not all contribute to notability but at multiple do) and some are mentioned in the above comments. Many previously unsourced claims can be verified via references now. Does this affect your recommendation in this AfD?— Alalch E. 21:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's much improved -- but still problematic.  Sionk and (just a couple of minutes ago) I have removed a lot of ""Where are they now?"" chitchat; but above that the article still has such unreferenced material as The vocals are supported by Drew's lead guitar riffs, often evoking Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds comparisons and Kevin Jacoby's melodic bass lines, often in the style of Fleetwood Mac's John McVie.  Patriarch Ken plays drums as well as adding vocals and guitar parts (often simultaneously).  Ken is known for playing a bare-bones ""street kit"" that includes a Djembe as an all-purpose drum.  -- Hoary ( talk ) 22:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as the sources are paywalled and I don't have time to, um, use other methods to unpaywall them...  WaPo is a solid source, usually.  I'll put my money on that horse today as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia totally respects copyrights and using any sort of a ladder that's around 12 feet long, or look at today's archives, io, are not what we should be doing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the article now has enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG in my view.  Unreferenced material can be removed, also I don't see an issue in using archives otherwise it would only be the well off who edited wikipedia, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources added to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue ( talk • contribs ) 01:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of flags by color combination: ― Justin ( ko a v f ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions .  ― Justin ( ko a v f ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've always been a big fan of the nom's work on the encyclopedia but I've got to disagree with Koavf on this one.  This is one of the more useful list articles out there and I don't think the deletion rationale sufficiently articulated how this fails WP:NOT ; this is just a list article.  The terms ""gallery"" or ""galleries"" never appear at WP:NOT nor do any of the ctrl+f search results for ""list"" point to anything that would make this list article problematic.  What makes this one different from other list articles?  All due respect, I think the original research claim will need some substantiation, too.  Is it original research to state that the flags of Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Palestine, Western Sahara, etc all consist of the colors green, black, red, and white?  I believe we do the same thing on the article Pan-Arab colors , so I don't exactly know what makes it different when it's in a list article format.  Is it original research to state that the Flag of Germany consists of the colors black, red, and gold?  Is the original research part saying the same thing about the Flag of Belgium and categorizing them both under the black, red, and gold section?  This isn't to say the article being discussed doesn't have room for improvement.  It has quite a lot.  But the biggest problem it faces is that it lacks a defined inclusion criteria, and that's something that can be fixed through a simple RfC, not an AfD.  Maybe after this AfD is over, assuming the page isn't deleted, I'll suggest some possible criteria and start a request for comment.  Some no-brainer criteria could be that you need to cite reliable sources to add a flag if it doesn't already have a standalone Wikipedia page.  Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your kind words.  See WP:NOTGALLERY .  This is not an article that discusses things, but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images.  ― Justin ( ko a v f ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 20:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does ""This is not an article that discusses things,"" not describe all list articles?  As for ""but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images."" , the ""images"" part can only be said here because the subject matter is a list of flags, so including flagicons is only natural.  As for the arbitrary nature, that's the fault of the lack of a defined criteria, which is fixable through discussion and not an inherent flaw with the article necessitating deletion.  Per WP:NOTGALLERY , ""Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: #2) Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.""  As this is a list article for readers to browse and assists with navigating to other pages on the encyclopedia, whether they're articles about flags or about the locations said flags represent, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what makes this list article different from any other.  Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The guidelines you're citing certainly don't apply here, for the following reasons: because ""any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources"" ( WP:OR , under Acceptable Media , Section 3.3 ) , because the list is ""organized"", ""selective"", and flag colors play a non-trivial part in vexillology ( WP:TRIVIA , Section 3 ) , and as User:Vanilla Wizard above puts it, the list ""assists with article organization and navigation"" ( Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not , Section 2.4.2 ) in ways that Wikimedia Commons couldn't do better.  Also, notice that this is the 2 nd nomination.  There's a reason the 1 st one didn't pass.  – Ahmadiskandarshah ( talk ) 06:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While some color combinations (such as red, black, and green ) are significant, the vast majority of these have no clear significance, so grouping them together inappropriately implies meanings where there is none.  For instance, the flags of Brazil and Connecticut are in the same section, but they use colors in different ways (i.e., green is a reference to the House of Braganza for Brazil while it is used for grapevines for Connecticut, at least according to their Wikipedia articles).  The lack of references in this article gives some indication of how meaningless these groupings are; where references exist, they tend to focus on very surface-level observations ( example ) and do not comprise significant secondary coverage needed to show notability.  To address some of the counterarguments mentioned here: I believe the comment about lists that assist with article organization and navigation refer to lists of lists and the like, where the lists are solely intended to direct readers to other articles, not to be a destination of their own.  (Note that it mentions those lists are solely made of internal links – they are meant for people to go somewhere else, not to be read.)  While it is not OR to determine which colors a flag uses, it is inappropriate synthesis to group them together and imply connections between them: Do not combine material ... to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source .  WP:NOTGALLERY is absolutely applicable: Articles are not photographs or media files with no accompanying text.  If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context (which, again, is not possible for most of these color combinations).  I agree that most of this is WP:TRIVIA .  There may be meaning to some color combinations, and those would be non-trivial vexillological facts, but in that case those combinations can simply be mentioned in their own articles or as a small section in another article.  The rest are irrelevant.  — RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with Vanilla that ""this is one of the more useful list articles out there"", and one I would certainly have visited myself if I had realized that it existed.  That's not to say it can't be improved.  One minor point is that ""gold"" is a silly word to mean ""yellow"".  More important, it would be much easier to navigate if it were divided into sections: national flags; state or province flags; county flags; city flags; other flags.  Athel cb ( talk ) 09:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A useful reference article that does no harm to the project.  Color combinations are well-attested in RS and are usually obvious enough to be stated without sources.  Air on White ( talk ) 10:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles as useful as this should be kept even if they fail deletion policies under their strictest interpretation.  Policies can be vague anyway: there is disagreement on how much coverage there must be in a source to be significant according to GNG.  Air on White ( talk ) 10:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am not sure of specific policies when there are no citations, but the flags themselves are the citations, just like when you don't need a citation for a Book or Movie plot, as the book or movie is the citation.  Someone seem to have spent lot's of time creating this and it is useful and encyclopedic to have.  I do believe that we need some better policies for deciding the notability of pages like this.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 23:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The policies are WP:OR , WP:TRIVIA , WP:NOT , etc. all cited previously.  ― Justin ( ko a v f ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 00:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These polices you refer to do not exactly apply.  They are specifically for sections within articles and not complete articles.  We are here as a community deciding if the page should be kept.  So whatever the majority decides, I am fine with it.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 08:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Christopher Atamian: Possibly WP:UPE .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 21:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 21:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, I would like it if you could please specify why the Article fails to correspond to WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.  The references provided are from independent sources, and in my opinion a significant coverage was shown in those resources about the person in question, his work, prizes/nominations, and the contribution to the Armenian culture.  Also, if there are any suggestions of how I can improve the Article to fully correspond to the guidelines I would very much appreciate that.  Thanks a lot Asti.96 ( talk ) 08:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You may need to read the guideline for Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline which can help you know whether an article is ready for mainspace (if draft) or inclusive on wikipedia.  WP: SIGCOV means Significant Coverage and WP: GNG I had already explained.  I will review the article again and know how best I can try.  I also see some what of promotional words WP: UPE and to avoid disputing the neutrality if any to declare whether you are paid or associated to the subject All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 09:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete – Subject of an Ellis Island Medal of Honor and a Tölölyan Literary Prize makes him pass ANYBIO#1, but since most sources are unreliable/mentions and not enough reliable sources, deletion is preferred, but those prizes motivated me to ""weak delete"" it, as it is dubious whether the prizes are well known/significant or not.  But I bet that it is not documented in reliable sources that enough.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 21:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As far as I can see he has good coverage.   There's the Armenian Weekly , October 5, 2018 article: - The Child and the Scholar: Christopher Atamian’s A Poet in Washington Heights .  Also And there's the Asbarez , December 1, 2017 article: - Christopher Atamian Named Winner of  2017 Tölölyan Literature Prize .  Both of the news sites mentioned have pages here.  He also contributes to Horizon Weekly .  Why Every American Should See The Promise by Christopher Atamian and Haykaram Nahapetyan, Մարտ 29, 2017 And the Armenian community is bigger than what most folk realize if you want to go down that road.  I know it's not the case here, but gosh I just hope that folks in the wider community didn't realize that the Armenian ethnicity never existed until the Kardashians came along.  Well there was Mike Connors back in the day.  But back to this.  I believe this guy seems notable on various levels.  Karl Twist ( talk ) 09:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jamiebuba I had thought why you AFD this article.  Although it reads promotional but I suggest tagging and improving can work.  Seeing the page alone cited works and per citations from some reliable courses, seems to pass WP: GNG and WP: SIGCOV except from removing promotional words and copy editing.  Remember Deletion is not the best option when article can/may survive stand alone or WP: THREE .  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 09:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP: GNG , WP: ANYBIO , WP: SIGCOV , WP: NAUTHOR based on translations which he had won awards for.  Meets WP: JOURNALIST since there are verifiable sources that he has written for notable newspapers and magazines.  I can find many sources plus the notable awards he has won shows he is notable.   All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Rosea Kemp: Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , United Kingdom ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Part of a set of articles on Desert Island Discs castaways (see List of Desert Island Discs episodes (1961–1970) ).  Featured subject in an entire episode of a national radio programme.  Mentioned in several print sources by dint of that appearance and more.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 23:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Described as ""a trailblazer for women in Australian meteorology"" in The Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation .  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 23:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Science .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the sources noted by",keep
"Necroscope IV: Deadspeak: Unsourced except for the novel itself.  Fails WP:NBOOK .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no references to support notability, article looks promotional.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Removed vote per below.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Necroscope .  That's currently lightly sourced but seems to  meet WP:NBOOK itself per several PW reviews , other coverage .  Alternative merge to Brian Lumley but that's probably overdoing it.  .  Keep based on sourcing below — siro χ o 20:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I'm puzzled why, of the seven Necroscope novels that have articles, this is the only one nominated for deletion.  Seems a bit pointless.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm working through the NN by month cats.  The other novels may or may not need to be looked at for AFD, but if I stray that far from my self tasking, I'll fall down a rabbit hole.  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources Zaleski, Jeff; Cannon, Peter (2001-10-29).  ""Necroscope IV: Deadspeak"" .  Publishers Weekly .  Vol.  248, no. 44.  p. 40.  EBSCO host 5446719 .  Archived from the original on 2023-07-02 .  Retrieved 2023-07-02 .  The review notes: ""Lumley also broadens the scope, adding much to the story of psychic abilities, centered on the ultra-secret ""E-Branch ( 'E' for ESP)"" division of Britain's Secret Service. With their paranormal powers, Harry's E-Branch teammates give the novel an Ian Fleming/Stephen King crossover feel. Despite a tendency to overreach his descriptive power and the dated Cold War background, Lumley (Psychomech) tells a fast-moving tale of the primal horror of an undead parasite worthy of Stoker's original.""  Betancourt, John Gregory (Fall 1990).  ""Deadspeak, by Brian Lumley"" .  Weird Tales .  p. 18 .  Retrieved 2023-07-02 – via Google Books .  The review notes: ""There were only two elements I disliked in Deadspeak : First, the introduction of magic. (Though the series has the trappings of horror, the ""supernatural"" abilities demonstrated — right down to the vampires themselves have all been explained in a thoroughly pseudo-scientific way thus far. The existence of working magic undercuts the rationalism behind the earlier books' basic premise.) Second, the invocation to Yog-Sothoth in one of the spells, and the new implication that the Cthulhu Mythos is involved. Give me a break.... Though not quite up to the level of the earlier books, it's close. Four instead of five stars. Fans of the series won't want to miss it.""  Gilbert, John (September 1990).  ""Action and Monstrosity. Necroscope IV: Deadspeak"" .  Fear .  No. 21.  Newsfield .  p. 76 .  Retrieved 2023-07-02 – via Internet Archive .  The review notes: ""Like the vampires it so full-bloodedly portrays, Brian Lumley's Necroscope series just gets stronger. His lively mix of action and monstrosity transmutes the base cliché of the vampire and turns it into a wonderfully contemporary bane.""  Sawyer, Andy (December 1990 – January 1991).  ""Brian Lumley – – Deadspeak"" (PDF) .  Paperback Inferno .  No. 87.  British Science Fiction Association .  p. 14.  Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-07-02 .  Retrieved 2023-07-02 .  The review notes: ""Fourth in the Necroscope fusion of vampire horror and spy thriller, with a touch of Lovecraft as one might expect from Lumley. The conventions are more those of the thriller than the vampire or Lovecraftian genres: frequent crude writing, but occasional compelling ideas among the metaphysics.""  Dziemianowicz, Stefan (September 1990).  ""Necroscope IV: Deadspeak"" .  Crypt of Cthulhu .  No. 75.  pp. 66–67.  Archived from the original on 2023-07-02 .  Retrieved 2023-07-02 .  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Necroscope IV: Deadspeak to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 10:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"William Field (Australian pastoralist): All the rest are passing mentions of some kind.  NN, fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Crime , United Kingdom , England ,  and Australia .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  You have the book Cattle King of Van Diemen's Land, William Field (1774-1837) , as well as the articles in The All-Time Australian 200 Rich List and the Launceston Historical Society.  That adds up to notability.  I agree that the court documents don't count for notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastman, with one exception that I think the Court documents are still relevant to the article and should be kept even if not specifically counting to notability.  Deus et lex ( talk ) 23:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per WP:GNG.  Good sourcing.  Court documents should be kept as well.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Henry F. Fradella: No independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability.  2 of the 4 current sources are quasi-self-published (academic bios from his employers).  Several non-independent sources used in the article, e.g. an award granted to the subject by the society of which he was president.  Overall seems unduly self-serving.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 17:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Law .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Arizona , California , Massachusetts , New Jersey ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR .  Four reviews of three books: JSTOR 26425117 , JSTOR 27099000 , JSTOR 43186625 , JSTOR 26546031 .  Probably there's more but I only had time to search JSTOR.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : The book reviews in JStor seem listed above fine, about books he co-authored; that's honestly more than most people that show up here in AfD have.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the person referenced on this page.   I had no idea it even existed.   I would like it deleted, please.  DrHenryFFradella ( talk ) 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Requests by an article's subject to have the article deleted are sometimes considered ( WP:BIODEL ), but an issue is that anybody can create a user account with any name, so there is currently nothing proving that the Wikipedia account User:DrHenryFFradella is actually owned by the subject of the article.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 12:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Requests by ""relatively unknown, non-public figures"" may be considered in some circumstances, but a full professor at a major research university who publishes books on major publishers, actively takes part in public and scholarly discourse, who gets reviewed and is relatively highly cited, who is elected president of a major scholarly society is not a ""relatively unknown, non-public figure"".  Indeed, it's a very public activity.  -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk ) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly a very well-established academic, full professor at a major research university, extensive list of publications/books published by major publishers, 2,401 scholarly citations [14] is quite high in law (likely in the in the top 0.1 percent among legal academics, citation counts in law are generally much lower than in the sciences).  Past president of the main criminology association in the western US (an area much larger than many countries).  A number of reviews of his books.  He literally has an award named after him, awarded by the main scholarly association of criminologists in the western US.  [15] -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk ) 02:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Charlie Morningstar: But, despite that, it seems like this [2] is the only good source, The Mary Sue source that has already cited is quite useful but isn't a WP:SIGCOV , while the rest are just passing mentions from film reviews.  WP:BEFORE , most of the sources were from the film reviews and Charlie was just a passing mention and it doesn't really discuss as a character at all.  Fails WP:GNG .  22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I strongly disagree with the OP and would argue that on the reception section ALONE, it counts as notable, and should be kept.  It is inevitable it will be mentioned in film reviews, but I do not see that as hurting notability.  I vote keep .  Historyday01 ( talk ) 02:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An argument like this amounts to WP:ILIKEIT .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 02:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not necessarily.  I am saying that there is enough reliable sources to justify it being kept.  The fact that you are NOT considering alternatives to deletion and did NOT even start a discussion on the talk page of the article you have nominated, to address some of these issues, says everything to me.  Deletion is not an alternative to what can be solved through editing.  If you wanted to, you could have done more research to make the article better, but you did not.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:But there must be sources!  .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 03:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok. I was only saying that alternatives to deletion should have been considered.  In any case, I hope more people weigh in on this discussion.  Update: I am presently posting about this on related projects so as to get more eyes on this discussion, as we are are only two users and there should be more eyes on this AfD so there can be an informed decision that benefits all parties. -- Historyday01 ( talk ) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This nomination is faulty.  I vote for keep per the arguments of Historyday01.  71.179.137.86 ( talk ) 02:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if you disagree, you actually need to build up your arguments better and find a possible source that could help the character pass WP:GNG .  This is not a voting process.  Also, it feels like after Historyday01 made an edit; after a minute later, this IP comes up immediately (looks like a sock).  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 03:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that.  I'm not at all related to Historyday01.  I tend to disagree with their editing process and hostility toward you.  I am only weighing on this AfD which I recently came across.  That is all.  71.179.137.86 ( talk ) 03:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both of your comment thus far fail WP:VAGUEWAVE and AFD is not a vote so I'd recommend both of you give a more specific, detailed rationale, or the closing Admin will likely discount your stances.  Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no point in fighting this.  I am striking my comments so the closing admin doesn't need to.  I hope the ""both of you"" is applying to the OP as well.  71.179.137.86 ( talk ) 03:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Sergecross73 Both are most likely the same person.  Pls see my evidence at Ferret's talkpage,and look at their editing patterns.  Both also made by ""there must be sources"" arguments.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 03:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said there, can we please keep this civil without throwing around accusations?  I am already trying to get more  people to weigh in on this discussion by posting on related projects.  Having both of us just go back-and-forth isn't doing anyone good.  If I could go back in time, I'd have never commented in this discussion at all.  Update: More people have commented, which is good.  I am removing my previous line, as I don't think it does anyone good at this present time.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While I get how the OP arrived at their perspective, I think their reasoning isn't quite in line with WP:SIGCOV .  Per the guideline, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material , and its example for what constitutes a trivial mention is Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that ""In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice"" is plainly a trivial mention of that band : Walker makes no examination of the band itself, no history of its existence of analysis of its performance—it's simply trivia about Clinton.  Meanwhile, the articles from entertainment/media journalism cited on this page that OP calls passing mentions do involve actual analysis of the character.  The Mary Sue describes attributes of the character's personality and how that personality affects the show's narrative and reception ( what makes you want to go back and watch all of Hazbin Hotel is Charlie ), BELatina connects the character's multilingualism to Medrano's Latin American background ( Medrano’s latinidad might shine through most clearly in particularly colorful streams of expletives in Spanish that Charlie lets loose ), and CBR appraises the voice actor performance of the character ( Erika Henningsen, as Charlie, did an exemplary job of voicing a person cheery by nature but brought down by the massive weight of responsibilities on her shoulder ).  And to clarify, these sentences aren't the sole mentions of the character in each source.  The reviews aren't mentioning the character in one sentence or other like with the Three Blind Mice example; the reviews have paragraphs summarizing and/or examining the Charlie character.  These don't seem like passing mentions on the level of Walker's trivial mention of Three Blind Mice.  This falls more into the second clause of the sentence I quoted from WP:SIGCOV : it does not need to be the main topic of the source material for it to still be significant coverage.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 04:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe Valnet sources like CBR doesn't contribute to GNG after checking WP:RSP .  But, I would say the Mary sue source looks good now after rechecking it, thou I don't think Belatina is reliable.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 05:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You said it much better than I could put it.  The Mary Sue and CBR sources are ones I originally added on the Hazbin Hotel page as reviews, and I just carried them over after the page was moved into the mainspace earlier this year.  I imagine that more articles will come out in the future, which will further cement the page.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hydrangeans analysis.  Too bad about the IP who crossed-out their Keep comment, feeling welcome is a major part of the Wikipedia experience.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 05:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw .  I feel like Hydrangeans'analysis is very strong here.  So because of it, I feel like the character should barely make it.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 11:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question: Your vote or the nomination, as its proposer?  Original Alastorian ( talk ) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hydrangeans' arguments.  She's correct in the assessment that mentions of Charlie in sources aren't simply trivial mentions.  They do in fact analyze Charlie and aspects of her character.  -- Turtletennisfogwheat ( talk ) 14:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hydrangeans.  Her analysis could also be applied to Vaggie .  Original Alastorian ( talk ) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hydrangeans.  Blubewwy ( talk ) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I know this is not a vote, so my argument would that there are enough secondary sources discussing the character rather than her being just part of the series, such as https://thedirect.com/article/charlie-morningstar-hazbin-hotel-how-old-age alongside the previous source shared by the nominator.  However, I don't think Wikipedia should keep the other characters' pages and they can be merged in List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters , Wikipedia is not fandom wikis for every character regardless of notability guidelines.  Terbofast ( talk ) 22:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Barbara H. Stuart: All 7 sources provided are primary.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Science ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - She has a high h-index score of 39 on Google Scholar.  Her work has been cited over 13,000 times.  [23] Netherzone ( talk ) 04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The citations count, h-index, and i10-index seem respectable enough.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:Prof#C1 .  Would the nominator care to comment?  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] I trust your judgement Xxanthippe so will withdraw this.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Chris Mayotte: A search on the web shows that there are no secondary sources about him, so there are no spaces for improvement.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Tennis ,  and United States of America .  Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it looks like it has citations to me.  He was a notable player in his day.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 07:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI the sources were added later.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that these sources were added shows your claim ""there are no secondary sources about him"" to be incorrect. -- Wolbo ( talk ) 10:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Wolbo I couldn't access all the newly-added citations.  All of them were local newspapers.  So yeah, I agree, my claim ""there are no secondary sources about him"" is incorrect after all, just because I couldn't find them online.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then perhaps what you should be doing is adding a template that we need more sources rather than frivolous deletion requests.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable player who won three doubles titles on the highest tour level and is sufficiently sourced. -- Wolbo ( talk ) 10:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Berkshire Eagle 's cited article is a very good source (clip [43] ), The State's less so as it consists of little secondary coverage and mostly relies on what Mayotte's saying/quotes instead.  Hartford Courant's one is more of a Chris Mayotte vs Jeff Aarts match recap.  I'm struggling to find something more in Newspapers beyond passing mentions, routine announcements or match recaps and listings.  However, it's hard to put down someone who played over 170 matches total in ATP Tour, was in top 90 in singles and won 3 doubles titles, that's an overwhelming pass of WP:NTENNIS .  If there was not a single significant coverage I'd lean on delete, but collectively I think it edges out a keep from me.  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 23:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"KCNZ-CD: Could merge into KOFY-TV as they share spectrum.  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 02:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It got full writeups in the San Francisco Chronicle , Mercury News , and USA Today between 1998 and 2000.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per sources added by Sammi Brie, which I cannot access but AGF based on the editor and my impression of them that there is enough here.  Eddie891 Talk Work 13:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : apart from clear WP:NSUSTAINED over the years, there is now strong sourcing both in local publications as well as international (like BBC ) She was a fairy 02:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Álvaro Seijas: Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG .  Only two notable sources are from the Journal Star (Peoria) Yankees10 01:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball , Venezuela ,  and Illinois .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  References seem adequate.  Journal Star (Peoria) is a perfectly reliable newspaper.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not disputing the reliability of the Journal Star.  I am saying those are the only two sources of coverage and they come from the exact same newspaper.  That is not ""significant coverage"". -- Yankees10 02:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - First of all, archive links to the Journal Star pieces: [19] [20] .  These do meet the definition of significant coverage (addressing the topic directly & in detail), but since multiple sources are required, they're not enough on their own.  That said, I also found this article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, meaning there is significant coverage from two regional newspapers, so GNG is met.  Hatman31 ( talk ) 04:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hatman31's findings above.  Article clearly meets GNG, and has enough reliable sources to support its existence.  CycloneYoris talk!  01:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tjep Hoedemakers: JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  (Update from weak keep to keep after examining several more match reports)  This player was on the third place team for 2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup which suggests notability.  Subject shows up in loads of match reports that cover snippets the subjects' actual play eg [37] [38] [39] , there are many more.  I think we can safely meet WP:BIO via If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability — siro χ o 07:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If I'm not mistaken, the part of that sentence you omitted (""trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"") means that trivial mentions cannot be combined to establish notability in the way you describe.  Two of these three sources are from the International Hockey Federation , which wouldn't be independent anyways.  Cheers, JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies about the non-independent sources.  There are quite a few independent sources out there [40] [41] [42] [43] .  You can click the ""news"" link in the the AFD template and add ""-FIH"" to find several more.  I did not include the additional phrasing because these snippets of actual play are not trivial coverage as defined by WP:BASIC , rather they are short bits of coverage.  Short does not mean trivial.  Examples of trivial coverage from that page include birth certificates, 1-line entries on election ballots, and databases.  This is different, it's actual coverage of impact the person had in their field.  A single match report would not be enough, but taken together enough of them in independent reliable sources can fulfill WP:BASIC .  We can see the logic behind WP:BASIC .  100 online database entries about an actor appearing in bit parts in film do not add together to create SIGCOV.  100 published match reports about different matches together create significant coverage.  — siro χ o 21:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are these not just passing mentions, though?  If a player has appeared in 100 Premier League matches and is mentioned in 100 different match reports, even if just once or twice per article, would that constitute the SIGCOV necessary for the player to meet GNG?  This rule in BASIC is meant for sources with a little more meat on them, because imagine how many athletes have been mentioned in a couple of match reports over the years.  That just cannot the intent.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think passing mention would be a mention that was just ""Tjep Hoedemakers said XYZ"" because then the coverage is not about the subject, but actually about the statement.  In these cases it's ""short"" coverage, but it's specifically about the subject.  It's a balance.  I fully agree that just a couple match reports would not constitute SIGCOV, nor would just being on the roster for 100 box scores (i.e db-entry-style trivial coverage).  But I fully believe having your play briefly described in 100 independent match reports of high-level international play (or Premier League play, etc) would be enough.  Where the balance lies is up to us to determine.  It's fine for us to disagree about this specific subject.  And if it helps, as I noted in my original ! vote, I'm not going fully on count of match reports or anything, either.  In this case the 3rd place finish in a major international competition is a sign of notability, and finding a significant number of match reports describing the player's play confirms it for me.  — siro χ o 22:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose we have found the point where we do not fully agree.  Regardless, I am happy to go with the consensus.  Cheers!  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep lots of coverage in Dutch which appears to satisfy GNG.  [44] [45] [46] [47] SportingFlyer T · C 13:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The first two are clearly not independent, the third is a video of a goal he scored, and the fourth is a routine match report with one mention of the subject.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified and WP:NEXIST .  gidonb ( talk ) 22:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Many sources have been identified.  Would you mind specifying which would be the top two or three?  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Until now there are three keeps under this nomination.  One corrected from weak keep.  Wikipedia suffers from excessive AfDs.  People nominate WAY too much.  This pulls valuable resources away from the article space.  Starting a discussion with each user, who does not subscribe to your opinion, taken into full account after closely studying the intro and as many other relevant facts as possible, does not improve this situation.  To put it mildly.  WP:BLUDGEON advises against this.  gidonb ( talk ) 23:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your reply; I acknowledge your point.  I usually don't comment on my own AfDs, nor should I. At the same time, many (most?) SNGs were deprecated, leaving thousands of sports articles which no longer meet WP's notability requirements.  In lieu of mass deletions which obviously would not work, individual nominations are the only recourse to address this disparity.  The bundling of mentions in match reports in this specific case just seems like such a stretch from the intent of the rule, IMO, but I digress.  Cheers, JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Peter Yurdansky: UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Russia .  UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is a misspelled name from Russian.  A correct spelling would be ""Iordansky"", not ""Yurdansky"".  He appears in the The Oxford Companion to Chess , i.e. [43] .  See page about him on ruwiki, ru:Иорданский, Петр Константинович .  My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Besides the references listed in the Russian article, probably the best English-language source for him is Anthony Gillam's Mannheim 1914 and the Interned Russians , pp. 210–211.  Cobblet ( talk ) 18:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, —⁠Scotty Wong ⁠— 05:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  The article should be renamed to Peter Iordansky.  Jaguarnik ( talk ) 03:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights: I've searched for reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and School Library Journal, as well as general searches on Google and Google Scholar, and haven't found any sources to meet notability guidelines.  I would suggest redirecting to the author's page ( A.J. Healy ), at least for now.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to author as suggested.  The only thing I found in Wikipedia Library was a routine book announcement in Publishers' Weekly: ""Tommy Storm debuts with Tommy Storm and Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights by A.J. Healy ($8.99 each, 9-12).""  Definitely no NBOOK in sight.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 06:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Change to Keep per Cunard's excellent finds below, which give us the 2+ reviews we need for NBOOK1.  Thanks, too, for adding material from these to the article!  (Also, on reflection, a better alternative to deletion would have been a merge to Tommy Storm , but that's beside the point now.) ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources ""A right royal a scandal"" .  Sunday Mercury .  2009-10-18.  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The review notes: ""The second book in the series from Irish writer AJ Healy starts just after Tommy and his four knight friends have been captured by gangster Nack Jikilson - and when they escape he follows them across the galaxy. ... Tommy Storm is not a particularly likeable character, and although this book is riddled with intelligent crossreferences meant to amuse, it just comes across as though it's trying too hard to impress. Billed as a comedy adventure, it's not that funny and the adventure is confusing. However, being confusing means that it's unpredictable to the end, and it is heart-warming in parts.""  Thompson, Mary Shine (2009-11-14).  ""Gems of gloom and global warming"".  Irish Times .  ProQuest 309197507 .  The review notes: "" Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights (Quercus, £6.99) is a sequel (but of course) to Tommy Storm, and its narrator helpfully advises readers that they can skip the generous footnotes and information boxes. The book is crammed with characters with names such as A-Sad-Bin-Liner and the kind of smart-alec ripostes, puns (there's a Straddlevarious violin) and exclamations that many youngsters find hilarious. You will get the drift if I tell you that Tommy and Co outwit a monster and mount an offensive against chocolate terrorists to save the universe.""  The author's website Internet Archive notes: ""The Sunday Tribune included Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights in its Top-Ten list of ""the best crossover reads"" - being ""books that parents can sneak a look at while the kids are doing their homework.  Fables that work on one level for kids, and on a mythic level for adults.  Books that engage on the kind of emotional plane that some adult novels can only aspire to.  And so, in the wake of the Potter and Twilight sagas, here are 10 of the best books to get all ages squabbling this Christmas over who gets to read them first. "" Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights is, they say, ""an enjoyable romp, full of fizz and humour. """" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 12:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's sources.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"WEEE-LP: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The station was Knoxville's UPN affiliate in the early 2000s and got some significant coverage in that era.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources added by Sammi give the subject WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"山州: NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  Cunard ( talk ) 11:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  Cunard ( talk ) 11:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/山州 participants and closer: Primium ( talk · contribs ), Bkonrad ( talk · contribs ), Folly Mox ( talk · contribs ), and Hey man im josh ( talk · contribs ).  Cunard ( talk ) 11:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not exactly ""Bad AfD"" level, but the nominator clearly didn't click through to any of the "" See also "" links, all of which are 山州 .  See Special:Diff/1183937267 .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 11:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC) oh also Speedy Keep and didn't we just do this.  [ reply ] Of course I did.  It's you who clearly don't understand the relationship between Chinese characters and their transliteration.  The only entry in Sanshu transliterated from 山州 is exactly Yamashiro Province .  And the only entry in Shan Prefecture transliterated from 山州 was a red link I just removed per WP:DABRED here .  As for Shanzhou , it's obviously transliterated from 陕州 as opposed to 山州 .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 11:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good revert .  You're right: I read them in my head without the tones, and edited while too sleepy to think clearly again.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 12:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides, the format you used in Special:Diff/1183937267 assigned Yamashiro Province with the primary topic per MOS:DAB , in which case 山州 should still be redirected to Yamashiro Province .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 12:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Keep : seems clear that if there is no disambiguation to be done, this page is not needed.  But someone has found a second reading of 山州, so there is disambiguation to be done.  But all the other irrelevant stuff should be deleted.  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 09:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (and reinstate the removed information) - MOS:DABRED isn't for removing information, it's for removing red links in disambiguation pages.  ""Unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description . Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader [...] will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information . The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term."" -- Primium ( talk ) 16:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you cite the information that you think should belong, and its relationship to the article title, viz.  山州 ?  There is a rationale for having redirects in WP:en for Chinese characters, in particular that a reader of Japanese (for example, like me) can look up a placename in China, without knowing the Chinese reading of the characters.  But I can see no purpose in having links from one set of Chinese characters to a different set of Chinese characters.  In the Sanshu disambiguation page there are two items including 山州: one goes to the actual article Yamashiro Province , the other comes back to this disambiguation page.  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 16:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MOS:DABRED clarifies the condition under which the entry of non-extant article could be kept, while doesn't mean that it has to.  Will you insert the red link to an article to give it a related blue link even if the entry is added for spamming?  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 23:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I created Shān Prefecture , which is discussed extensively in this source: Tang, Ren (1829).  慶遠府(廣西)志: 20卷, 卷首 : 1卷 [ Chronicles of Qingyuan Prefecture (Guangxi): 20 volumes, first volume: 1 volume ] (in Chinese) .  Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Google Books .  There are now two topics that ""山州"" can refer to: Yamashiro Province , abbreviated name was following Sanshū (山州), province of Japan located in what is today Kyoto Prefecture Shān Prefecture , a prefecture between the 6th and 7th centuries in modern Thanh Hóa, Vietnam and Guangxi, China Cunard ( talk ) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's good to validate a entry from creation of a stub.  It remains to decide if the proposed target could be the primary topic, in which condition WP:ONEOTHER applies and a hatnote at the top of Yamashiro Province will suffice to replace this dab page.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 10:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How would a hatnote work?  It seems to me that while redirects from Chinese characters (山州 in this case) are useful, a hatnote would be unnecessarily confusing to the ordinary reader, who would not recognise this reference to a rare variant name.  Better to have a redirect page.  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 14:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with either way after creation of the stub.  Now that you prefer keeping the disambiguation page, I'm withdrawing my nomination, as all the votes here are keep now.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 05:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Unfortunately, I don't see any development of this discussion since the last relisting.  Right now, it looks like No consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (moving this below the line...) Keep : But someone has found a second reading of 山州, so there is disambiguation to be done.  But all the other irrelevant stuff should be deleted.  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 14:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Cultural nationalism: The text is largely unsourced and it isn’t at all clear what it’s even supposed to be talking about.  I have tagged in the past, but it appears the literature on a phenomenon known as “cultural nationalism” is incredibly vague in what it’s even attempting to define.  John Hutchinson appears to be one of the only scholars to engage the term in and of itself (and Kai Nielsen), but does one (or two) scholars’ conceptualisations really meet our notability criteria?  My feeling is what he has to say can go in Nationalism .  Yr Enw ( talk ) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions .  Yr Enw ( talk ) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I would like to see this article remain and be improved.  It can be a helpful addition to the article in the German-language Wikipedia because the term Kulturnation is an important and well-documented historical concept and is still used and discussed today in Germany. -- Baekemm ( talk ) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That raises an interesting point as to whether article translations can (sometimes) constitute different phenomenons?  I’m not saying that’s an argument for or against deletion of this one, but a sidepoint Yr Enw ( talk ) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is underdeveloped, but a quick search shows 48,000 books which use the term.  Many of the books use the term as part of chapter titles ie.  in-depth.  We are only waiting for someone to improve the article.  Based on the very wide usage, the term is notable.  It may have differing POVs about its meaning, but multiple POVs is how Wikipedia works.  Just quickly browsing those sources here is one that says Moving beyond the cultural nationalist period has not been easy, and despite the many civil rights glories associated with the 1960s and 1970s, the fact that a new cultural logic has slowly made its way into our daily lives makes some matters (urbanization, immigration, and education) ever more pressing.  Even as a critique of cultural nationalism began to emerge following its heyday in the 1960s, the limitations of cultural nationalism as a public social discourse encountered resistance from women and men alike.  [20] This is good info, we now know when it had a ""heyday"", it's no longer in fashion, the context of use ""civil rights"" era etc..  All this could be incorporated.  And that's the first source I randomly picked from the 48,000.  -- Green C 18:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I largely agree with everything GreenC had to say, the term definitely has wide usage.  Through just doing a preliminary search on google scholar, I see a lot of research using the concept as a guiding point for their research, including research from just the past year or two.  When looking at articles published since 2022 that were on google scholar, 5000 used the term cultural nationalism.  Obviously, this is just a preliminary search but the fact that it is still being used in research adds to the reasons it should be kept as an article in my opinion.  Sillypilled ( talk ) 04:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The term, like many others in sociology, is indeed ambiguous, as the nom  claims.  That would make expanding this article more challenging, but not a reason to delete it.  Ample references and frequent usage establish notability.  Owen× ☎ 19:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Devachan: No independent references exist outside of Theosophy books or websites.  H.P. Blavatsky and Leadbeater are not WP:RS but these are the only sources cited.  No historians have covered this topic.  I believe the article is not notable and should be deleted.  Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 13:27, 7 January 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 January 7 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete In universe character who hasn't received coverage by independent reliable sources of any sort of depth Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 00:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't a ""character"".  Please take a little more time with articles WP:BEFORE ! voting.  Jfire ( talk ) 00:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hard to tell, since no independent sources exist, and all we have is someone's interpretation of primary sources Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 02:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The topic is discussed in Campbell, Bruce F. (1980).  Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement .  University of California Press.  ISBN 978-0-520-03968-1 .  Here's is a selective excerpt: Development is conceived in Theosophy as continuing after death, in two out-of-incarnation states called kama-loka and devachan .  After death the individual puts off his physical body and lives in his astral body until the force has become exhausted which has been generated by the emotions of the just-completed life.  His movement from the physical plane is a movement into the plane of kama-loka, or plane of desire...  When the emotions of the immediately past life have been dissipated, a second death occurs and the astral body falls away.  The individual finds himself in his mental body and in the lower mental world.  This realm is called the Devachanic state, and corresponds to the idea of heaven.  Devachan is ""paradise,"" a place of bliss and supreme felicity, and ""logic tells us that no sorrow or even a shade of pain can be experienced therein.""  In devachan the upper triad functions solely as a mind ""clothed in a very ethereal vesture which it will shake off when the time comes to return to earth.""  It is discussed in more depth in Chajes, Julie (2019-01-02).  Recycled Lives: A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky's Theosophy .  Oxford University Press.  ISBN 978-0-19-090914-7 .  and the fifth chapter of Harlass, Ulrich (2021-07-19).  Die orientalische Wende der Theosophischen Gesellschaft: Eine Untersuchung der theosophischen Lehrentwicklungen in der Zeit zwischen den Hauptwerken Alfred Percy Sinnetts (in German).  Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.  ISBN 978-3-11-069883-1 .  I don't speak German, but here's an excerpt from an English-language review of the latter book: Similarly, Harlass discusses devachan as a concept developed in conversation with Spiritualist debates.  It was positioned along with kama loka (often kama loca in Sinnett) as two distinct places.  While davachan was conceived as the place where one waits for one’s next incarnation, kama loka was identified as the place where various “entities” reside that are not subject to reincarnation.  These entities were understood to be those present at séances.  Direct communication with the dead was explicitly rejected.  Again, Harlass succeeds in describing the debate over devachan as embedded in contemporary discussions that were primarily concerned with perceived discrepancies in the Theosophical doctrine of reincarnation.  Devachan was then positioned against these critics as an allegedly “Oriental” concept, particularly the position of Kingsford and Maitland.  The “Oriental” here depicts a discursive strategy by which Sinnett, Blavatsky, and also Row and Malavankar claim exclusivity, as Harlass asserts.  These sources show that this concept has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and hence meets WP:GNG and is eligible for a standalone article.  That aside, I think the topic is perhaps better covered in a more general article covering Theosophist beliefs about the afterlife and reincarnation.  But the editorial decision of how to best cover a notable topic can be discussed in a venue other than AfD.  Jfire ( talk ) 03:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As demonstrated above, an easy Keep ; Goggle otherwise would have pointed me to the hair salon.  Sparafucil ( talk ) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 04:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep based on the sources mentioned above.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the sources provided meet GNG .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"土城: Also, this is a duplicate of Tucheng (disambiguation) , which is more extensive.  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 03:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and China .  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 03:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator : decided to create a broader discussion for deleting all pages in this category.  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 19:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I said this in another AfD recently, but Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (385) is not a death sentence.  Quoting the category page: The following disambiguation pages contain Chinese characters in their titles.   They serve to disambiguate articles subjects that may be referred to by the same name when written in different Chinese character sets such as Traditional Chinese , Simplified Chinese , Kanji , Hanja , Chữ Nôm and Sawndip .  There's nothing in WP:NCZH that says dabpages can't use Chinese characters in their titles, and indeed it is standard practice when there are different pronunciations based on what language is using the characters.  If Toseong station is deleted, you'd have a valid rationale here.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh.  Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I didn't know that.  I guess there's no real harm in these pages existing, the use-case just feels baffling.  (The mind wanders: Do people really use these? How often do English texts include Chinese characters without at least a transliteration? Wouldn't someone be able to use Google Translate to get the appropriate transliteration for the language they're looking at? Are there really situations where someone who knows how to type Chinese characters isn't able to guess from the context whether they're looking at Kanji, Hanja, or Hanzi?)  Philosophical ponderings aside, it sounds like this is settled policy so I'll withdraw my request.  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 04:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I honestly agree with you about what the actual use cases are.  I'm thinking it's people who have some website open they can't read, don't know about or predate google translate, and copypaste into the Wikipedia search bar.  Considering how many of these have been popping up at AfD recently, it might be time to have a fresh conversation about whether or not this category should be a ""death sentence"", to borrow my language from above.  I'm philosophically neutral on whether this should be a valid type of dabpage, but I'm of the mind that they should either all stay or all go.  Apologies if I came off a bit cross in my initial comment.  I'm sure it was feelings about something else.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 06:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That makes sense.  I'll start AfD for this group of articles.  SilverStar54 ( talk ) 19:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/樂天 was overturned at WP:DRV , and two other recent Chinese-character DAB AfD's were closed as keep.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment This article had a duplicate AfD tag.  Never seen that before.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Rickwood Field Game: O.N.R. (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Alabama .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move it is notable, as mentioned below, but I agree the title need some work.  I'd suggest ""MLB Alabama Game"", but I  don't really care El Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep An already scheduled event and there's that handy little 'move' button that'll let us retitle it when it has an official name, and 'first pro baseball game in Alabama' and MLB's first definitive celebration of Juneteenth with a special event game definitely clinches WP:NSPORTS without a doubt.  At the very least I've removed the team managers because that can easily change at least before April (or even in-season).  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG , meets WP:SPORTSEVENT .  Due to its historical significance, it's almost certain that it would meet WP:PERSISTENCE even if canceled.  It's already had coverage over a month.  Until a better title is found, I would be ok with moving it to a descriptive title like Major League Baseball game at Rickwood Field or something.  — siro χ o 08:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: This one meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT .  User:Let'srun 13:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not even WP:TOOSOON .  SportingFlyer T · C 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Babajide Oluwase: We are trying very, very hard, we might be gushingly promotional, but we are not ultimately notable.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Please kindly look closely the sources listed below, is significant enough for him to pass notability and they are reliable and independently(Secondary)  references aswell.  [ [5] ][ [6] ][ [7] ] [ [8] ][ [9] ]
 [ [10] ]
 [ [11] ][[ [12] ]
 [ [13] ]
 [ [14] ]
 [ [15] ]
 [ [16] ].  Epcc12345 ( talk ) 16:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article not satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO , agree with @ Alexandermcnabb : that its borderline WP:PROMOTION as is not strictly WP:NPOV MetricMaster ( talk ) 10:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia.  Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions.  The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.  [ reply ] Comment @ MetricMaster : How does the source above not meet WP:Basic or WP:GNG when there is enough notable secondary sources to prove it especially this New Telegraph [ [17] ] Nigerian Tribune [ [18] ] BellaNaija [ [19] ] World Economic Forum [ [20] ], Earth Charter [ [21] ] and most of the listed above that has already proven he has received good number of good coverage to meet Notability.And I have made adjustment for it to be on neutral perspective and look closely each words on the article are all backed with references.  Epcc12345 ( talk ) 12:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE .  North America 1000 08:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - Per WP:SIGCOV found from WP: RS on BellaNaija Nigerian Tribune New Telegraph World Economic Forum Earth Charter proves he qualifies WP: Basic and even WP: GNG And also a Global Entrepreneurship Summit Covid Resilience award winner see [ [22] ] most likely qualify WP:ANYBIO Keep .  111.94.74.218 ( talk ) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is literally this IP's only contribution to Wikipedia.  Grief.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP Fails GNG and BIO.  I admit I didn't look at every source above or in the article, but I looked at enough to see they are all mentions, primary, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Since the above Keep post contains a BEFORE, I didn't bother to do another.  If I missed something, all I need is two citations from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Not a mention, but SIGCOV about the Subject , not a mention in an article about another subject.  If I get a spam list of links I won't bother, I just need the best two.  BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 11:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TimothyBlue Thank you for admitting you didn't checked all the sources but please kindly look at below reference closely especially the first three they meets ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ) and most especially qualify WP:BASIC and WP:GNG [ [23] ] [ [24] ][ [25] ] [ [26] ],[ [27] ]. High Regards.  Epcc12345 ( talk ) 13:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:BASIC WP:GNG the source above are secondary sources and independent of the subjects.  My analysis from a paragraph on source one (1) [ [28] ] Ecotutu Co-Founder and Growth Lead Babajide Oluwase have contributed to improving the livelihoods of farmers by enabling them to store their produce for longer periods.  According to a reliable source from' Punch newspaper , the Lagos-born entrepreneur was among the Nigerian youths appointed into EU decision-making board and currently works as an adviser to the European Union Delegation to Nigeria and ECOWAS.  He was Born in the early 90’s and His passion and interest in clean tech have been with him from his tender years.  He obtained his B.Tech.  (Hons) in Urban and Regional Planning from the Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria and a mini-MBA from Lagos Business School before proceeding further to obtian a Leadership in Business certification from The University of Iowa Tippie College of Business . Proves it a secondary (independent from the subject) and it from reliable source aswell (Nigeria National newspaper) and if you read other paragraph it satisfied WP: SIR (Significant, independent and Reliable) Sources 2: [ [29] ] Babajide Oluwase is the recent winner of the Zenith Tech Fair with the theme: “Future Forward 2.0,” which was held on Wednesday at Eko Hotels & Suites, Victoria Island, Lagos.  He is the Growth Lead, CEO, and Founder of Ecotutu and an Impact Officer at Global Shapers Community – Lagos Hub.  He has a master’s degree from the University of Lagos and a bachelor’s degree from the Federal University of Technology Akure​ (FUTA).
 Born on July 1 in 1991, Babajide Oluwase is a member of the World economic forum and also served as an adviser to European Union (EU) delegation to Nigeria and ECOWAS.
 He has over six years of experience working at the intersection of technological advancement and improving well-being for the underserved population.  He is also the Founder/CEO of RenewDrive, a startup that works predominantly to provide access to affordable clean-tech solutions.
 Since 2015, he has demonstrated extensive and relevant experience in creating environmental-focused solutions and has a track record of establishing cost-saving initiatives for corporate organizations and government MDAs.
 In 2016, he authored the ‘Young Climate Heroes’ book that has helped 7000+ students understand the basics of climate change and sustainability using stories, and co-designed a zero-waste integration program reaching 12000+ students in secondary schools across Nigeria.
 In 2017 he co-founded ECOtutu with the aim to mitigate the problem of food waste, the gaps existing between preservation and transportation from farm gates to the marketplace through refrigeration of agricultural products, in the hope that consumers buy the products in the same shape and state as producers harvested it.  ​He got his first major funding of $5000, which came from the Tony Elumelu foundation in 2018.  From there, it led him to create his company’s proof of concept to further validate the problem being solved.  The above is an after- analysis of the huge event award which he won see [30] Proves it qualify WP: SIR aswell.Same apply to source 3: see [31] .  Pass WP:SIR Which makes him notable enough.  This makes him not only qualify WP:GNG but also WP:Basic.  Robin499 ( talk ) 19:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 02:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One final relist to see if consensus can be established.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 21:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source eval requested above: Meets IS, RS with SIGCOV :: https://www.newtelegraphng.com/rate-of-food-spoilage-in-sub-saharan-african-countries-alarming/ Fails, ""Meet the winner"" promo story :: https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-the-winner-of-zenith-bank-tech-fair/ Fails, hackathon contest, mentions subject, Does not mention subject :: https://leadership.ng/zenith-tech-fair-2-0-finalists-take-home-n53m-in-prize-money/ Fails, First paragraph clearly shows this is promo for the subject :: https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/12/babajide-oluwase-of-renewdrive-is-our-bellanaijamcm-this-week/ Two promo refs, one ref that doesn't mention subject and one that passes IS RS SIGCOV.  Still fails GNG and more importantly it fails WP:BLP .  // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply evaluation : I am sorry for chuckling in, but on the Hackathon Contest he won below are ref where his name was mentioned as against the earlier one which had his company name and an interview ref after he won the award [ [32] ] [ [33] ] And this is also an afterwards of the awards  publications that you termed ' promotional' https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-the-winner-of-zenith-bank-tech-fair/ it not a promotion but an independent coverage by the Nigerian national newspaper afterwards of the huge publicity he gained receiving the award.  When someone wins an important events or awards it brings About huge publicity that is majorly Independent of the subjects.  That publications is not promotional, just as the interview that was granted.  The publications in this Contest is significant because of the award he won and it coming from a reliable source aswell.  The award alone is a good potential aswell for him to pass WP: ANYBIO aswell.  And also on the second good ref which you also termed promotional https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/12/babajide-oluwase-of-renewdrive-is-our-bellanaijamcm-this-week/ For our #BellaNaijaMCM feature this week, we celebrate Babajide Oluwase, a green economy explorer and an innovator with keen interest in environment, spatial planning, clean energy and business development.  Babajide is the founder/CEO of RenewDrive, a startup that designs and develops innovative Clean-Tech solutions especially for people who live in rural areas and have per capita income of less than US$2 per day.
 The problem RenewDrive is solving is the affordability and access to dependable clean energy solutions.  Currently, its business is service-based for fruit and vegetable farmers and it’s mainly centred on solving food storage related challenges in developing countries.  RenewDrive designs and installs affordable, solar-powered walk-in storage hubs – Ecotutu – for fruit and vegetable farmers.
 With Ecotutu, RenewDrive is pioneering a revolutionary way to preserve fruits and vegetables for a fraction of the cost and energy consumption of large conventional refrigerators.  Ecotutu is a solar-powered walk-in evaporative solution against post-harvest losses in developing countries.  The system is designed to be used for on-farm cooling and storage after harvest to enable farmers store and preserve fresh perishables until they get to end-consumers.
 RenewDrive’s model also promotes the engagement of women and youth, especially in rural communities.  Most of them are farmers who help collect, sort and process agricultural waste into biochar.  RenewDrive then processes it into carbon-neutral briquette.  This has directly benefitted livelihood of local farmers by turning waste into wealth – which may have otherwise been burnt – as well as creating economic opportunity for women and youth in a sustainable manner.
 Babajide has a mini-MBA from Lagos Business School (Venture In Management Programme) and a B.Tech (Hons) in Urban and Regional Planning from Federal University of Technology Akure.
 Babajide is a Sustainable Solutions Africa 30 under 30 Fellow, Earth Charter Young Leader, TEF/GIZ Fellow (2019), George Ayittey Platinum Prize Winner, LEAP Africa SIP Fellow (2019/20) and a Global Shaper of the Global Shapers Community.
 Babajide is also the author of “The Young Climate Heroes” to sensitize children about global warming and climate change.  The book uses story and comical illustration to simplify technical terms underlying global warming and climate change, to enable children easily understand and take action.  We celebrate Babajide for his contribution to the achievement of some of the sustainable development goals and for helping rural farmers earn more from their harvest.  If you are conversant with BellaNaija publications they usually Frontline african celebrities or entrepreneur or footballers etc that made impacts for the week or months.  Just as we have  team or players of the week or months that made headlines in football.  If a Media house write a publications on the subjects does it makes it promotional?  In this Contest and Wikipedia terms, it no where near promotional and by that passes the WP:GNG Promotions is when, the subjects hasn't made an impacts or headlines and a publications is frabricated but this wasn't the case in this atall.  The two sources https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-the-winner-of-zenith-bank-tech-fair/ , https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/12/babajide-oluwase-of-renewdrive-is-our-bellanaijamcm-this-week/ are not promotional but a significant, independent coverage of the subjects With the additional source Epcc12345 provided below again.  are good sources and it more than enough with https://www.newtelegraphng.com/rate-of-food-spoilage-in-sub-saharan-african-countries-alarming/ Which you said pass the byline.  This article has more than enough reliable, independent and significant coverage to pass notability .  Robin499 ( talk ) 08:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments : TimothyBlue Please kindly look at the additional provided four references they are reliable sources from World Economic Forum , Earth Charter , University of Iowa and Nigeria Energy Forum [ [34] ][ [35] ][ [36] ][ [37] ] Epcc12345 ( talk ) 00:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : These [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] are IS RS with SIGCOV bios dealing with the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 09:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : When you want to demonstrate notability or convince others to keep, spamming lots of refs and walls of text (especially with disparaging comments) is counter-productive.  People rarely read walls of text, and when they do they are annoyed by them because they are unnecessary and time consuming .  What @ Epcc12345 : did above was perfect: present ~3-5 of what you consider the best sources showing notability (ones that are indisputably independent, reliable and that address the subject directly and indepth.  Then ask other editors to review them.  No more is needed and this simple method is very effective.  ~3-5 sources and if you can sustain 2 of them, you have a persuasive case for keeping.  Now here is the important part : Epcc12345 posted these sources 15 days ago, but I didn't see them because they were lost in walls of text.  Walls of text and spamming as many links as possible is counter-productive to discussions and to a position, whether delete or keep.  The most effective Keep points will always be focused of the best sources (not every mention that can be found) and have concise and direct points based in policy and guidelines.  And if your goal is to persuade someone, derogatory  comments are going to hurt not help your cause (no one did so here, but it is common on other AfDs).  Finally, even if you do not persuade an editor or they do not respond, the closer will weigh those sources and they will have an impact.  However if they are lost in walls of text and unnecessary lists of links, the closer might miss them.  // Timothy :: talk 09:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment 2 : @ Alexandermcnabb : as the nom, can you take a look at the above refs, not doubting your gf nom and BEFORE, because I missed these as well.  Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 09:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey Timothy - all four of those sources are submitted bios in sections similar to 'our members' and not at all independent of the authour.  I'm afraid none of them would contribute to a WP:GNG argument.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments : look closely at this, https://earthcharter.org/youngleaders/babajide-oluwase/ doesn't in anyway come close like a summitted bio because he was profile among young world leaders.  So that should pass WP:GNG along with this source https://www.newtelegraphng.com/rate-of-food-spoilage-in-sub-saharan-african-countries-alarming/ that has pass the byline according to User:TimothyBlue .  The above two source alone should make him pass WP:GNG notability.  And the other three listed sources https://www.weforum.org/people/babajide-oluwase , https://iowajpec.org/babajide-oluwase , https://web.archive.org/web/20221205052710/https://www.thenef.org/speaker/babajide-oluwase that was also approved by User:TimothyBlue , You claimed are summitted bio , I am not convinced with that evaluation because they are independent sources.  Going by User:Robin499 Re-evaluation of the two sources https://tribuneonlineng.com/meet-the-winner-of-zenith-bank-tech-fair/ , https://www.bellanaija.com/2020/12/babajide-oluwase-of-renewdrive-is-our-bellanaijamcm-this-week/ proves it not promotional sources but independent.  Finally, without doubt this article has more than enough to prove notability.  Epcc12345 ( talk ) 15:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have made your points, obscuring your clear and concise post with more clutter will not help editors reading the discussion, and will not help your cause.  // Timothy :: talk 16:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"2–0 lead is the worst lead: Primary argument is INDISCRIMINATE, however.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football ,  and Ice hockey .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reluctant keep : Sources cited appear to be non-trivial and reliable (some of them, anyway).   I concur that WP doesn't need an article about every idea anyone has ever had but that isn't the standard around here.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Some of the sources are now dead links or were self published, but the remainder include reliable outlets and show this meets GNG.  Sure it's a cliché and we don't need articles about every phrase (e.g. if it could be a glossary entry), but this one cuts across multiple sports, has sources in multiple languages, and includes refutations of its premise.  That seems worth having a short article about.  The nomination seems to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything that falls under INDISCRIMINATE.  Modest Genius talk 10:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sourcing seems to be sufficient to show notability.  I might instead suggest a rename to e.g. 2–0 lead in sports or similar?  Giant Snowman 20:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per above.  Clear topic of imterest with sourc.es Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 05:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Article clearly demonstrates notability.  The Kip 00:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Chandan Madan: There is nothing in this stub that describes significant coverage in a reliable source .   The only reference is to a database source, and does not provide secondary coverage.   The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide secondary coverage within seven days.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket ,  and Punjab .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The external links immediately leads me to this article and this one which would seem to fulfil the Heymann criteria immediately, yes?  Perhaps the nom may wish to review these and consider whether they're sufficient or whether we have to drag this out for a week?  Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 05:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of the links provided by Blue Square Thing .  Appears to be a notable cricketer, evidence shows that they have played at the highest domestic levels.  Playing for U19 indian team particularly persuasive as to notability.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BST.  Him playing for India Under-19s actually doesn't make him notable, had he solely played for them he would fail WP:NCRIC .  Having played for senior domestic teams in India, and with the sources BST has found, he meets the inclusion criteria and GNG.  StickyWicket ( talk ) 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep From what we've got here, and the career he's had, I believe it likely that there would be enough in offline/non-English language sources for the article to be kept, albeit only just.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Judikay: Nothing found that we'd use for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Judikay is one of Nigeria and Africa's top gospel artistes.  Her second album received a Boomplay plaque after hitting over 50 million streams on Global Music Network.  According to Wikipedia notability requirements namely: significant coverage, reliable, secondary sources etc, the individual is highly notable with lots of media coverage, works and even awards.  If I may ask, what exact metric is your cause for concern as regards her notability?  Also, what do you mean by ""nothing to show"" as regards her notability?  I'll really love to know.  I have also added more reliable sources and references to show notability.  I hope this would suffice.  Cheers!!  Mevoelo ( talk ) 20:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Streams are not notable here and we have no reliable sources discussing this person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I presume references can be made to streams to further show notability and if it is significant or a major achievement especially internationally.  Top Wikipedia articles for musicians have made references in this light.   I can give dozens of example if need be.  The article has both primary and secondary sources as per Wiki guidelines.  You can refer to WP:BAND .  Also, I have added a few more reliable sources.  I hope you check it out.  Cheers!  Mevoelo ( talk ) 21:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per creator and basic .  Okoslavia ( talk ) 06:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Adequately sourced for notability. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 06:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article has multiple cites to Nigerian newspapers, demonstrating she is a popular artist in Nigeria.  Looks notable to me.  Also, WP:BIAS is a relevant concern in cases like this.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 09:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject has enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC .  In addition, she is possibly meeting WP:MUSICBIO for Top 10 Gospel song and having been nominated and winning multiple awards.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 08:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten: Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bilateral relations , China , France ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've tracked down a number of claims - service in Chinese parliament, involvement in Iran talks, chairing the East-West strategic studies institute, which are sourced and seem to raise at least a colorable claim of notability.   The claim to serve in parliament is supported by The Diplomat article, but is probably misstated as it seems he took part in a Jilin Municipal level CPPCC meeting [45] )] as opposed to service at the national level.  Other claims like buying the palace, and testimony before parliament, are not very notable but are verifiable.  And some other facts, like his history as a diplomat, are not well sourced although I haven't done searches to see if they are hoaxes.   Why is this not a situation where the article can be edited rather than deleted?  Oblivy ( talk ) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - there are a number of issues with this article that have concerned me for some time.  They are most obvious when you consider it in conjunction with a group of related articles: Institute for East West Strategic Studies , Pfetten's foundation; Apethorpe Palace , his home and the foundation's office; Owen Matthews , the foundation's vice-chair; and the International Foxhound Association - currently also up for deletion -  which Pfetten chairs.  Promotional content - the content these editors add tends to be highly promotional.  Counter wise, repeated efforts are made to remove anything they consider ""negative""; Authorship and COI - User talk:Prinkipo71 is the major contributor to this article, and its originator.  They are also the major contributor to, and originator of, the Matthews article.  User talk:Baronpfetten has also edited this.  Prinkipo71 is also the second major contributor to the Apethorpe Palace article.  They have described themselves as ""Apethope's archivist and historian"", [46] .  The first contributor to the Institute article is an IP, the second, and its originator, is User talk:Baronpfetten , a user name which suggests an obvious COI.  Baronpfetten is also the major contributor to, and the originator of, the International Foxhound Association article.  Both Prinkipo71 and Baronpfetten are broadly single-purpose accounts, in that they only edit this group of articles.  I think it highly likely there is a bunch of undeclared COI.  It is also worth noting the contributions of User talk:StevenGui / User talk:GeorgeThuiller , to these articles and to that on Tactical nuclear weapon , [47] .  After an initial denial Gui acknowledged they were employed by the Chinese government, to which Pfetten has close links.  Oddly, Thuiller - an editor with 11 edits - took it upon themselves to edit a comment made by Gui, on Gui's own Talkpage, to amend Gui's acknowledgement that they work ""for"" the Chinese Government, to suggest that they work ""with"" it, [48] .  Apart from Gui, none of the other editors has made any Conflict of Interest declarations regarding these articles.  SPA/IP editing - this is very common to all of the above, and I strongly suspect Checkuser would find connections.  See, as one example, these edits, [49] to the IFA deletion discussion by User:Tintin2004123 who joined two days ago, specifically to try to stop the deletion, the only edits they have ever made.  In short, I think these articles are a mess of promotional editing from editors/IPs, all certainly connected and all with undeclared COIs.  I have previously flagged it with ARBs, but it has not been taken forward, as far as I am aware.  KJP1 ( talk ) 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for responding to my questions.  I'm not sure this is something that falls within a deletion category, other than the catch-all not suitable tag (which is pretty weak sauce IMHO).  OK, it's a coatrack, and it has assertions that are questionably supported by citations, and the language is promotional (although many biographies paint a positive picture of a person, particularly if they are not notorious for some bad thing).   In my opinion, these content issues need to be worked out on article pages and talk pages, and not at AfD.  I'm also troubled that much of what you describe is based on suspicions of the editors, their conduct and their motives, rather than identifying notability issues with the article.  AfD is not for conduct issues either.   Surely if someone is being disruptive or displaying ownership behavior, there's a conduct guideline that can be invoked at ANI.   Also, no policy says someone can't be an SPA, and AFAIK there's no policy saying you can't edit while under a COI (policy says ""discouraged"" and ""should"" regarding COI, disclosure is ""must"" for paid editing).  Oblivy ( talk ) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t doubt that you are procedurally right, and that AfD isn’t the best venue to address a lot of this.  I would say that I have tried both the Talkpage discussion route, getting mostly silence or obfuscation; and the conduct reporting route, again getting silence.  My concern is that what I am quite certain we have in these articles are editors writing about themselves/their interests, without being at all transparent as to their connections to the article subjects.  For me, that fundamentally conflicts with our aim of being a reliable encyclopaedia, and does a grave disservice to our readers.  KJP1 ( talk ) 08:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .   Although the article has a section for Academic career, the subject seems to have published very few articles or books.   I see little to no sign of WP:NPROF notability.   I am skeptical of GNG.   His house does appear to possibly be notable, and I suppose that redirection to a stub about the house would be an option.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That may well be a way forward.  I am very confident that Apethorpe Palace is notable, per Wikipedia:NBUILDING .  It's a Grade I listed building , has a long and illustrious history, with notable owners/visitors, and it has been very extensively covered, in architectural publications, in historical journals and in the media.  I'd certainly support a re-direct, which could also cover the Institute.  KJP1 ( talk ) 14:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject .  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.  Sources Leclair De Marco, Stéphanie (2007-10-01).  ""Jean-Christophe Iseux : Le mandarin de la Loire"" [Jean-Christophe Iseux: The mandarin of the Loire].  Les Echos (in French).  Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 .  Retrieved 2024-06-20 .  The article notes: ""A tout juste 40 ans, après une décennie passée en Chine, Jean-Christophe Iseux a décidé de revenir en France. Avec un projet en tête : faire de son château de la Loire un lieu de rencontre « personnel, élitiste et confidentiel, avec pas plus de 200 personnes ! » Sa cible ? Des leaders occidentaux et leurs homologues chinois et asiatiques. Ambitieux. Mais son excellente connaissance de la Chine et de ses gouvernants devrait lui permettre de réussir son projet. Son histoire d'amour avec l'empire du Milieu commence en 1996. Ingénieur géophysicien de formation, il oublie les sciences de la Terre pour celles de l'économie. Chercheur spécialisé dans la privatisation des entreprises d'Etat, passé par Oxford où, MBA en poche, il se concocte un remarquable carnet d'adresses, il devient le plus jeune représentant permanent aux Nations unies.""  From Google Translate: ""At just 40 years old, after a decade spent in China, Jean-Christophe Iseux decided to return to France. With a project in mind: to make his Loire castle a “personal, elitist and confidential” meeting place, with no more than 200 people! » His target? Western leaders and their Chinese and Asian counterparts. Ambitious. But his excellent knowledge of China and its leaders should enable him to succeed in his project. His love affair with the Middle Kingdom began in 1996. A geophysicist engineer by training, he forgot Earth sciences for those of the economy. A researcher specializing in the privatisation of state enterprises, he went to Oxford where, with an MBA in hand, he built up a remarkable address book and became the youngest permanent representative to the United Nations.""  Yu, Ying 余颖; Zhao, Xinyi 赵欣怡 (2021-09-22).  Wu, Yidan 武一丹; Yu, Ying 余颖 (eds.).  "" ""在英国重新发现中国：红色男爵的中国故事""讲座成功举办"" [""Rediscovering China in the UK: The Red Baron's Chinese Story"" Lecture Successfully Held].  People's Daily (in Chinese).  Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 .  Retrieved 2024-06-20 .  The article notes: ""据介绍，易思男爵为法国贵族后裔，其家族与中国有深厚渊源。毕业于牛津大学坦普顿学院，曾任塞舌尔驻世贸组织代表、驻日内瓦裁军谈判会议代表、牛津大学管理学中心研究员、牛津大学赫特福德学院政策研究所中国研究中心主任等。从1997年起，易思男爵频繁赴华工作，先后担任清华大学访问学者、讲师、中国人民大学客座教授等，"" From Google Translate: ""According to reports, Baron Eise is a descendant of the French nobility, and his family has deep roots in China. He graduated from Templeton College, Oxford University, and has served as the Seychelles representative to the WTO, the representative to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a researcher at the Oxford University Management Center, and the director of the China Research Center of the Hertford College Policy Institute, Oxford University. Since 1997, Baron Eise has frequently traveled to China for work, and has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at Tsinghua University, and a visiting professor at Renmin University of China.""  Kennedy, Maev (2016-06-13).  ""Red Baron's Jacobean Apethorpe Palace marks its rebirth with party"" .  The Guardian .  Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 .  Retrieved 2024-06-20 .  The article notes: ""Just 18 months after Jean Christophe Iseux, Baron von Pfetten, spent £2.5m on a house with 48 bedrooms but no running water, he has decided to give a little party. ... Von Pfetten, a diplomat, Oxford academic and champion foxhound breeder, has been nicknamed “the Red Baron” for his years as an adviser to the Chinese government on everything from inward investment to Iran’s nuclear programme; the Chinese guests will include a government member and the head of an oil company.""  Bruce, Rory Knight (2005-10-29).  ""Vive la différence! With full government support, hunting is thriving in France"" .  The Daily Telegraph .  Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 .  Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com .  The article notes: ""I recently attended a weekend in Burgundy hosted by Jean Christophe Iseux, 37, a hunt master and special adviser to the Chinese government, who styles himself ""The Red Baron"". A fellow guest was Bob Hawke, the former trade unionist and Labour prime minister of Australia. ... said Iseux, referring to the pre-Revolutionary finery of dress that all hunts adopt. An aristocrat by birth, living in a family chateau near Macon, his great-uncle was a radical socialist MP for Burgundy. Oxford-educated Iseux believes that there is nothing incompatible about his love of la chasse and his work as a professor at the People's University of China in Beijing, an MP in the Chinese parliament and consultant to the Chinese government. ... Over the years, Iseux has hunted with an eclectic mixture of European ministers, aristocrats, writers, painters and even the female head of the French prison service.""  Han, Baoyi (2019-06-14).  "" 'Sweetener' strategy on trade dispute set to fail"" .  China Daily .  Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 .  Retrieved 2024-06-20 .  The article notes: ""... said Jean Christophe Iseux, a former European diplomat. ... Iseux came to China the first time in 1997 as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He traveled all around China and did case studies of state-owned enterprise reform and issues relating to agriculture, rural areas, and rural residents in China. These issues became top priorities of China's reform and opening-up policy."" ""Explainer: A glimpse of Chinese democracy through lens of 'two sessions' "" .  China Daily .  Xinhua News Agency .  2023-03-07.  Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 .  Retrieved 2024-06-20 .  The article notes: ""In 2001, a man with a pointy nose and a pair of sunken eyes arrived in northeast China's Changchun City. The man, with the name Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, turned out to be the first ever non-Chinese member of the CPPCC. He was in Changchun not for travelling, but for attending its city-level CPPCC. ""This was an amazing opportunity in 2001 to be invited by the then a mayor of Changchun to be a special invited member of CPPCC.  But it was also a very important element of my learning curve on how the democratic system in China did work,"" said Pfetten, now president of the Institute for East-West Strategic Studies in Britain.""  Hamid, Hamisah (2005-07-30).  "" 'China wants Malaysia's main trade partner' "" .  Business Times .  Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 .  Retrieved 2024-06-20 .  The article notes: ""Special adviser to central and local governments of China, Jean-Christophe Iseux, said ... Iseux, a Frenchman fluent in English and Mandarin, said many Malaysian investors in China have benefited from their investments. ... Iseux himself is the first and only Caucasian ever as Specially Invited Member of the Chinese Upper House of Parliament and has been ChangChun delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) since December 2002. ... Iseux, who is currently an adviser on Foreign Economic Cooperation to the PCC central committee ...""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jean Christophe Iseux von Pfetten to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concerns about the article's neutrality can be dealt with through editing as advised at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems .  Conflict of interest editing can be dealt with by following the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest .  I don't think deletion is the right approach.  Cunard ( talk ) 09:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep for failure to state a valid deletion rationale.   ""BLP Issues"" does not represent such a rationale.  Nobody has said the article as it stands is inadequately sourced for WP:BASIC .   On my review it does cite substantial coverage of this individual (although, as I point out above, there may be some verifiability issues and one of the claims to fame seems to be overstated).   Once the additional sources identified by @ Cunard are taken into consideration, a notability-based rationale is even harder to maintain.  @ KJP1 has made a good argument that there are conduct issues related to the page.   However, as they concede, this is not the place for such arguments.  Oblivy ( talk ) 23:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , if you see any BLP issues remove them, don't take it to AfD.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 07:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As above, no reason for deletion on the typical deletion guidelines has been found.  However, on a separate note, I am curious if anyone has an actual (rather than potentially circular) source for his title being ""Baron von Pfetten zu St. Mariakirchen"".  For instance, in a lot of press he is reported as Jean-Cristophe Iseux (no von Pfetten).  I believe this may be his original name?  For instance, the Catholic Herald is very careful about his titling (not so for Lord Bamford), although the description for him seems perhaps self-sourced, here: https://catholicherald.co.uk/uk-catholic-leaders-of-today-2022-business-and-philanthropy/ And, the article on the noble family suggests the von Pfetten zu Mariakirchen line died out: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfetten EPEAviator ( talk ) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ‘’’Speedy Keep’’’sufficient reliable external sources from reputable news media (FT, WSJ, Guardian, Spiegel, etc.) to warrant retention of this page.  No valid justification for deletion provided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterJ111 ( talk • contribs ) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — PeterJ111 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Speedy Keep : per Oblivy, WP:CSK #1.  If there are BLP concerns about unsourced content or ambiguity of his title, those should be raised in the talk page instead of filing for deletion.  WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP , and I do not find this case to be necessary of WP:TNT .  — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Gan Kofim: No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG Falls a mile short on references much less GNG references.   Of the 7 references, 5 are the IMDB pages of participants, one  is a facebook page, and one is about the person that the film was inspired by with nothing about the film.   So zero references about the film.  Accordingly 98% of the article is a wiki-editor-created plot summary .  North8000 ( talk ) 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It seems to have been nominated for awards [62] , so there is a strong possibility it's a notable film, but I agree with the nom; sources used now in the article aren't valid.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Israel .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per WP:NFILM , a film meets notability if ""The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.""  The film received full-length reviews in a number of national publications in Israel, including Calcalist , Ynet , Haaretz , Walla , and Mako .  These should be added to the article, but for now are enough to establish GNG.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 01:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Longhornsg, but the article does need work.  FortunateSons ( talk ) 10:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Film meets notability requirements for films, article should be improved.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 07:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Easy pass of WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG .  The nomination is a clear WP:NEXIST failure!  WP:SNOW also applies.  15:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 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.",keep
"Lambert Hamel: Boleyn ( talk ) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references that I found in the corresponding German article.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep looks like more or less a straight translation from German WP.  I'm willing to defer to their judgment.  Carrite ( talk ) 10:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"AC Hotel Portland Downtown: Coverage is mainly travel listings or very local as per WP:AUD .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and Oregon .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator).  I'm not convinced nominator has done a thorough reviewing of sourcing.  I quickly identified in-depth coverage in sources which are not specific to a local audience.  I've expanded the entry with more than a dozen sources and I've not even attempted to access the Oregonian archives yet.  This is the third time in 48 hours I've disagreed with nominator about hotel entries.  I believe this article should be expanded, not deleted.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Arkana, Louisiana: It's clearly not a settlement, just a NN rail point.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found SPC 1890 , p. 122 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSPC1890 ( help ) saying that ""Alden's Bridge and Arkana are also new railroad towns."".   So it's a town.   Would that the ""Arkana"" chapter of Temple 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTemple2008 ( help ) were usable!   It explains everything , with populations, postmasters, and federal writers projects; even the fact that this is the same place as Arkana, Arkansas in Lafayette.  Uncle G ( talk ) 07:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, it was a town.  There's nothing there now.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually there is, and Temple 2008 , p. 356 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTemple2008 ( help ) even lists it.   As I said, it's a damn shame that Robert D. Temple self-published and has undiscernable expert credentials.   All that we have in the meantime are SPC 1890 , p. 122 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSPC1890 ( help ) and the Federal Writers' Project, which I have now managed to track down (Temple just mentioning the FWP without title, date, or anything to go on), and the somewhat dubious ALTGA 1990 , p. 197 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFALTGA1990 ( help ) saying ""several stores, a saw mill, church and a post office"".  Uncle G ( talk ) 11:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, Temple (p. 356) says ""The town is gone, though, except for the name on a topo map, a UP rail siding, and the Arkana oil and gas field a few miles away in Louisiana.""  If we are to use him as a source we can definitely put the place in the past tense.  Mangoe ( talk ) 23:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A UP rail siding and an oil and gas field are not nothing.   Ironically, there's excellent support elsewhere in Temple for the claim of it being a ghost town.   But as I said, I cannot discern any expert credentials for Temple.   You might want to check the article; it is in the past tense.  Uncle G ( talk ) 12:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ""Bossier Parish"".  Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Northwest Louisiana .  Southern Publishing Company.  1890.  Temple, Robert D. (2008).  ""Arkana"".  Edge Effects: The Border-Name Places .  iUniverse.  ISBN 9781440101465 .  ""The Towns in Bossier Parish"".  The Genie .  Vol.  24–25.  Ark-La-Tex Genealogical Association.  1990.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Arkana was a small town on the border of Louisiana and Arkansas, headquarters of a railroad company, with a school, church, lumber mill, rail station, post office, 1900 census population of 12, a 1920 census of 63, and a 1940 census population of 63.  The community was noted in regional newspapers from Shreveport to Bossier City to papers in Arkansas, and the Bossier City Banner had a weekly news column about Arkana, which it regarded as a prosperous, up-and-coming community.  I'm seeing over 200 news articles about Arkana from about 1910 to about 1945, when Arkana seemingly fades from history.  I've expanded the article; more work is in progress, but this was a notable town, with sources found in the Library of Congress, discussion of the community's resources in state publications in Baton Rouge, and regional coverage in the Shreveport area.  I'm really overwhelmed by the number of sources: the Arkana and Eastern Railroad itself could be its own article, given time.  (BTW, I wouldn't use the Temple (2008) source; not only is it self-published, it doesn't match what any of the other sources say about Arkana; it claims Arkana was a community of about 500 residents.  No other source confirms or even approaches those numbers).  Anyway, this article should be kept and expanded further, not deleted: there's no reason to delete an article which can be sourced,.  Firsfron of Ronchester 17:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly was a town on Newspapers Extended, e.g. in the May 1912 Bossier Banner-Progress: [21] Keep per WP:HEY .  Nice work in finding sources and expanding Firsfron , and for working out how to filter out all the other hits for $arkana$ which I would guess put most people off.  (It put me off when I first saw this.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The hits for Arkana in Baxter County, Arkansas, and Texarkana definitely have been a bit frustrating.  Thanks for the additions!  The article already looks better.  Firsfron of Ronchester 22:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:POPULATED .  Even if it's no longer populated, notability is not temporary .  Jacona ( talk ) 17:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Union Chargeability Act 1865: There is an ununtilized section, so it appears under construction without its valid template.  Brachy 08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 00:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Law ,  and United Kingdom .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin.  There are entire books on this Act, and William Cunningham Glen's book is already cited in the article.  There are clearly valid sources and there is no ""ununtilized section"".  James500 ( talk ) 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per James500.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree there should not be an issue of notability, but that wasn't self-evident at the time the article was nominated.   I have added several citations and have expanded the article somewhat to provide context.  My text could use some attention from a person more familiar with this topic.   The Caplan and Spectator articles are available online for free.  Oblivy ( talk ) 08:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This is a short article, but a perfectly valid one on an aspect of the English Poor Law.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Dr. Antonio Da Silva High School and Junior College of Commerce: Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep established in 1851 it is 172 years old.As per WP:NEXIST offline sources are bound to exist for such an old institution.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep very old, and seems to be mentioned in lots of old directories , which might be usable sources for its history, although they don't count for much in terms of notability.  More importantly, it was the site of a major terror attack and there's lots of coverage of the school regarding that and subsequent closures of the school ( [37] ).  Its sports teams also seem to be somewhat notable, participating in most of Mumbai's major school-level tournaments ( [38] , [39] , [40] ), and there's also some random coverage ( [41] , [42] , first source is a bit questionable).  Overall, the coverage is somewhat spotty, but that's because schools in India aren't usually reported on by local newspapers like they are in the US, and the age really makes it unlikely that this isn't notable.  AryKun ( talk ) 07:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to reassess new sources added to the article.  Does the deletion rationale still fit?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Pharaoh of the Wizards .  Okoslavia ( talk ) 08:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Article 14 Direction: I'm suggesting it should be WP:TNT on the basis that there is too little information on the page to expand, merge or redirect.  Which Act is this Article from?  There are sources which seem to refer to it, but how do we know it is the same one that this page is discussing.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom .  JMWt ( talk ) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  This seems to be it.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If that's correct (I can't verify that it is or isn't), perhaps General Permitted Development Order should be expanded. I can't really see how a redirect would help (again, I'm not an expert but there could be many Article 14 in national laws that this could be referring to). JMWt ( talk ) 09:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to Directions preventing the determination of applications or General Development Procedure Order or similar . This is the general power of direction [18] and is part of the notable context described in that chapter 8 of that book. However, these directions are now called article 31 directions (which also include the former article 25 directions) and satisfy GNG. There are entire book chapters [19] and entire periodical articles [20] about them. There is also coverage in a number of other sources. There is no problem with a redirect from ""article 14 direction"" as that name has actually been used [21] [22] . We don't need to disambiguate unless other legislation has directions that are verifiably called ""article 14 directions"" (merely having an ""article 14"" is not enough). For the avoidance of doubt, the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO), now replaced by the ""Development Management Procedure"" order, is not the General Permitted Development Order . And the GDPO should have an article. James500 ( talk ) 16:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok seeing as you seem to know something about it, I even more strongly suggest WP:TNT (or draftify) until you and other knowledgeable editors can get around to writing the page. Because from what you are saying the current page is actually legally outdated and incorrect. Given the current page fails WP:V we shouldn't keep it in mainspace. JMWt ( talk ) 17:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The topic of an article does not become unverifiable just because some of the content is out of date. Every article on Wikipedia goes out of date on a regular basis, because new information and new developments are happening all the time on every subject. The page is a verifiable description of a law that existed under that name during and after 1995, and which still exists in a substantially equivalent form under a different name. Article content about a period of history does not become unverifiable just because the period of history is over. In any event, notability is not temporary per the guideline WP:NTEMP. Therefore this topic does not cease to be notable just because the name has changed. In any event, the applicable policy is not TNT, but is instead WP:ATD which says ""If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page"". That is case here. TNT is not grounds for imposing a seven day deadline on updates to a page, every time it goes out of date, on pain of deletion if the update is not carried out in seven days. James500 ( talk ) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Done . The article is not out of date now. That took exactly 25 minutes at a very leisurely pace without breaking a sweat. A child, with no previous knowledge of the subject, could have done that update. Hardly a case for TNT. Not even close. James500 ( talk ) 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolute rubbish, if it was that easy then someone would have done it before now. I'm not a child, I have no prior knowledge and it was clear that I couldn't improve the page. Anyway, I'm glad you've been able to improve it to your satisfaction. Incidentally even with improvement I'm not convinced it meets the notability standards. JMWt ( talk ) 20:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to see the article growing, still... I think that some more context should be provided, the article should include some more background as to the environment of the legal regulations it describes. I think. To be frank, at first glance it's difficult to put into perspective. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If it was that easy then someone would have done it before now.  Come on now, you know that isn't true.  There are many reasons why people may miss one little Wikipedia article out of millions.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 17:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:HEY .  @ James500 : would you mind adding other cites to the article?  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To note, I have no opinion on what the article title should be and I don't see why this couldn't be BOLD-ly moved if kept.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Viveka Adelswärd: The attempted notability claim here is a language conservation award, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG , but the article as written is completely unsourced.  As I can't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Swedish can find enough sourcing to salvage it, but she isn't exempted from having to have any sourcing just because the article has the word ""award"" in it.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Sweden .  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women ,  and Language .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think the article has been dragged up to the bare minimum, source-wise, and I'm convinced there's more which could be done.  I found a couple of longer newspaper sources in the Swedish newspaper database sv:Mediearkivet , which collects a lot of newspaper articles from the last 10–15 years (and some older ones, but coverage gets sketchy).  She was one of the hosts of Sommar (radio program) in the early 90s, which is considered quite a big thing.  There's a lot of trivial coverage from back then, but at least one article in Aftonbladet from 2 August 1992 which seems promising – the Royal Library of Sweden has a lot of scanned newspaper articles where you can only see very short snippets, but where you need to get to the library or to one of a small number of university computers with access.  More work to do, but I think it can be kept with the current amount of sourcing.  / Julle ( talk ) 21:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as there also is a festschrift for her 60th birthday, satisfying WP:PROF criteria 1c.  // Replayful ( talk | contribs ) 09:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets WP:PROF .  -- Rosiestep ( talk ) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Festschrift honoring her work is independent coverage of notability unless demonstratably tainted, which I cannot find evidence of here.   -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Replayful and Mscuthbert. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP as Google Books search yields enough coverage for WP:BLP . -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 14:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep extensively quoted as an expert in Swedish litterature on communication, per GNG.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per Julle.  Southati ( talk ) 14:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Julle and Twinkle1990 -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Teja Oblak: I knew nothing about basketball-related articles, but am nominating for deletion due to lack of sufficient sources.  The closest things related to this woman herself are Ref 1 and Ref 2 .  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 15:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Basketball ,  and Slovenia .  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 15:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , she is the captain of Slovenian women's national basketball team, among other things.  Plenty of coverage from a quick google search, including dedicated interviews on national news MMC .  Her brother is a much more famous sportsperson, true, so it is only logical that he is often mentioned in articles covering her.  Of course, sourcing in the article needs improvement, but this is not a reason to delete.  Tone 15:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Did you search in Slovenian sources?  Haven't gone through them but there seems to be alot of Google hits on her there, not unsurprisingly since she is the captain of the Slovenian national team.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 15:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily enough in-depth coverage in Slovenian media, mainly because of Jan Oblak , but that doesn't matter – 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 etc.  Snowflake91 ( talk ) 15:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG per above.  ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 22:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Tone, she fulfills GNG criteria, but in foreign sources. -- A09 | (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Wayne Perryman: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While the NYTimes article isn't really WP:INDEPENDENT , Huffpost contributor article is not WP:RELIABLE , the Intellectual Conservative review is not bad.  It actually helped me find a strong Sports Illustrated piece, Seattle Times (though this isn't very WP:INDEPENDENT so marginal contribution to notability), and claims that there are several others, though I can't find them online at the moment.  There are multiple YouTube videos from news organizations/reliable sources too (though they are speeches).  Regardless, I think notability is met here.  TLA (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am leaning Keep , although for opposite reasons sated above, and userfy .  The New York Times , whatever you might say about their editorial choices, is a reliable source .  I think, again, without agreeing to his opinions and controversies, appears to pass WP:SIGCOV .  However, the current state of the article is terrible, and it needs a lot of work.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I added to the article that Perryman is himself African--American and had first-hand experience of the issue of which he writes.   Seemed odd that the article never mentioned that.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Opolans: Crainsaw ( talk ) 16:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added references from the corresponding articles in the Polish and German Wikipedias.  ""Long gone"" is never a valid reason for deletion.  Once notable, always notable.  And even before these references were added, the article included the statement that the tribe was mentioned by the Bavarian Geographer .  WP:BEFORE is really important.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain.  Mccapra ( talk ) 19:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Was a WP:BEFORE search even attempted?  I was able to easily find multiple books seemingly providing WP:SIGCOV ( [22] [23] ); [24] also provides good supplementary coverage.  That is also me only looking through English language sources; Silesian historiography is primarily written in German and Polish, so academic literature is far more likely to exist in those languages.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found additional coverage in a German book: [25] .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obviously notable as mentioned by the Bavarian Geographer.  Volunteer Marek 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Early Keep per WP:SNOW .  Good faith nominator may have missed WP:BEFORE B2 and D4, as both gBooks and gScholar search results have clear, non-trivial references.  Anyone here read both German and Polish?  Odds are this could be a very strong article with a little Liebe and Miłość.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Islam and children: The maintenance tags are a decade old, raising rightful questions about the mass of online religious Q&A and primary source references that furnish much of this page.  There is meanwhile precious little evidence that ""Islam and children"" is a serious standalone topic in secondary sources - certainly none of the sources listed in the bibliography are specifically geared towards the subject.  More generally, the scope of the articles seems unusual and potentially misguided.  Unusual because "" X religion and children"" is not an article type I see repeated anywhere else.  Misguided because it pertains to social conventions, which have their agency at the level of any given society, e.g. a country or cultural group.  Of the little, if any material that is supported/relevant, i.e. religious precepts around family life, there is none that would not be better supported at Islamic family jurisprudence , so I would say delete or merge to that page.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I did wonder whether this article might have been original research, but having had a look at it, it seemed a thoroughly comprehensive and well-researched article.  YTKJ ( talk ) 07:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At least half of it is attributed to unreliable online religious sources - and this accounts for almost all of the material that is unique to this page, i.e.: the ""Rights of children"" and ""Rights of parents"" sections.  The following parts, Marriage in Islam and Islamic adoptional jurisprudence have their own articles and just duplicate here.  Overall, it's a bit of a WP:COATRACK that pulls together fairly disparate and tangential subjects under the umbrella of ""children"" in a manner not obviously done by any secondary or tertiary reference material.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a child article that covers a notable aspect of Islam as well as Religion and children .  If it needs cleanup, then clean it up .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a child article of either of those pages.  And it's not a topic in its own right that is qualified as such in secondary literature.  There are aspects of Islamic family jurisprudence that pertain to children, but it's not really its own thing.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some books about various aspects of the topic.  This is in addition to whatever might exist in Arabic or any other language with a significant Muslim population.  The Child in Islam Guidelines For Raising Children Children of Islam Children in the Muslim Middle East Growing Up Between Two Cultures Making European Muslims Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly, a notable subject; there are multiple books about it.  Fix it; no reason for deletion.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ahmad Nabeel: Nothing of note found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - mainly because he is the recipient of the Innovators Under 35 award by MIT, inventor of Klens, and was appointed as the state ambassador for Kuwait Vision 2035.  This leads me to believe that he has substantial notability.  Coverage is in major Kuwaiti newspapers such as Kuwait Times ( [48] ), Arab Times ( [49] ), Al-Anba ( [50] , [51] ), Al Qabas ( [52] ), or TV such as Al Majlis , or govenment publication [53] .  His research has been covered by Arabian Business ( [54] ) and MIT Technology Review ( [55] ).  The nominator's hint that these are SEO sites is egregious.  There is much more about him in Arabic.  Veltkemp ( talk ) 04:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:NEXIST : appears to be very notable.  His biography has been included in the Arabic language curriculum in all of Kuwait's schools.  More coverage found: [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] .  142.189.8.164 ( talk ) 16:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 00:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Like to see more assessment of the sources provided.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No comments since last relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, it would be nice to hear from some editors experienced at AFD discussions.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I manually assessed the first three sources, they are independent and significant (never heard of these news sources before but I didn't find any outstanding problems).  This person got a lot of coverage for his breakthrough ""Klens"" and received the aforementioned international award, which should meet WP:NACADEMIC #2.  While this isn't exactly an academic I believe it's close enough, and the sources should meet GNG.  Also they definitely aren't SEO sites.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 00:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Sherman Cottle: I was also not able to locate any sources to show notability.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 01:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 01:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not sure if it's enough to establish notability, but the character is more commonly referred to as ""Doc Cottle"" in various sources, including a couple of dead-tree works about BSG.  Reasonable search term, merge or redirect is certainly more appropriate than deletion if notability cannot be established: no one contests this is a real character on notable TV show.  Jclemens ( talk ) 03:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens I was able to rework the article a bit relying on a few of those dead tree sources.  See below, what do you think?  — siro χ o 01:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This show was a zeitgeist moment in some cultures, so it's no surprise that many of the characters have coverage with relations to the real world.  While the character isn't quite Bones McCoy there's still a ton to dig through, covering themes ranging from characterization during the mid 2000s, to abortion rights, to sickness and prayer and medical ethics, to the role of a doctor.  Here's a start: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] — siro χ o 05:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo Sources review: passing mention/plot summary, no preview, passing mention/plot summary, passing mention/plot summary, passing mention/plot summary and passing mention/plot summary again.  Not seeing any WP:SIGCOV in what you listed, I am afraid.  The character might warrant mention in some articles about medicine in fiction / abortion in fiction /etc. , and of course in the general list of BG charactesr, but lack of SIGCOV and the WP:ALLPLOT content of the article prevents me from supporting your keep, I fear.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters .  I couldn't see all of the sources mentioned by Siroxo, but what I did see were passing mentions of plot points, not discussion or analysis of the character.  I didn't find anything better.  Please ping me if good sources are identified.  Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 10:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Changing to weak keep following the ""Doctors in space (ships)"" source identification - that's one good source, with the others still marginal IMO.  Another undeniably good source would make me a ""keep"" voter.  Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 16:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BennyOnTheLoose The analysis is both in terms of characterization as well as in tying the character's actions (i.e. plot points) to aspects of the real world (i.e. analyzing the art through the medium of the character).  Examples from references I linked: showing how men are frequently put in charge of reproductive science, also including comparing the character performing pregnancy terminations to women smuggled onto the ship to real world right to choose, pointing out more ties to the early 2000s zeitgiest including that the character is shown as a ""crusty leftover"" by having him smoke cigarettes the character's sense of medical ethics is described in contrast both to a religious zealot and an immoral doctor, and describing how the characters are also portrayed differently (for example, this character smokes cigarettes rather than occasional cigars of the zealot, etc) the character recommends prayer to a sick character, this action is tied to the real world explaining prayer as a comfort and a remaining option He's compared to a mechanic in that he can ""fix humans"" as part of an analysis of the show comparing humans as machines — siro χ o 11:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you see this in the sources - which I did not - do try to add a reception/analysis section and ping me and I'll re-review and reconsider my vote.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters per my comment above. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your ping.  I've taken you up on your suggestion and taken in-depth shot at this ( diff ).  I've attributed everything to avoid SYNTH, and tried to only mention pieces of the authors conclusions that rely (in full or in part) directly on mentions of Cottle.  I've represented several authors examinations to avoid UNDUE (though one author did have two essays that were both good to pull from).  My prose is admittedly my weakness, but I'm pretty happy with the underlying essence.  If this doesn't work for a keep, I'd appreciate help in finding a suitable way to merge the majority of this, as I think it does represent a reasonable tertiary examination of the character.  Note also that I tend to avoid doing much with character articles, so feel free to point out or clean up any MOS-type things I may have missed.  — siro χ o 09:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding a proper ping for @ Piotrus in case reply didn't work.  — siro χ o 22:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo It didn't, but the ping did.  The analysis is.. .  ok. I don't have time to check again for SIGCOV in sources, but it reads ok - much better than some 'ranked n-th in the list of Top 10 whatevers' that we get here routinely.  I'd nuke much of the content in 'Further description' as a lot if is trivia, and I am surprised this doesn't have a proper 'fictional character biography' (which could be extracted from that mess of a subsection... it was a mess before too [71] ).  For now I am changing my vote to weak keep based on your work.  If anyone wants to challenge this, do ping me again.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Piotrus.  The coverage is mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep character reception noted makes this sufficient for a standalone article, and inappropriate (though less inappropriate than outright deletion) for merge or redirect, as it has been improved.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I just found ~470 more words of SIGCOV on ProQuest, in Henderson L, Carter S. Doctors in space (ships): biomedical uncertainties and medical authority in imagined futures.  Medical Humanities 2016 12;42(4):277.  .  I am going to add it in the article now.  — siro χ o 07:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added in that new source.  I also want to let anyone else arriving at this discussion know that I've rewritten virtually the entire article.  It now relies purely on secondary sources, with zero citations to the show itself.  We now reference academic books of essays (one totaling a couple hundred of words of SIGCOV across authors), and we have multiple academic papers with hundreds of words of SIGCOV as well.  I can confidently say WP:GNG is met.  — siro χ o 11:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting so that changes to article since nomination can be reviewed and assessed in the context of this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The improved article is not just an in-universe description of a fictional character; it is focused on reception and criticism of the character which can be traced to multiple reliable sources, and demonstrates that a high-quality verifiable encyclopedia article that isn't just fancruft can be written here.  Since the significance of these sources was called into question by others, I spent some time assessing the sources linked in this discussion.  Notability is definitely borderline but I'm satisfied that there's enough here to meet GNG.  Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 19:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 19:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)) [ reply ] Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dylnuge Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Battlestar Galactica: Investigating Flesh, Spirit and Steel (ed. Kavneey, Stoy) The book is an edited collection of essays published by Bloomsbury Publishing .  Cottle is mentioned in depth in at least two essays in the collection.  One (Jowett) spends several pages on Cottle's actions and role in providing abortions.  ✔ Yes Cylons in America (ed. Marshall, Potter) Another collection published by Bloomsbury Publishing .  Another essay by Jowett that covers Cottle in depth regarding the show's portrayal of science.  The pages examining him begin with Other characters...serve as instructive contrasts, but Doctor Cottle, the Chief Medical Officer, is worth examining in detail (p. 68) ✔ Yes The Theology of Battlestar Galactica (Wetmore) ?  Cottle is only mentioned once, but a line from the character is used in the next few paragraphs to support a claim about the show's treatment of prayer as a source of healing.  Not clearly significant on its own, but a bit more than just a passing mention.  ?  Unknown Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Knowledge Here Begins Out There (ed. Eberl) Edited collection of essays published by Wiley .  Cottle is mentioned on page 7 and page 68, but both are passing mentions ✘ No Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Mission Accomplished Or Mission Frakked Up?  (ed. Steiff, Tamplin)  Edited collection of essays published by Open Court .  Note that despite the title, no apparent relation to the previous source.  A few references to Cottle and his actions, but the most significant of them is primarily focused on a plot situation (the ship running out of antibiotics) and not the character.  Nothing here surpasses the passing mentions one would expect to find for any character in the show.  ✘ No Doctors in space (ships): biomedical uncertainties and medical authority in imagined futures (Henderson, Carter) Scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal ( Medical Humanities ); never been examined in depth on RSN but I see no reason to doubt the reliability and it's a publication of the BMJ which is reliable Cottle is covered extensively in the section ""Universality of health care..."" and mentioned by name in the article's conclusion ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Keep per DyInuge's above analysis and Siroxo's work.  Seems to me that we indeed have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Pit (Kid Icarus): Most of the content are listicles, nothing else.  I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE about Pit somehow.  (Update:There's a single IGN SIGCOV, but that alone isnt enough.)  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 23:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 06:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kid Icarus (series)#Characters .  I disagree that there is no SIGCOV out there, as the IGN source in the article is quite significant, but only one SIGCOV is insufficient to make a subject notable.  I could not find anything else, so if someone does (and it's real SIGCOV), notify me and I may amend my ! vote.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I've done my WP:BEFORE, and I found two possibly viable sources.  Aplicaciones didácticas de los videojuegos  en el ámbito del mundo clásico has about two pages' worth of material covering Pit role in the story.  The discussion mainly talked about the allusions to how Pit is a syncretic blend of multiple mythological figures and religious figures.  To summarize: the setting Angel Land invokes the angels of the Judeo-Christian tradition, a way of justifying the fact that Pit the hero is an angel, and therefore a flying being; his main weapon is a bow and arrow, which links him to Eros or Cupid; and Pit use a magical hammer at one point in the storyline to undo the petrification of Medusa's victims, which led to the author deciding that it is a veiled allusion to Mjolnir.  The book Women in Classical Video Games has about 4 pages worth.  Pages 16-17 and pages 26-27.  The preview I can see talks about  Pit's presentation and how he is a deity reimagined with a new storyline, and also echoes the theme of the syncretism of real-world mythological elements, remixed into a new context.  By themselves, there may not be enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a standalone article.  Read together with the other sources present on the article, and the fact that the nominator has acknowledged that there is in fact one substantial article with good content, there may be enough aggregate content to indicate that there is significant coverage.  In any event, I disagree with the seemingly widespread practice in recent times of the deliberate misuse of the AFD process to force the improvement of content issues or the discovery of viable sources that may not be cited in the article at the time of the nomination.  Because there is clearly no prospect of deletion with articles like this one.  Haleth ( talk ) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In terms of the Women in Classical Video Games source, it is largely about female characters and only cites Pit as a brief example of one who isn't.  I don't consider it SIGCOV, my opinion is not changed in this regard.  Do think a Merge discussion would have been more appropriate of course as there is a VERY obvious WP:ATD / ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - with the sources provided by Haleth, alongside the IGN source.  I say this passes WP:GNG .  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 05:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Looking over the sources provided by Haleth I'm not particularly agreeing they can offer SIGCOV: the book seems to examine him briefly, while the paper is more discussing events and examines Medusa more closely by comparison. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - passes GNG.  I agree that the article should be expanded somewhat.  KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs ) 18:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those who believe a Merge would be best.  Besides the nominator, I don't see support for Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge .  While I feel as though Pit does meet GNG, the article's lack of SIGCOV leaves much to be desired.  Many of the citations in the Reception section feel lackluster overall, and it feels like stretching to make something work.  I feel Pit can likely be remade into an article in the future if a few more good sources are added, but with the current state of the article, I feel merging is the best option.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:NEXIST .  As long as sufficient sources are found (which you seen to agree on, since you think it passes GNG), they don't necessarily need to be in the article right away when determining if they should be deleted or merged.  MoonJet ( talk ) 03:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely forgot about NEXIST.  Given that clause, I'm unopposed to Keeping the article for the time being, though it should definitely be considered for merging again should there not be enough sources in a future AfD.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I think Haleth's finds are borderline useful.  More constructive than a keep or merge ! vote, I'd like to see if the reception can be expanded or retooled with those sources.  It might make it more clear if this has passed the WP:SIGCOV threshold.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm going to have to echo (Oinkers42) on this.  I agree that Pit passes the minimum standards on what Wikipedia expects on articles.  Nice job on uncovering those sources, Haleth.  MoonJet ( talk ) 03:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Haleth.   Sourcing is thin but usable.  SnowFire ( talk ) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have tidied up the discuss a bit as it was getting to look messy and I agree with the comment above, that this has thin sourcing but it is usable.  -- Bduke ( talk ) 07:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"A. R. Morlan: Almost every source cited is either a primary source or an obituary, neither of which can be used to establish notability.  The only secondary source cited contains only two sentences about the subject of this article; this is not significant coverage ( WP:SIGCOV ).  I can't find any examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.  This article was nominated for deletion before but was kept because one of her stories was included in an anthology that featured a number of notable writers; however, since Wikipedia does not recognize 'notability by association', this is not a reason to keep the article.  It should also be noted that not every author featured in this anthology has a Wikipedia page.  JMB1980 ( talk ) 22:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , Illinois ,  and Wisconsin .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  A search found no reliable sources that show notability.  The only obits that turned up were on blogs or in unknown pubs.  Fails WP:GNG as notability has not been shown, and it does not pass WP:BASIC .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 02:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Keep Changing ! vote as notability is shown in obits and other reliable sources as noted by other editors.  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 23:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , plentiful coverage indicating notability, as noted in the overwhelming ! vote at the previous AfD, and an article in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction , not previously included, which I've added as an EL.  Pam D 09:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An encyclopedia is a tertiary source.  Secondary sources are needed to prove notability.  JMB1980 ( talk ) 20:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Encyclopedia articles are based on primary or secondary sources.  If based on primary sources, then the entry is a secondary source.  If based on secondary sources, then it's proof of the existence of secondary sources.  pburka ( talk ) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, then the Wikipedia page should cite some of these secondary sources.  JMB1980 ( talk ) 15:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please review WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BLUDGEON .  pburka ( talk ) 20:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JMB1980 , before you bring up any more AfDs you need to study Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  In particular, the no original research policy states point blank that ""Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.""  So yes, Wikipedia policy states that both secondary and tertiary sources can be used to establish notability. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 11:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:USETERTIARY . It is, in fact, you who lacks knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. JMB1980 ( talk ) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:USETERTIARY isn't a Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It's an essay. At the top of the essay it even says ""This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.""  And then in the essay's first paragraph there's a link to the Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources policy I referenced above. I don't know what else to say if you can't tell the difference between an essay and actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines.-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:PSTS : 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources'.  WP:GNG : '""Sources"" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability'.  Wikipedia clearly gives more weight to secondary sources.  JMB1980 ( talk ) 17:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one if arguing against secondary sources being preferred.  However, tertiary sources can be used in articles and to prove notability.  Also worth noting that almost all the sources shared below proving the subject's notability are secondary sources, including the entry about the subject in the St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers looks to be a tertiary source None of them appear to be secondary sources except for the ones that mention her in one or two sentences. JMB1980 ( talk ) 01:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entry by itself is enough to proveout her in St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers and Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors plus being a finalist for a major award and she way more than meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As a side note, I don't understand why this article was brought up for a second AfD only a year after the previous AfD had an overwhelming consensus for keep. --[[User:SouthernNigh notability per Wikipedia guidelines. However, I also found academic articles mentioning her work in Science Fiction Studies and reviews of her work in places like Publishers Weekly , Cemetery Dance , The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Locus Magazine . Add in that there are biographies abts|SouthernNights]] ( talk ) 13:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  What policy or guidelines says that obituaries don't count towards notability?  pburka ( talk ) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no such policy and they absolutely do count towards notability. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 14:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I didn't realize until now that JMB1980 created the original AfD on A. R. Morlan in March 2022 and, after that discussion achieved a nearly unanimous  consensus to keep, created this AfD just over a year later. Yes, there is no clear Wikipedia policy against doing this (while speedy keep states an AfD can be closed if an editor makes ""nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion,"" a year doesn't count as immediately). However, the same editor bringing an article up for AfD after it was overwhelming kept a year before strikes me as going against the spirit of AfD discussions.-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 16:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Considering the article was kept based almost entirely on a 'notability by association' argument, and more than a year later still didn't cite a single quality secondary source, a second nomination was warranted.  JMB1980 ( talk ) 20:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wrong.  The previous discussion was very clear with editors agreeing with the multiple reliable sources shared by Beccaynr that proved the subject's notability.  That's why so many of the editors referenced the info shared by Beccaynr.  Instead of listening to that clear consensus you brought this article up for a new AfD.  Almost as if you were shopping around for a different outcome.  That's not how the AfD process works. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 21:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then changes should have been made to the article to bring it into compliance with WP:GNG guidelines. JMB1980 ( talk ) 15:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As it states in Wikipedia guidelines, "" notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. "" Notability of an article's subject exists separate from the state of the article.-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True, but I haven't seen any examples of significant coverage in quality secondary sources, inside or outside of this article's citations.  I've only seen primary sources, tertiary sources and reviews of an anthology that only include one or two sentences about her.  JMB1980 ( talk ) 18:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said above, almost all the sources I shared proving notability are secondary sources, including the reviews in Publishers Weekly , Cemetery Dance , The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Locus Magazine and the entry about her in St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers .  The Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors entry for the subject is a tertiary source but that can still be used in the article and to prove notability. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only Cemetery Dance page about her that I could find was a blog, Publisher's Weekly only had one sentence about her, I couldn't find anything for The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and she was published in Locus Magazne, meaning it isn't independent of the subject of the article. JMB1980 ( talk ) 01:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Locus Magazine is the leading criticism magazine of the SF/F genre and absolutely independent of the subject. She wasn't published in the magazine -- they published her obituary.  With regards to your comment above about St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers , that entry contains ""analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources,"" as described under secondary sources at Wikipedia:No original research .  That means it's a secondary source.  Same with regards to Cemetery Dance, F&SF, and all the other citations people have shared.   I am done discussing this with you b/c your level of misunderstanding everything everyone says is astounding. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 11:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia defines tertiary sources as 'publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources'; that seems to fit St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost & Gothic Writers. The Cemetery Dance was a blog post, and blogs aren't reliable sources. I still don't know what the F&SF source is. JMB1980 ( talk ) 17:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Profiles of the author in reliable encyclopedias and other sources (see per SouthernNights above) and also Supernatural literature of the world : an encyclopedia . -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 19:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Nothing has changed since the last discussion.  Encyclopedias and obituaries are, contrary to the nominator's view, perfectly acceptable sources and strong indicators of notability.  pburka ( talk ) Keep Her anthologies are published in major publications alongside notable authors and furthermore she won a major literary award.  DanishGirIInheaven ( talk ) 22:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per SouthernNights, plenty of refs to show notability.  // Timothy :: talk 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:AUTHOR .  Resonant Dis tor tion 05:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per the fourth criteria of WP:NAUTHOR .  The person's work (or works) has:  (a) become a significant monument,  (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition,  (c) won significant critical attention, or  (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.  Some of her works has won significant critical attention.  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 06:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Google Directory: Qwv ( talk ) 23:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since it is a non-notable defunct service unlikely to receive any more coverage in the future.  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 11:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED ; any relevant material can be merged into List of Google products .  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 11:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Just because a service no longer exists doesn't mean the page about it should be deleted.  It shows up quite a lot in Google Scholar (which, by the way, speaks a lot about its notability), and I wish that when encountering something in old scholarly papers, one could quickly figure out on the Wiki what it was.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relist to see if there is support for a Merge Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also favor a erge , but it seems to me that the best target would be to merge into DMOZ#Content users as a single paragraph.  Most of the content in this article is actually describing DMOZ's structure anyway.  (Also, LOL @ this sentence in the article: Everything was green. Ah, the memories.)  -- Visviva ( talk ) 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge .  I see some sigcov in (Calegari, S., & Pasi, G. (2010).  Ontology-based information behaviour to improve web search.  Future Internet  2(4),) but it's a bit jargon-filled.  There are a decent number of other smaller mentions in academic resources, including instructions on how to use it to find field-specific information.  I think WP:NOTTEMPORARY probably applies here as web directories are mostly forgotten now, but were quite the thing for a while.  A such, we should should certainly seek an ATD.  Visviva's suggested merge would be a fine one, unless we find more sources that distinguish Google Directory from other web directories.  — siro χ o 12:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly Keep .  Google has already closed down several services including Google Video , Google_Catalogs Search and Google Notebook .  Similarly, Microsoft closed down Windows 98 and several old operating systems, see the List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions and  the List of Google products .   Each one of these has its won article in Wikipedia.  Merging is not a good option because the content is large and worth to be covered WP:PRODUCTS .  The content of this topic can be improved, I added several reliable citations mostly academic books, I suggest editors should be giving more time to improve it and the article is still under editing.  Mazin suliman ( talk ) 13:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to List of Google products .  Discontinued products can be notable enough for a standalone article but this one doesn't have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to merit a full article.  It can easily just be a paragraph in the list.  Steven Walling • talk 06:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting because I'm not seeing a rough consensus among editors and two different target pages for a Merge have been mentioned.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I think a complex merge with some appropriate verifiable information going to each of the existing section DMOZ#Content users and the existing entry in List of Google products would be appropriate here.  I'm willing to handle it if it's the consensus.  — siro χ o 22:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Siroxo – there certainly seems to be some significant coverage, and lack of potential future coverage isn't relevant by itself.  If the article is merged it should be into DMOZ with a link from List of Google products , any additional information would disrupt the format of the list article, and Google Directory is definitely notable as a major user of DMOZ.  -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 12:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the sources are sufficient.  The ""Missing manual"" book at 6 pages on the directory, and Google power tools has 8.  Both give pretty detailed descriptions of the service.  ""Learn google"" seems to have less but I can't view the relevant pages.  I've added names to the references to make them easier to reuse, and will try filling in some of the areas without sources.  Lamona ( talk ) 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have made a lot of improvements to the article, so if you ! voted early please take another look.  Lamona ( talk ) 16:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep is preferable to merge in this case, due to the principle that ""notability is not temporary"".  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 06:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Freeciv: This version of the game was anyway [12] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And here [13] .  Multiple versions of the same article on wiki, this needs SALT.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't believe that Freeciv is the same as FCIV.net, although they are related.  The outcomes FCIV.net deletion discussions shouldn't affect this one.  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, came to say the same thing.  This article has been around since 2004 .  Haven't had time to check if it's notable or not yet, but the nomination should be revised to clear up this misunderstanding.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, the article has been around since 2001.  Cardamon ( talk ) 05:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Come on... research.  The prior AFD shows more than enough acceptable sourcing.  Conflating different topics together, this AFD is just procedurally wrong.  -- ferret ( talk ) 18:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources identified in the last AfD.  FCIV.NET is another topic.  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 21:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per my rationale in the previous AfD (see sources I listed there).  Pavlor ( talk ) 05:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Nirim attack: Some of the detail here is poorly supported by the in-line citation and needs reworking.  The only statement providing a firm casualty count at the time of this nomination , for example, actually failed verification, with the citation containing only a trivial mention of the attack .  The number of injured is then a question mark: ""many"", and there is no count of the attackers either.  Overall, between the thin detail / other content issues, and the lack of an obvious need for a standalone page, the page should be merged.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Terrorism , Islam ,  and Palestine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is enough information here to warrant a separate article.  09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth ( talk ) 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 'Only' 5 Israelis were killed in Nirim.  So indeed, it might not be entitled to be a full 'massacre'.  Only the bravery of a few citizens prevented a massacre and attrocities seen in nearby kibbuzim by Hamas terrorists.  But this is a story that justifies an article, distinct from and not overshadowed by the horrendous, cruel massacres in Nova, Be'eri and Kfar Aza.   Furtermore, most likely that the article will be expanded and updated in the future as details are uncovered, such as the fate of the kibbutz members that were kidnapped, the restoration of the kibbutz etc.  And last, just looking at the readable prose size, there is no technical necessity for a merge.  GidiD ( talk ) 10:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's less that there's a technical necessity for a merge so much as there was never a technical necessity for a standalone page separate from 2023 Hamas attack on Israel in the first place.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 11:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep considering notability, media coverage.  Well sourced page, should be kept.  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Homerethegreat ( talk ) 12:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Lidman, Melanie.  ""In a kibbutz down south, where the kids can tell a Hamas 'boom' from an Israeli one"" .  The Times of Israel .  Archived from the original on 2021-04-10 .  Retrieved 2023-10-21 .  ^ Kottasová, Muhammad Darwish,Nic Robertson,Artemis Moshtaghian,Amir Tal,Ivana (2023-10-11).  ""Children found 'butchered' in Israeli kibbutz, IDF says, as horror of Hamas' attacks near border begins to emerge"" .  CNN .  Retrieved 2023-11-24 .  {{ cite web }} :  CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link ) ^ צורי, מתן (2023-10-11).  ""המחבלים הסתערו, חברי כיתות הכוננות נלחמו על הבית: כל הקרבות ההירואיים"" [The terrorists stormed, the members of the standby classes fought for the house: all the heroic battles].  Ynet (in Hebrew) .  Retrieved 2023-11-03 .  ^ ""קיבוץ נירים"" [Kibbutz Nirim].  Kibbutz Nirim .  Archived from the original on 2007-06-02 .  Retrieved 2023-10-21 .  ^ ""Israel says Hamas commander who led attack in Nirim killed in airstrike, shares video"" .  Hindustan Times .  2023-10-15 .  Retrieved 2023-11-21 .  ^ ""רבשצ היישוב נירים: תפסנו עמדת שליטה, הם הבינו את זה והחליטו לסגת מנירים"" [We took a commanding position, they realized it and decided to withdraw from Nirim].  103FM - האזנה לרדיו און ליין (in Hebrew).  Archived from the original on 2023-10-17 .  Retrieved 2023-10-21 .  ^ ""4 תושבי נירים מול עשרות מחבלים: ""לא האמנו שנשרוד"" - וואלה! חדשות"" [4 residents of Nirim facing dozens of terrorists: ""We didn't believe we would survive""].  וואלה!  (in Hebrew).  2023-10-16.  Archived from the original on 2023-10-21 .  Retrieved 2023-10-21 .  ^ ""החייל הראשון נכנס לקיבוץ ב-13:41. 7 שעות מתחילת האירוע"" [The first soldier entered the kibbutz at 13:41. 7 hours from the start of the event].  Mako .  2023-10-12.  Archived from the original on 2023-10-15 .  Retrieved 2023-10-21 .  ^ Fabian, Emanuel (15 October 2023).  ""IDF says it killed Hamas commander who led murderous attacks on Nirim, Nir Oz"" .  21 November 2023 .  ^ ""Israel kills Hamas commanders responsible for attacks in Kibbutz Nirim, Nir Oz"" .  Business Today .  2023-10-15 .  Retrieved 2023-11-21 .  Keep as it's more than notable.  With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 02:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  As proven above, in the article, and elsewhere, all these massacres are inherently notable.  This particular article is long and unique enough enough not to merge.  WP:SNOW does apply.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Easily notable based on wide and persistent coverage by independent reliable sources.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel .  As with the dozen other articles, every event in the atrocious attack is not independently notable.  The sources above are entirely primary (mostly WP:PRIMARYNEWS ), there is no separate notability of this particular event, and no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has emerged beyond WP:ITEXISTS .  It is far, far WP:TOOSOON to tell which attacks, massacres and other crimes will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall attack.  A telltale element here is that the flurry of reporting around this particular portion of the attack has not been sustained; passing mentions like the killing of the commander are readily found, but in-depth analysis simply does not exist.  For direct policy rationale beyond what I have linked above, I'd say that this falls very clearly in WP:EVENTCRIT #4.  This was an horrific act that is more than covered by the parent article.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Sources and content in the article show this meets WP:N and has the properly sourced content to support a stand alone article.  // Timothy :: talk 07:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Antonio Susini (baseball): Joeykai ( talk ) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Did you try WP:BEFORE ?  [28] [29] – Muboshgu ( talk ) 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clear pass of GNG based on the references presented by Muboshgu along with references currently in the article.  Frank Anchor 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep made national headlines for his murder of another ballplayer Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling!  03:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The recent sources added to the article each provide WP:SIGCOV of the subject.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Squirtle: Of all the sources cited at this article, only the polygon source [25] is useful.  At WP:BEFORE, these are possibly the only good sources [26] and maybe this?  [27] .  This source [28] is probably just about the gameplay; showing that the article isn't notable despite the popularity (which isn't an argument).  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 02:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is a strange nomination: ""there aren't any sources that show notability, except for these ones which do""?  Why not use those ones, then?  I don't see a rationale for deletion.  jp × g 🗯️ 04:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because those are still not enough to pass WP:GNG .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 04:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  [29] [30] [31] Just from a quick search.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh well, didn't saw that Vice source coming.  But, leaving this afd still open for discussion if the character now barely passes gng.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 05:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge Greenish Pickle got it right the first time, there's no need for backpedaling.  The Polygon article is the only true SIGCOV I can see here.  The Squirtle Squad as a group is not to be confused with Squirtle the Pokemon species.  If Squirtle Squad is notable, the article ought to be about them, or the episode they appear, but notability is not inherited from the Squirtle Squad.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I find it a pretty strange assessment that reception for individual Squirtles are irrelevant to the species as a whole.  I do not believe that the average person would look at the Squirtle Squad and differentiate it as a separate concept from Squirtle.  Virtually all of the reception for Pikachu, for example, is about Ash's Pikachu, should that mean we should redirect Pikachu to the list and make an article called Ash's Pikachu?  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is that really strange?  We have an article on Mordin Solus but not salarian ; they are not obviously notable, or at least people have not found them notable before now.  Saying that Squirtle Squad and the individual Squirtle from the anime makes the species notable is like claiming Mordin automatically makes salarians notable.  Pikachu is somewhat different, because Pikachu and Ash's Pikachu are virtually synonymous.  I'm not sure if some people even realize there is a species.  I don't think this is the case for any other Pokemon, such is the amount of popularity that Pikachu has.  (Addendum: Team Rocket's Meowth may be the only other one I can think of that people know on such a basis) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is what I would consider a massive difference between an individual Squirtle named Squirtle and an individual salarian named Mordin Solus.  It's also not claiming that the Squirtle Squad (which includes the individual Squirtle) makes the species notable, it's saying that the notability of the Squirtle Squad is directly relevant to Squirtle itself.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 06:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bulbapedia has a separate page for both Ash's Squirtle and the Squirtle Squad, yet you are arguing that they are the same thing as the species.  I don't think that's borne out by anything online.  I do think that, even if this page is merged, the Squirtle Squad is independently notable.  I found a GamesRadar article, which can be combined with Vice and TheGamer .  I wouldn't oppose its creation, I just think the species isn't as well-known.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course there is both ""Ash's Squirtle"" and ""Squirtle Squad"" pages on Bulbapedia.  Bulbapedia would not cover Ash's Squirtle as part of the Squirtle Squad article, and they would not cover the Squirtle Squad as part of the Ash's Squirtle article, because the Squirtle Squad has individual characters that would not make sense to include as part of that article.  I have no concept of what you think that separate pages for the Squirtle Squad and Ash's Squirtle on Bulbapedia indicates, because that's just how Bulbapedia works.  The leader of the Squirtle Squad has his own article, just like the leader of Team Rocket has his own article, without the groups they lead needing to be a part of their article.  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I will point out a street in Las Vegas is named after the Pokemon , something that was argued as significant coverage in Snorlax's AfD .  Now mind you I personally don't find it much, but consensus shows others including Zx above felt different on that matter, so I think it's fair to argue for some consistency. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 12:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure if you're directing that at me, but I never argued that a street name made Snorlax notable. My argument was based on unrelated sources. I don't think the street names have any bearing on the notability of Snorlax, Squirtle, or any Pokemon. It's just too insubstantial to say it confers any notability to anything besides perhaps the cultural impact of Pokemon in general. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My mistake there, I was certain you'd agreed on that as well. Your reference was the one citing Pokemon GO with the police in that AfD. Still I think an overarching argument in that AfD as a whole was ""the character is recognizable enough in commentary to get reaction"". There are mutliple articles noting it in light of Ed Sheeran , which while a bit of promotion, does have some discussion over the multiple articles . Then there's weird moments like this with the President Elect of Chile , where Nintendo gifted him a plush of it and he vocally reacted. These are small, but do show there's recognition in pop culture of the character to an extent. And I think after the Snorlax AfD it's worth to consider where that lies with a Pokemon in terms of ""should this have an article""? In addition regarding the whole squirtle squad thing, I think you may be looking at the forest but missing the tree: the argument isn't being made that ""the Squirtle Squad"" itself is notable, but that the characterization it gave Squirtle in the anime is, and how long that has endured. It's not a case like with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for example where as a whole they're notable, because only one Squirtle in this case gets any commentary: Ash's.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 14:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I also believe it's strange to say that discussion of individual Squirtles is not relevant to the species article, considering that the appearances section is halfway composed of discussion about individual Squirtles.  The article is clearly meant to encompass Squirtle and every variant, and Bulbapedia doing it differently reflects a completely different philosophy than what Wikipedia uses.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Squirtle already demonstrates notability based on the commentary references that Cukie offered as well as at least some representation within outside media with the references that Kung Fu Man cited.  Based on this established precedent as well as how Bulbapedia is ultimately standardized wildly differently from Wikipedia, I see no valid reason why this article should deleted given how its meant to be a discussion on the species at large and not simply say, an article exclusively about Ash's Squirtle.  SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 00:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I wasn't sure about this, but ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's claim that ""the Squirtle squad"" is notable but that ""Squirtle"" as a species is not strikes me as over-convenient hairsplitting.  I don't think that argument holds up.  If this article is deleted, no one is planning to raise a ""Squirtle squad"" article on its ashes.  Keep the article that we have.  AfD is not cleanup.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above sourcing.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above arguments.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and clean-up per above.  Some of our Pokemon content is on the edge, but there is WP:SIGCOV about this character.  The trivial mentions can be summarized in a more encyclopedic way, and the rest can be figured out through editing.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As Cukie Gherkin and Kung Fu Man have pointed out, there are a couple of articles on the internet discussing the notability of this particular Pokemon species.  I strongly agree that in this case, the popularity of the Squirtle Squad has definitely made an impact on the perception of the species as a whole as evidenced in this article from Forbes about Squirtle which was first featured as a Pokemon Go Community Day promotional event.  Squirtle has also been promoted as a Funko Pop Vinyl doll , one of several species featured as livery on a commercial airline , and even as a kids meal toy from McDonald's .  I believe I could transplant some of the sources from the Meowth , Charizard , and Raichu articles and use it to salvage the article from deletion.  I am willing to do the work, but I am currently working on salvaging another featured list from demotion.  -- Birdienest81 talk 08:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which featured list, out of curiosity?  @ Birdienest8 : - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 16:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] List of Los Angeles Rams head coaches Birdienest81 talk 21:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Rosenery Mello do Nascimento: Mooonswimmer 04:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This subject passes WP:GNG .  If there's a sourcing or WP:BLP problem that merits deletion, please specify.  I'm not used to ! keeping, so convince me.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS.  I'm not asking you to swallow everything on the Portuguese article , but my impression is enough sources are right there even if not every one of them meets our criteria here.  I am not saying the sources are ""out there"" because they are ""right there.""  Em português so what.  If you cared enough to AfD, why not spend time reading 30-odd (auto-translated if you need) publications?  And still AGF, maybe you'd add the ones you find reliable from pt wiki to this article?  But if you'd like WP:NAC instead, I'll help you there.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 05:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brazil .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems like a borderline case but subject appears to meet for inclusion based on coverage from 1989 World Cup match, the Playboy cover, and obituaries at her death.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, it's more fame than notability.  Per WP:BIO1E : It is important to remember that ""notable"" is not a synonym for ""famous"".  Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event.  Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.  Most of the articles appear to cover her mostly in the context of the minor role she played in a (relatively insignificant) event.  Mooonswimmer 21:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree the case is borderline, on the other hand the Portuguese article seems to have pretty good coverage.  We should generally lean towards inclusion for such cases in my opinion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Anil V. Kumar: Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers .  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR/WP:FILMMAKER as director of multiple notable series....... Added a few sources for verification. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:DIRECTOR.  Has several notable directions.  Rydex64 ( talk ) 19:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes GNG per WP: SIGCOV.  A bit WP: DIRECTOR since some of the films which are inarguably notable were co-directed.  As the case may be, the subject passes WP: CREATIVE in filmmaking having been cited in sources for his Entertaining styles and film directing.  Fills a bit of WP: ENT All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 23:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Looks like XFDcloser failed the ""transclude to new log"" again on this one.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand the relisting when a simple consensus is met.  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 09:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Otuọcha , XFDcloser screwed up the relisting.  When a discussion is relisted, it's taken off the old AFD daily log page and put on today's AFD daily log page.  It looks like neither one of those things happened so it was wise to relist this discussion as no editors or closers would have gone back to the AFD daily log page from March 12th to review this discussion.  It brought the discussion up from several weeks ago to this past week so fresh eyes could see it.  Unfortunately though, we didn't get any new participants here but it will probably close over the next 24 hours.  L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Fox Cave, Shmankivtsi: Микола Василечко ( talk ) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Микола Василечко ( talk ) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] … and with sources authored by Volodymyr Dobrianskyi [ uk ] already in the article.   Your personal estimation of significance is not what we base things on.  Notability is not subjective , and fame and importance was rejected as a criterion in 2004.   Unless you have a counterargument to the several sources in the article, that at first blush appear to be authored by a Ukrainian expert in the field and give multiple detailed physical characteristics of the subject at hand, you do not have an argument for deletion.  Uncle G ( talk ) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I generally agree with Uncle G but would like to see one source that's not from Dobrianskyi.  My search quickly became difficult, but can't yet argue for deletion.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The sources listed in the article and described by Uncle G above make a prima facie case for notability that has not been refuted.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In enwiki is 9 pages about caves in Ukraine .  Really in Ukraine more caves about which there are no articles and which have natural history, cultural history, etc.  Fox Cave (Really name is English? Please source for this name. ) is not without nature history, without geological history.  -- Микола Василечко ( talk ) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Takanobu Takahashi: His most well-know publication is ""Tamil love poetry and poetics"" which received good reviews according to my research, but still there is nothing to prove significant academic notability.  Chiserc ( talk ) 08:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Japan .  Chiserc ( talk ) 08:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Takahashi is one of the academically well cited Japanese Indologist known for his scholarly works on Tamil literature .  That he is one of the two translators of the Kural text into Japanese indeed has encyclopedic merit.  Rasnaboy ( talk ) 17:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Likely language barrier in the listing here.   I do think this subject meets WP:NACADEMIC even when viewing easy-to-find English sources alone.  Google Scholar puts this subject's most famous work Tamil Love Poetry and Poetics at 50 citations, and Google Scholar tends to under-count citations for such disciplines.  I wonder if someone with access to a citation index can help.  It's cited by other academic books to be sure search eg1 eg2 .  We don't have a callout policy on notability of translators, but certainly translating the Kural boosts the academic notability.  But still, keep in mind, this person is translating from Tamil to Japanese, there aren't going to be a lot of easy to find English language sources, but they've clearly published even more in Japanese language: [1] [2] [3] [4] .  — siro χ o 00:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems very likely to meet point 1 of WP:NACADEMIC .  Even his English-language scholarship has attracted no small amount of critical attention.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"K. Annamalai: There has been no news of this person lately, therefore, failing Wikipedia:NPOL and Wikipedia:BLP1E .  Often confused with the BJP politician K. Annamalai .  Hence, I suggest this page to be deleted as along with the above-mentioned reasons, this page has been inactive for a long time and relies on a single source as mentioned in the article heading.  FlyJet777 ( talk ) 19:10, 25 September 2023 (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/2023 September 25 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Every member of a national or state legislature is notable, according to Wikipedia:NPOL .  There is no reason to delete this article.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tamil Nadu .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics , India ,  and Tamil Nadu .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The other person with this name, K. Annamalai (BJP politician) , has never been a member of a state or national legislature.  Being president of a state party does not guarantee notability.  In 2021, an article on the BJP politician was deleted.  See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamalai k .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the BJP politician K. Annamalai has not been a member of state or national legislature yet, but he has gained a lot of traction in India and particularly, in his state Tamil Nadu due to his En Mann En Makkal padayatra (foot journey) in the past few months, thus gaining notability.  Whereas, the AIADMK politician has never been in news since he became MLA in 2001.  Also the page of the AIADMK politician has been inactive except for a few cases of hijacking of the article wherein people confused the politician with BJP's K. Annamalai.  Is it wise to keep the less notable politician's page but delete the politician's page who is more popular?  Moreover, when the BJP politician's page was deleted previously, he had less to no popularity.  But now, that has completely changed.  FlyJet777 ( talk ) 21:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject passes WP:NPOL as an MLA; notability is not temporary.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , notable per NPOL.  End of.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 05:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article does need improvement, but serving in the national legislature is the kind of inherently notable role where we need to have something.  We don't care whether the coverage was recent or not, either: if he had coverage while he was in politics 20 years ago, then that's still notability-building coverage.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , easy pass of notability criteria as legislator.  -- Soman ( talk ) 09:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 12:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Mirai (band): The cited sources can't establish the subject's notability.  Breakdown of cited sources: 1: https://www.idnes.cz/kultura/hudba/mirai-navratil-hudba-andel-clours-of-ostrava-rozhovor-kytara-japonsko-premium-frydek-mistek.A190919_175244_hudba_jum (May provide in-depth coverage but I can't confirm as it is locked for non premium members, but GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage) 2: https://english.radio.cz/mirai-czech-pop-act-eye-future-8758890 (No significant or in-depth coverage of the subject, as the article is shorter than ever. Fails WP:SIGCOV ) Grab Up - Talk 12:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If indeed this band has won a Český slavík award, that would seem to me to meet WP:NMUSIC , specifically criterion #8.  Jdcooper ( talk ) 11:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this a major award that makes this band notable?  I don’t think so.  The article about the award itself is not well-cited with reliable secondary sources.  Grab Up - Talk 12:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure what you mean.  Anděl Awards and Český slavík are the two main pop music awards in the Czech Republic, and obviously the winners were widely reported as such (Andel: [11] , Slavik: [12] , many more sources available but those were just the first that came up on Google).  Jdcooper ( talk ) 00:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty more independent sigcov here: [13] [14] [15] [16] .  Jdcooper ( talk ) 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Convinced by the sources provided by @ Jdcooper : : At the time of my BEFORE check, I did not look for sources in the Czech languages.  These sources provide in-depth coverage.  Grab Up - Talk 08:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Jillian Parry Fry: The current sources lack the independent coverage needed to meet WP:SIGCOV .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Pennsylvania .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week keep I suppose the Miss Teen USA is notable, but there is no sourcing in the article and I can't find any (it's from that very early internet era, so might not be found online).  The rest seems rather non-notable, going to school, being a vegan.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sustained coverage for different reasons over 20 years – I've updated the article and added more references ...  CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 13:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2000 .  We have coverage at the time for winning, which is really more about the notability of the event.  The rest of the sources appear to be brief mentions and material written by the subject, not about the subject.  Per WP:GNG and especially WP:NOPAGE , merge to the parent article.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge and Redirect option vs. Keeping the article as is.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV .  McFilet O' Fish Fan ( talk ) 02:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO #1 as a winner of a well known award.  The fact that she gets only brief mentions doesn't disqualify her because sources can be tacked together under WP:BASIC .  There was some (fairly inoffensive) personal information in the article that completely lacked sourcing and I deleted it conservatively out of privacy concerns - if it wasn't published elsewhere it probably shouldn't be publicised here.  Oblivy ( talk ) 08:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Right now there's no consensus, closely leaning towards keep.  Relisting for a final time to hopefully find that consensus.  Any thoughts on the suggestion for Merge/Redirecting to Miss Teen USA 2000 ?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 01:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - I think the idea of merging into Miss Teen USA 2000 is wise.  It seems that many of the winners do have their own page, though the lack of references & notable elements in Miss.  Fry's article would make it well suited to a merge.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 03:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Matty Healy: I still don't see significant notability here outside the band.  Karst ( talk ) 21:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:46, 25 April 2023 (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 }} .  A request in advance: If you join this deletion discussion, please provide policy- or guideline-based arguments.  The article had to be fully protected to deal with today's disruption; comments that lack any indication of understanding Wikipedia's concept of notability may be removed and/or lead to page protection of this discussion page as well.  ~ ToBeFree ( talk ) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Even after leaving out actions of the band, there is still more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG .  I would also note that this is one of the funniest things I have ever read. -- Laun chba ller 22:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Looks like enough with SIGCOV for standalone article. --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 22:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Endorsing the rationale of Spiderone.  --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 09:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of all the in-depth coverage in the media.  Binksternet ( talk ) 23:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Specifically pointing to in-depth coverage in The Guardian , The Independent and the BBC.  Across the pond, The New Yorker magazine ran a piece about Healy, describing his life and career.  He definitely meets WP:GNG , no doubt about it.  Binksternet ( talk ) 16:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  I also believe it's not necessary for him to have an individual page and I consider its current content very biased.  In my opinion it does not have a NPOV or V. Meetmeinthedaylight ( talk ) 01:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Meetmeinthedaylight ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] POV and bias issues can be solved through editing and does not require deleting the whole article.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We'd need a whole new page cause none of what is currently on there works.  So, I'd still say delete.  Meetmeinthedaylight ( talk ) 16:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Cakelot1 ( talk ) 16:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  According to Wikipedia's guidelines, ""Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.""  Based on this criterion, it's clear that this article should be deleted, since the rampant use of unreliable and low-quality sources (tabloids) demonstrates that there aren't enough reliable sources to back up most of this article.  Which means, according to Wikipedia's policies, that there's not enough notability for him to have an article of his own.  Ilovesadgirlmusic ( talk ) 02:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Iloveadgirlmusic ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] @ Ilovesadgirlmusic , are you seriously trying to imply that, NME , The Times , Digital Spy , The Independent , Kent Live , The Argus , Pitchfork , The Guardian , Out.com , The National Paper , Belfast Live , Billboard , BBC News , Variety , GQ , Vulture , Los Angeles Times , NPR , The New Zealand Herald , are all unreliable and low-quality sources (tabloids) .  I'd love you to find me the WP:RSN discussions where all those where deprecated.  WP:RSP might help you understand the sort of sources we do and don't consider reliable for the case of wikipedia articles.  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There ARE many tabloids used in the article, and even though there are also legitimate ones, that doesn't change the fact that there are also many tabloids used in there and those are the ones backing most of the serious accusations.  I would also like to add that most of the legitimate sources are not written with a negative tone, the author changed it to turn this BLP into an attack page.  Ilovesadgirlmusic ( talk ) 16:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm failing to see which tabloids you are talking about.  The only yellow WP:RSP sources in the article ALLMUSIC (and Rolling Stone, though I think that would fall under culture not WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS ).  Most of the controversy sections comes from sources like independent, MNE, Variety, etc.  WP:G10 , which I think is what your gesturing at requires the biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced (emphasis added).  This article doesn't qualify for that as it is sourced.  Whether or not the article can be better balanced per WP:BLPBALANCE seems to be a question for normal editing ( WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP ).  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 16:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I had already said this in the talk section yesterday, but I feel like it's more appropriate  to have it on here: After reading this, I can't help but feel that it does have a negative bias towards Matty Healy.  While the information provided may be (in certain parts) factual, this page seems to focus primarily on Healy's controversies, even attributing him labels like misogyny, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and even of ""fan endangerment"" (lol????).  However, many of these accusations have been sensationalized and exaggerated in the media, and it's not clear whether they're entirely accurate.  In fact, some of the sources used on this page seem to be tabloids (low-quality and unreliable sources) that are known for their sensationalized reporting and their tendency to exaggerate or twist the truth to sell a story.  It's not fair to paint someone as a hateful or bigoted person based on these kinds of polarizing views.  Moreover, I consider that it's important to approach any information or claims made on social media platforms like Twitter or TikTok with a critical eye and to verify the accuracy of the information before accepting it as true (which is clearly not done here).  On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that this page HAS selectively cut, edited, and/or modified quotes and content from various sources to fit the narrative that it is, for some reason, trying to push.  Which is both a highly unprofessional and ridiculous approach that is not only misleading, but also calls into question the credibility of the entire page.  I also think it is necessary to differentiate between actual problematic behavior and harmless interactions.  For example, banter with fans, peers, and friends should obviously NOT be presented as problematic or controversial.  Furthermore, this page almost completely disregards The 1975's significant achievements as a musicians and artists, which are essential components in understanding and appreciating their journey.  Instead, this page seems to selectively choose small things that are blown out of proportion or made up, potentially to cater to cancel culture, which is both disappointing and misleading.  (Someone please explain to me how it makes sense that there are only TWO paragraphs dedicated to their career while the rest is all about their supposed ""controversies"")  While it is important to mention controversies, it is also necessary to provide context and present the information accurately, without exaggeration or sensationalism.  I think it's worth noting that if we are going to talk about his controversies, we should also mention what resulted from them, such as his apologies and efforts towards learning and growth.  As a matter of fact, I find it quite interesting that every single one of his controversies, even the smallest/dumbest ones, are fully explored on this page, while barely any of his activism is given the same attention, and the few positive aspects that are mentioned are simply glossed over.  (Even Donald Trump's Wikipedia page is more positive like... make it make sense!)  Lastly, I'll like to add that this article's focus on negative criticisms violates many of Wikipedia's policies.  (You don't see any other artists' Wikipedia pages being like ""this person did this AND this is what their haters thought about it!"" about every single thing.)  Therefore, I suggest that either the whole article is edited, or the page is removed altogether.  This article should not be made public for consumption due to its potential to mislead the reader, as it does not serve its purpose of presenting accurate and objective information.  (tl;dr: This article is completely ridiculous, awful, and incredibly biased. The writing is atrocious and all over the place. Most information is edited/cut/modified to fit an agenda. Many sources are not credible and/or were deliberately chosen to support the author's opinion.)  Violated core content policies that can be found in this article: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiablity (V) Due to the following violated content policies that according to Wikipedia a biography of a living person should have, this article can be considered an "" attack page "" which is why I think it should be deleted immediately: Writing style: tone (WP:BLPSTYLE) Writing style: balance (WP: BLPBALANCE) Gossip and feedback loops (WP: BLPGOSSIP) Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced Etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesadgirlmusic ( talk • contribs ) 16:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  There's evidently sigcov with the amount of sources in the article.  ser!  ( chat to me - see my edits ) 05:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep multitude of WP:RSs in the article are more than enough to demonstrate WP:GNG .  This article, as well as this discussion, has been posted about in a sub-reddit  dedicated to his band ( [4] Edit : archive for deleted comments Cakelot1 ( talk ) 18:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) ), with the gist of discussion seeming to be it should be deleted because it is to negative.  To all new people coming here, it being negative isn't a reason to delete, when we are accurately representing the view found in Reliable Sources , which this seems to be.  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 07:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being negative IS a reason to delete according to Wikipedia's BLP guidelines.  The article should remain neutral (which is not) and be balanced (which is also not, there are only two paragraphs that don't contain any criticism).  Ilovesadgirlmusic ( talk ) 16:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're new here(were you canvassed here ?) and may not fully understand our policies.  If there is only negative coverage of a person by sources, the article about them is going to be negative.  That doesn't mean the article should be deleted.  If there is more positive coverage of this person that is missing from the article, the solution is to add it, not delete the article.  Tone issues can be fixed.  If the sources are not reliable or make things up, please discuss that at WP:RSN .  331dot ( talk ) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that there isn't only negative coverage of this person.  There's over a decade of also very positive coverage in more reputable sources than PopBuzz.  When I attempted to suggest an edit to include positive coverage (with sources from NME, the Guardian, and the BBC), it was rejected.  The issue is this article is unbalanced and there is clearly a bias towards only including the most negative and sensationalized things written about the guy.  The other issue, is there is no ""media career"" as the article claims.  Everything related to his media presence is related to the band, so it should still be a redirect.  Rosesinmymilktea ( talk ) 17:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then your admitting that the article could be improved with sources, thus making it ineligible for deletion.  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  We don't delete articles because we think they are being held hostage by a cabal .  I would recommend you take it to WP:BLPN which is the appropriate venue for such BLP concerns.  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't get to put words in anyone's mouth.  I said in my comment that there is no ""media career"" The entire article is just a list of controversies, all related to the work within The 1975.  Just like all the list of activism would be related to his work within The 1975.  I agree with previous decisions to delete as there is not meaningful coverage outside of The 1975.  Rosesinmymilktea ( talk ) 20:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, if we disregarded all the media coverage he's gotten in WP:RSs then he wouldn't pass WP:GNG .  As far as I know that's not how any notability guideline work.  Perhaps you could provide the policy and/or guideline you are using to make the judgment of about which sources you've decided we're not allowed to use.  Also I'm sorry if I'm blind, but how are most of the controversies in the Social media section , for example, related to the work within The 1975 .  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - coverage in BBC , Independent and The Guardian all covering different events and all giving Healy more than a trivial mention.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable person with WP:SIGCOV .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  09:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or * Redirect .  WP:CSECTION: ""An article dedicated to the negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism.""  This article violates this policy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownadjacent ( talk • contribs ) 26 April 2023 (UTC) Undecided / Comment - Since as far back as 2016 some very obsessive people have repeatedly created articles on Healy under several different titles, desperately trying to evade previous redirects to the band that had been agreed upon by consensus.  See this , this , and this , among others.  I voted to redirect in several of those older debates, and if I recall correctly, the previous attempts at separate articles for Healy were full of obsessive fancruft about his personal life.  This time it looks like a different type of obsession, with an anti-fan going off on all the equally obsessive social media criticism that he has ever received.  This time there are indeed reliable sources because Healy can't stay out of public trouble, but the article is poorly written and incorrectly focused.  If it is kept, it should be severely cleaned up and then protected against haters.  I'm skeptical on whether that would work long-term, so that's why I'm undecided.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doomsdayer520 : The article is undergoing renovation. Please suggest more changes on the talk page. Probably, once the dust settles, some sort of CTOP|BLP page restrictions will be in order. Hopefully, Tobias will be able to change to ECP soon. --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 18:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done :) ~ ToBeFree ( talk ) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Deepfriedokra : -- I acknowledge your politeness, but enough with asking people (me and others throughout this discussion) to discuss things at the article's talk page, which assumes that the article will be kept and disregards the fact that this here AfD is still in progress and could lead to a non-keep consensus.  I already made a suggestion here and it doesn't need to be repeated somewhere else.  For now, the voting continues and this AfD page is where the action is.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 12:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. This has clearly been written with malice. 2A02:C7C:E0E8:2E00:FCA5:7B90:C4C0:3A8E ( talk ) 14:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please offer evidence for the claim ""written with malice"".  Are you saying the sources in this article are invented out of whole cloth? 331dot ( talk ) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Article is written in bad faith and reads more like an attack page . You can easily back up almost any claim with a source, but when you list out every piece of dirt you can find on someone regardless of its relevance to their biography without balancing that with their actual career or the activism they're actually known for, it seems more than suspect. If kept, almost everything under ""Media Career"" should be moved to a controversies section as Healy does not have a separate media career outside of the band. And the controversies chosen need to be reviewed and balanced as it currently seems to be written by someone looking to vent their hatred for a person. Rosesinmymilktea ( talk ) 17:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Rosesinmymilktea ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Yes. Please make specific suggestions on the talk page. --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did.  I had one that was backed up with multiple credible sources that was rejected because apparently it wasn't negative enough.  So clearly there is an agenda with the way this page is being written, again seeming more like an attack page than a bio.  That needs to be reviewed properly.  Rosesinmymilktea ( talk ) 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting that the article is undergoing renovation.  There is still some work to do there.  The cure for its problems are editing .  Not deletion .  And no, fans from Reddit, it did not/does not meet WP:G10 .  --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 18:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that the current article is basically only a ""controversies"" section that's been broken up to look like a bio.  There is no ""media career"" for Healy outside of The 1975, so I do see people's point for wanting it reverted to a redirect - especially looking at the history of past attempts to make a page.  Also, while the band has a large fanbase, acting like people are only offering edits/discussing issues because of Reddit is lacking in good faith.  Rosesinmymilktea ( talk ) 20:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rosesinmymilktea : I'm afraid you need to discuss that on the article talk page.  That is not an issue for the AfD.  --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 21:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Everything in my reply other than the first sentence is about why I agree with previous decisions to redirect.  Stop trying to misrepresent someone's entire reply in order to discredit what they're saying.  Rosesinmymilktea ( talk ) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm here from reviewing the WP:DYK .  What I'm seeing is a lot of ! votes saying that the article should be deleted due to issues with neutrality.  Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup exists for a reason.  Also, if most sources are negative, the article will have that bias naturally.  By way of notability, WP:SIGCOV is evident, and the subject certainly passes WP:GNG by my interpretation.  Note: Incoming Redditors would do well to avoid making arguements based on ""I Don't Like It"" and instead use a proper interpretation of our policies.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 07:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   There is plenty coverage and also he meets WP:BASIC.  Pershkoviski ( talk ) 02:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm not familiar with why this person is controversial, but he apparently is.   There is enough coverage to meet GNG.   And the potential BLP policy issues wouldn't require the article to be deleted.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 21:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : whatever his notability in the past, Healy seems to have now won significant coverage in reliable sources, for better or worse.  The article in its current iteration is barely two weeks old, so I'd expect it to have a few warts, but that obviously doesn't warrant deletion.  As an aside, I want to welcome all our new friends and remind them to duly note our existing policies on recruiting editors to influence a discussion .  That said, I'm hopeful the energy this article seems to have generated can be channeled productively.  — Rutebega ( talk ) 11:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Widespread significant coverage across a multitude of reliable sources concentrating on Healy as an individual (as opposed to the band's music) fulfils Wikipedia notabilty requirement of WP:BASIC .  The delete arguments seem to be WP:NPOV content based.  Such disagreement should be thrashed out on the Talk page.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ryan Tudhope: Subject has to have won or have had multiple nominations.  A BEFORE search showed ROUTINE coverage in Hollywood media like Variety and THR but it was either an interview (not independent) or it only mentioned subject in passing.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : According to Variety, Tudhope was also nominated for an Emmy in 2014.  That may satisfy WP:ANYBIO .  Toughpigs ( talk ) 19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  2 nominations ( ONE , TWO ) for 2 significant awards.  The veracity of the nominations, the importance of the awards and the fact that 2>1 being unquestionable , he does appear to meet ANYBIO indeed.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ANYBIO: ""has been nominated for such an award several times"" (emphasis mine).  ""Several"" is more than two; some people would say that several intones more than a couple (2-3) and more than a few (4-5).  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, yes.  That's true, I had ""multiple"" in mind (and even then).  Removing my ! vote.  Although I think that could be almost enough, the guideline states it otherwise.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -->and back to Keep but for slightly different reasons: I found MoviesandTelevisionFan's explanation convincing (Thanks) and I therefore think an article about him is not undue and can be well-sourced with what exists. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE ""won significant critical attention"" as an Oscar nominee.  There is also significant sources on him source 1 , source 2 , source 3 .  MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk ) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep To be honest, the article is so sparse, it invites a redirect.  But since he's been verified as winning an award for two different films, there's no obvious target to redirect to.  Hence, the default is to keep as a separate entry.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Nir Yitzhak massacre: All four sources provided by user:Homerethegreat in the previous discussion do not include any mention of a ""Nir Yitzhak massacre"", but rather just discuss how part of the broader October 7 attack took place in Nir Yitzhak.  All sources in the article likewise discuss it as simply a part of the larger October 7 attack.  Not a single one calls it a massacre or even singles out Nir Yitzhak.  At the bare minimum this needs to be moved to Nir Yitzhak attack .  But even that is tough to justify on the merit of the sources.  Best to merge into 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel or delete.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 15:33, 22 December 2023 (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/2023 December 22 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Israel ,  and Palestine .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - previous AfD was closed as Keep less than a month ago.  Clearly several notable and good sources.  WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 17:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's strange to re-launch the deletion of an article that was maintained on November 26.. .  Does this article bother anyone??? also against the merger proposal...  Sg7438 ( talk ) 18:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep : It's a clear WP:GNG (BBC, Times of Israel, New York Times, Jerusalem Post, Vatican news and many more).  With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 18:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a single one of the sources on the page mentions or even implies a ""Nir Yitzhak massacre"".  Just because there are sources there doesn't mean it's notable.  Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:COMMONNAME none of the sources there support this as a standalone article.  Please limit your reasoning to actual Wikipedia policies, not to your feelings about the matter.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are trying to delete with an invalid reason and not to rename.  With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The options are keep, merge, delete.  No sources refer to this as a distinct event.  It is thus WP:OR to have a standalone article on it.  Information you think should be kept should be merged into the parent article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel .  Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You had the option to start a move or merge proposal but instead you proposed a deletion.  Even though the last AFD was closed keep a month ago.  Andre 🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep meets GNG, there should be a moratorium on further AFDs of similar articles and user warned for tendentious pointy nominations Andre 🚐 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See my comment above.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't reply to every comment.  That's WP:BLUDGEONing .  Andre 🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't understand why this is back after less than a month; regardless, I still don't see the need for an article on every attack that ever happens in this or the war in Ukraine.   They occur, but that's the nature of war.  The news cycle will cover hundreds of similar attacks for as long as the conflicts happen.  This doesn't seem particularly notable amongst the long list of battles.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of articles on battles and massacres during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  [8] [9] [10] Hence the opposite question is more relevant: why would such SPINOFFs not be allowed once the casualties are Israeli, be AfDd already for a second time over a very short time span, and still receive two rare supportive opinions?  gidonb ( talk ) 14:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - changing my stance to Speedy Keep.  previous AfD was closed as Keep less than a month ago.  Clearly several notable and good sources.  WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See my comment above.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't reply to every comment.  That's WP:BLUDGEONing .  Andre 🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  Recent AfD closed as keep; No arguments were given to justify deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy .  At most this is a rename proposal.  There was significant coverage of this battle as an independent event in reliable sources.  By the way, according to Wikipedia:Notability , 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material'.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  ""Not a single source refers to a ""Nir Yitzhak massacre""."" - did whoever said do looked into the sources?  They all related directly to the Nir Yitzhak massacre.  Agmonsnir ( talk ) 10:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A significant event and covered in many sources in many places.  Eladkarmel ( talk ) 13:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid SPINOFF in terms of notability, length, uniqueness.  I had just expressed this opinion.  Why was it nominated again right after it was kept by community consensus?  gidonb ( talk ) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Significant and covered by many sources.   And not clear what has changed since the previous AfD which determined to keep it.  Dovidroth ( talk ) 07:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources in the article show this meets GNG.  Nothing has changed since the last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nir Yitzhak massacre which closed only 30 days ago; closer should consider the results of this closed AfD.  // Timothy :: talk 07:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [Once again I’ll be using the template from a previous similar AfD} I’d firstly like to point out to the OP that they are making these several AfD’s they have raised difficult for themselves and for those those who respond by combining a move and/or an AfD. It seems that the OP is of the opinion that these articles should not include ""massacre"" in their names. This is a valid opinion which should be tested by a move request. Mixing up a move and a delete request only makes it complicated to respond. Based on that I’m not going to address the naming issue as that belongs to a rename Move not an AfD. My !vote on the previous AfD was "" Keep per notability comments of Homerthegreat, and my previous comments on similar articles: notable, verifiable and neutral articles of this nature from both sides of the combat broaden Wikipedia knowledge of the combat. If any civilians can be shown to verifiably have died then this article would be as notable as the others reporting Israeli or Palestinian casualties. I do think the article can do with some additional referencing and copy editing, so I’ll add it to my to-do.""  I still believe that. The article itself has sufficient sources for notability, but the are jumbled up and not fully utilized in the text to provide a broader view of the attack. Unfortunately I did not notice that the AfD had closed as keep, otherwise I would have done the updating I mentioned. As per my previous !vote I continue to believe that the subject worthy of if it’s own article: The determinant of notability is wide coverage in reliable resources. The sources in the current article are probably sufficient for this, but as I said previously, more can be added and the article written more broadly to properly utilize the resources. But Homerethegreat ’s resources and others I found during my superficial search clearly support notability (see below). in terms of POV if the source is RS it’s bias should be determined by consensus on an item-by-item, article-by-article basis. If bias exists it also doesn’t mean discarding a resource, it’s substance should be reported in neutral wiki voice and balanced by other resources as appropriate. Homerthegreat’s sources: The economic damage done to industrial plant in Nir Yitzchak The names of the nine civilians kidnapped or missing from Nir Yitzchak Couple from Nir Yitzchak who refused to be taken to Gaza and were eventually allowed to stay by the militants Five minute Video interview of defenders of Nir Yitzchak, including security camera footage of the militants, and discussion of deaths. Detail on how attack unfolded. Discussion of attack, killings and those kidnapped from Nir Yitzchak. Doesn’t mention Nir Yitzchak, but does discuss peace activists taken from Holit, and Netiv HaAsara the other AfDs so can be added to their sources Same story as above Re couple who refused to be kidnapped from different source. Message from Nir Yitzhak that militants still inside at 14:15 7/10/23 More details of how the attack on Nir Yitzchak unfolded and deaths Instead of listing the resources I found (You can AGF that I’ll list them if I update a kept article) I turned them into the following table for inclusion in the article. All cells of the table are supported by either Homerthegreats’s sources or about 3 others I found. This table would form part of an aftermath/deaths/captives section. The resources have further information around the table which would fill out the rest of the body. Deaths and Abductees Name Age Gender After Attack Current (25/12/23) Ofek Arazi 28 Male Killed 7/10/23 - Yaron Shahar 51 Male Killed 7/10/23 - Ofir Melmam (IDF) 21 Male Killed 7/10/23 - Boaz Avraham 61 Male Captive ? Lior Rudaif 61 Male Captive ? Tal Chaimi 41 Male Captive Killed 7/10/23. Body in Gaza Oren Goldin 33 Male Captive killed 7/10/23 Clara Marman 62 Female Captive Released 28/11/23 (Norberto) Louis Har (Clara’s partner) 70 Male Captive ? Fernando Marman (Clara’s brother) 60 Male Captive ? Gabriela Leimberg (Clara’s sister) 59 Female Captive Released 28/11/23 Mia Leimberg (Clara’s niece) 17 Female Captive Released 28/11/23 Unnamed militants (""dozens"") - - ? ? The Leimberg family dog, Bella, was with Mia during her captivity and was released with her. Her mother runs a home for Arab and Jewish low functioning autistic children. As I have with a couple of articles, if the  decision is keep I will investigate resources in depth and use them to wikify the articles. Happy editing. Ayenaee ( talk ) 09:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well done for the thorough research :).  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 17:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are sufficient sources which portray itsnotability.  Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 14:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above as well as previous discussion.  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 17:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IP user, please revert your comments.  I don’t agree with the OP‘s opinion but they have a right (by the same first amendment you quote - which doesn’t apply here) to raise them in ways sanctioned by Wikipedia, which they have done.  We then discuss our conflicting opinions politely and come to a consensus (which is the point of the first amendment - free debate to resolve differences).  Your ad hominem attack on the OP who is acting in good faith is totally inappropriate and can be sanctioned in terms of WP:No personal attacks .  If you don’t self revert these comments, I will take the comments to WP:AN/I where I’m sure an administrator will remove them and sanction you.  I will copy this message to your talk page as well.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For completeness: It is appropriate and encouraged to list your biases as the OP has done on their user page.  No the site you quote would definitely not be an unbiased reliable source usable on wikipedia.  It is a site created to inflame emotions rather than restore peace.  It is also highly disrespectful to the dead (especially under the laws for respecting the dead in both Judaism and Islam) to use picture and videos of them in the way the site does.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 21:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The IP user responded to my message on their talk page and self-reverted their comments.  So I’ll consider the matter closed from their side.  I will however request RevDel as the comments and especially the source linked are not appropriate to remain in Wikipedia history.  I’ll let the administrator decide what do with my comments which are now hanging without a referent.  I’m sorry that this happened Dylanvt .  Ayenaee ( talk ) 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Everything rev del’d.  Ayenaee ( talk ) 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn’t actually manage to see what they wrote before it was stricken, so thank you for your diligence in resolving this right away.  Dylanvt ( talk ) 22:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep!!! As per Marokwitz, Gidonb, Homerthegreat and others GidiD ( talk ) 15:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Since this article is frequently nominated, I suggest setting a period during which it cannot be renominated.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Paw Paw High School (Illinois): The school is no longer operating.  Current article sourcing consists of government sources.  Searching finds fairly routine sports coverage such as: 1956 article , and 1957 article .  No significant coverage found although there are about 60 years of coverage and I did not read every article available.  A redirect to Paw Paw, Illinois#Education is an alternative to deletion.  Gab4gab ( talk ) 18:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Illinois .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some sources I found: [35] [36] [37] .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  High schools in the United States or Canada are usually notable, whether or not they are still open.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Each high school should be evaluated based on the coverage it receives.  It is likely that high schools that have less than 100 students tend to generate less coverage than the average high school.  Gab4gab ( talk ) 01:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply .  No, high schools used to be automatically considered notable.  That concensus changed a while back, and they're now required to satisfy WP:GNG .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  I'm not seeing any significant coverage or achievement that raises them to notability.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC) * [ reply ] Comment .  Calling this school a small school with ""less 100 students"" seems disingenous.  The school was in operation from at least 1956 1841-2018 (175+ years).  Some sources I saw mentioned much larger enrollments.  As an encyclopedia, should we consider the current status of a subject or should we consider its entire history?  I've noticed significant improvements to the article already by BeanieFan11 .  Let's see if we can't find some offline sources, as the vast majority of this school's existence predates the internet.  Jacona ( talk ) 21:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Assuming good faith is one of our guidelines.  Less than 100 students is what is sourced in the article.  Editors are free to add details they find in other sources.  Gab4gab ( talk ) 07:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gab4gab , The school was in existence for over 175 years.  The number of students one particular year seems totally irrelevant to whether or not it would be considered WP:N .  While AGF is a guideline, it is not a reason to delete.  — Jacona ( talk ) 13:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is a secondary school in the United States that existed for over 175 years.  There are plenty of sources available at Newspapers.com and elsewhere, including this one, available at newspapers.com.  [2] Passes WP:NSCHOOL , WP:GNG .  I would venture that in 175 years, almost all of the available references would be offline, so this is the tip of the iceberg.  Jacona ( talk ) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ ""13th Women In Business And Leadership Conference"" .  Pakistan Society for Training and Development .  ^ Bretag, Jerry (October 16, 1956).  ""Football back at Paw Paw"".  Dekalb, Illinois: Daily Chronicle.  p. 14.  Keep per Jacona and WP:NTEMP .  The fact that something does not exist now does not make in unencyclopaedic.  Even without that, existing cites would pass WP:GNG .  There is no valid policy reason to delete this article, and deletion would not improve Wikipedia.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The existing cites do not provide significant coverage.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarityfiend , have you ever read the instructions linked above for participation at AfD?  I'm asking because if you had, you would know that the state of the article currently is not what we are discussing here.  Your comment is completely irrelevant.  That being said, I think the best thing to do here would be to move this article to Paw Paw Community Unit School District 271 (leaving this title as a redirect) and expand to include other details about the district.  The primary notability of the school is historic, and that history can be covered in an article on the district which can also include other details about the district and falls under a different much less restrictive SNG, WP:GEOFEAT .  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 03:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you serious?  Are you so clueless that you think I'm a noob.  Just on AfCs (the reverse of an AfD: deciding which drafts are worthy to become articles) alone, I've handled just under 900 (since I started counting).  The number of AfDs I've lvoted on is probably comparable.  What does GEOFEAT have to do with proving this article deserves to survive?  Nothing.  Just because something is old, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is notable.  You have to show this is so with better sources than are currently here, so my statement is perfectly valid and appropriate.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarityfiend , Wow, your experience is very impressive!  Please do not make personal attacks .  — Jacona ( talk ) 17:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Specific discussion and analysis of available source material would be very helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  With the references that have been added, notability is adequately shown.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , sources exist and the article has been improved to reflect that, with possibilities for further improvement based on the long history of sources.  I think WP:HEY applies here, too.  — siro χ o 05:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"2020 Deir ez-Zor ambush: Ecrusized ( talk ) 13:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Terrorism ,  and Syria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree, I made it because it was the deadliest attack on Syrian soldiers by ISIS forces in the new insurgency which has been going on for a few years now.  The attack remains the deadliest attack on soldiers by ISIS in the desert insurgency, it is definitely notable, also just because it occurred in the low-intensity period of the Syrian war doesn't make it not notable. -- Garmin21 ( talk ) 13:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes GNG, sources in article are from Reuters, Guardian, plus a search found [6] , [7] .  // Timothy :: talk 02:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of athletes who came out of retirement: It is nothing new to see some of them being dropped by their teams then take a season out and come back, does that mean they have 'retired'?  Take this example of Fernando Alonso, he did not retire at all.  Despite being without a drive, and despite competing at Le Mans and tried to qualify at Indy in 2019, he was held by his team under contract, then COVID.  Alan Jones may had 'retired' but his racing career elsewhere continued through to 2002.  Overall, I cannot see how this pass WP:LISTN either.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] .  Should I go on?  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But I think that list needs fixing.  There needs to be a subsection on why some of them have come out of retirement.  These reasons can be about money (Niki Lauda), being encouraged to join a new team under familiar teammates (Rob Gronkowski, who retired to avoid being traded off).  Do one-offs really count?  (Tony Hawk, Dale Jr) - this was part of that reason for that AfD.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, but that isn't a reason to delete the article entirely.  WP:FIXIT applies.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you suggesting a section at the start of the article explaining why an athlete might come out of retirement or a narrative for the circumstances of each athlete's retirement and un-retirement?  If the latter, you're talking about something that is no longer a list but a full-fledged article.  If you want to know more about why the guy retired and/or unretired, you can simply read the player's article or the cited sources.  There have been some athletes for whom I added footnotes when their un-retirement was not what we'd think of as a traditional case of an athlete coming out of retirement (e.g. as a publicity stunt, as part of a bet, a player-coach inserting himself into a game, etc.) I think those one-sentence explanations for those strange outlier cases suffices.  Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 17:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  As someone who has contributed to this list (primarily the baseball section) perhaps as significantly as anyone, I have to disagree with your premise.  I am always sure to find sources saying that the athlete actually quit and was not simply unemployed or injured for a year.  For example, I haven't added Joe Page to the list because I searched diligently and wasn't able to find a source saying he quit.  Some of those other sections may need to be better sourced or someone needs to go through and remove those entries which don't fit the actual criteria of the article.  Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 17:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly a notable concept, as noted in the sources provided in this discussion.  This is a perfect example of an article which needs cleanup, not deletion.  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Whilst I agree that it is a clearly a notable concept .  I still think it needs to be in a better quality than this, such as explaining why those sportspoeple retired and came back and remove all one-off comebacks, these are not officially such.  I had already removed some questionable ones such as those in motorsport.  other than that, I offer to call close to this nomination.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Elizabeth, Lady Thurles: All the mentions of the subject in the cited reliable sources in the Wikipedia article are trivial.  I tried find to additional sources.  There seems to be no  monograph for the subject anywhere and surely neither in the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB), nor the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB), nor the Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB).  She is mentioned in genealogical sources such as Burke, Debrett and Cokayne.  She is mainly known as the mother of James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond and therefore mentioned in works about him.  All these mentions are trivial.  On the other hand the article was created in 2012 and has survived until now.  I wonder on which merit.  Johannes Schade ( talk ) 07:23, 19 October 2023 (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/2023 October 19 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility , Ireland ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is difficult to find independent sources about women of this period.  It is not unusual for details to be drawn from articles about male relatives.  Further inline citations would make for improvement. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 09:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The same WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and in this case WP:BASIC criteria apply to women as to men.  She married and had children, but that does not make her notable.  Johannes Schade ( talk ) 19:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Wikipedia has a long practice of articles on mothers of political figures.  Martha Ellen Young Truman is of an era when a woman's main claim to fame was who they gave birth to.   In her case, future US President Harry Truman.  Many of the same are at Category:Mothers of presidents of the United States .  And articles on the mothers of political leaders are not limited to US famous mothers.  The hand that rocked the cradle is the same hand that raised a political leader.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Maile since you are an administrator, your intervention probably is a final decision on the matter.  However, how can being the mother of somebody well-known make a woman notable if WP:INVALIDBIO says ""That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A""?  With all respect due, Johannes Schade ( talk ) 07:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Johannes Schade, I'm not intervening here.   I was only adding my input, which here carries no more weight than anyone else who posts here.  On something like this, an admin is only adding one more opinion.  An un-involved editor will eventually close this AFD, based on all the input above.  Your individual input carries just as much weight as anyone else who posts here.  — Maile ( talk ) 13:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it appears more sources WP:NEXIST to help develop the article and support notability, e.g. via GBooks , Writings on Irish History 1996, Irish Committee of Historical Sciences, p. 70: ""Elizabeth, Lady Thurles her ancestory and her role in the Rebellion of 1641. In Thurles : the cathedral town , pp 41-5 (1989).""  And in "" Female alliances in Cromwellian Ireland: the social and political network of Elizabeth Butler, marchioness of Ormonde "" (her daughter-in-law), Irish Historical Studies (2021), 45 (167), 22–42), a footnote at p. 42 includes: ""On Lady Thurles’ experiences, see O’Dowd, ‘Women and war’, p. 105"", and this source also mentions her in context at p. 41.  ""The Poyntz Family of Acton"" by the Poyntzpass and District Local History Society ( JSTOR ) is not easily accessible but may also have further information and context.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Maile66.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 13:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Great Immigrants Award: Coverage is press releases and PR.  Could be a redirect to Carnegie Corporation of New York .   Possibly a vanity award , a spam magnet at least.  Edwardx ( talk ) 20:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United States of America .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Edwardx, Please find my reply below.  Of course, any further questions I would most certainly answer.  This is my first encounter with the Deletion process and I want to make sure it is done properly.  thanks, Ronald Sexton I wish to argue in the strongest terms for the Great Immigrant Award remain as an entry in Wikipedia.  The award is not a vanity prize, no one can purchase this award and no marketing services are involved.  Adding this to the selection section makes for more clarification: The award is made by Carnegie Corporation of New York, a philanthropic foundation established in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.  In keeping with this mandate, the Corporation's work focuses on the issues that Andrew Carnegie considered of paramount importance: international peace, the advancement of education and knowledge, and the strength of our democracy.  The Great Immigrants award is a part of its democracy program and recognizes naturalized Americans who have made significant contributions that strengthen our democracy and enrich our society.  The award is not available for purchase or as a PR/marketing offering.  The award aims to bring awareness to the positive contributions of naturalized Americans at large.  The award was begun by the Corporation’s previous President Vartan Gregorian.  An immigrant himself, who wish to bring attention the importance of immigrants in all aspects of American life.  I am the primary contributor and based this entry on the Vilcek Prize entry.  Ronald Sexton ( talk ) 17:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In regards to for spam magnet, I was in the process of changing the link in the list of awardees to their individual Wikipedia page instead of going to the Corporation's website.  Ronald Sexton ( talk ) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The awards have received coverage in secondary RS to establish notability, including the AP , UPI , Jewish Journal , and analysis in scholarly tomes [10] .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The deletion criteria states that spam is a reason for deletion only in the context of articles  ""without any relevant or encyclopedic content.""  That is not the case here, as there is reliable sources coverage, and it is an award of one of the most notable philanthropic organizations in the world.  Therefore, the concern about being a ""spam magnet"" is not a proper deletion reason, otherwise millions of articles would be put up for deletion, as we are constantly under duress from spam.  Also, if the point in the initial nomination was that it was only given ""to 35 people in 2023"" (typo fixed) that's not a good argument.  The quantity of awardees per year has never been a valid argument for notability (see the Nobel or Pulitzer Prizes where they typically award fewer than 35 entities per year) as the whole point of an award is that it has standards for selectivity.  The article could be made more NPOV, but deletion is not justified.  - Fuzheado | Talk 23:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Martin Fürer: Looked up ""Martin Furer"" and ""Martin Furer + computer scientist"" and found 2 or 3 sources stating that ""a pair of Australian mathematicians..."", otherwise he's just an educator.  I considered moving to draftspace, however I think it's futile if there are no reliable sources to help improve the page.  shelovesneo ( talk ) 04:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Switzerland .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Would the nominator care to comment if the subject's citation record on Scholar has relevance to WP:Prof#C1 .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 10:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep , enough highly cited publications [44] to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 .  The integer multiplication algorithm is the splashiest (e.g. reported in major mainstream media [45] ) but far from the only significant contribution.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 13:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  This is a new article and appears to be in good faith, let's give it a chance to breathe before deleting.  Professors have several paths to notability.  If not draftify, I lean weak keep because we have some signal pointing toward WP:ACADEMIC -- decent citation counts per Google Scholar [46] , especially on [47] and [48] . — siro χ o 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:Prof as above. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] weak Keep , decent GS profile for his field, with 7 publication that have 100+ citations this should be good enough to pass WP:PROF #1 even though its a close call. -- hroest 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think WP:PROF#C1 is met.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Below Zero (1930 film): I could not find any significant coverage, though coverage in databases and WP:ROTM sources exists, but this does not help in meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG .  The article does not meet any other NFILM criteria.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 22:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Covered in many books, including [4] , [5] , and [6] Donald D23 talk to me 23:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Donald23's sources.  I strongly suspect you can dig into the Internet Archive for contemporary reviews, also.  Honestly, I can't imagine any Laurel and Hardy film failing inclusion standards.  Lubal ( talk ) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Coverage mentioned by Donaldd23 + some I added to the page (see for yourself) + more existing....  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Creth Hines: No sources cited in the article that aren't wide-sweeping databases with low inclusion criteria.  In my WP:BEFORE I did a google search that turned up statistical databases.  I then searched Newspapers.com, which turned up a dozen or so one-sentence mentions [ can be seen here ].  None of these is significant coverage of Creth Hines under WP:SIGCOV .  Instead every one of them is a brief mention that covers the same fact: that Creth Hines was a javelin thrower at Georgetown.  FOARP ( talk ) 11:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics .  FOARP ( talk ) 11:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Kind of surprised I wasn't able to find more for this U.S. national champion.  But I do think we have enough, although its close, for a pass of notability.  The Houston Public Library gives 108 words ( WP:100WORDS ) on Hines, including stating that he was discussed in the book Ku Klux Kulture: America and the Klan in the 1920s for starting up the first Ku Klux Klan baseball team of its kind.  Newspapers.com has some coverage, e.g. an AP story (""Creth Hines Hoping To Set New Record""), a NY Daily News article (""Creth Hines, Georgetown, Eyes Olympic Team""), and a Washington Evening Star article from decades after his career; then there's also shorter pieces that could be considered on the edge of sigcov, e.g. here , here , here and here .  Added up, I think its sufficient to pass WP:GNG .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan11 .  Scorpions1325 ( talk ) 05:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I think that the sources from BeanieFan11 demonstrate that this person has been significantly covered by multiple independent RS, so this article should be kept (and improved).  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Funky Stuff (Kool & the Gang song): Pertinent info can be merged into Wild and Peaceful (Kool & the Gang album) , and the article can be redirected there (or simply deleted since Funky Stuff had been previously created as a redirect).  Chart info is presented in Kool & the Gang discography#Singles .  Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article is certainly notable in corresponding to Wikipedia:Notability (music) with said song's ranking on the US Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart along with the US Billboard Pop Singles chart.  Hence song is well in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (music) in being ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.  What's more the song has been sampled by prominent artistes such as the Beastie Boys , Gangstarr , N.W.A , Dilated Peoples and Mobb Deep .  Accordingly, Funky Stuff has of course been independently released as a single by Kool and the Gang , a quite notable musical artist who's sold over 70 million albums worldwide.  ( Scriber88 ( talk ) 04:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:NSONGS , charting only suggests a song may be notable (significant and independent sourcing must exist outside of that) and Kool & the Gang being ""a quite notable musical artist"" doesn't make the song notable per WP:NOTINHERITED .  Notwithstanding this and the below comment, the amount of coverage is still minimal and second hand; per WP:NSONGS , ""a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article.""  Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  Agreeing with the above comment.  Mentioned in various books as one of the major hits of K&TG (see GB link in this page).  It's even one of their signature songs from a given period ("" 1983 – by which point Kool & the Gang were basically unrecognisable as the band who’d made Funky Stuff or Jungle Boogie"") ( https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/jul/24/kool-the-gang-robert-bell ) ) or at all ( https://eu.indystar.com/story/entertainment/music/2018/08/09/kool-gang-bring-half-century-funky-stuff-fair/945367002/ ).  It's been sampled, covered , quoted.  It's simply a famous and very notable song.  (This being said, something should be made to redirect this to Funky Stuff and make the latter the main article about the song not a redirect to the album; but that's another story.)- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NMUSIC for being featured in the US Billboard charts, sources have also been stated above to meet GNG — Karnataka talk 08:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on WP:NMUSIC grounds; I think we've just about got enough sources here to show WP:GNG , but it would be good to get them into the article: lots of what is cited there is lyrics databases and similar sources that don't necessarily confer notability.  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 16:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep adding to the snow .  ArcAngel (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think there is enough to satisfy GNG, and probably more that is not readily available given that the song is 50 years old and a charting single.  Rlendog ( talk ) 00:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of Harvard Crimson in the NFL Draft: BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America .  BilledMammal ( talk ) 22:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not voting yet, but noting that its commonplace to have list articles on the draft picks of college teams, see the several hundred listed at Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team , some of which are even FLs.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , American football ,  and Massachusetts .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Passes WP:NLIST as coverage exists of former Harvard players drafted in the NFL as a group such as here , here , and here (though the latter just covers Harvard alums who played in the NFL, not draftees specifically), along with the Drafthistory reference already in the page.  Frank Anchor 17:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of those sources, only the ""bleacherreport"" appears to contribute to GNG.  The others clearly don't; both ""247sports"" and ""as"" are lists that lack WP:SIGCOV of the topic.  The draft report currently in the article is the same.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 21:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NLIST does not require the sources contribute to GNG.   It explains that One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources .   The above sources are independent and reliable and discuss the players as a group While some some may or may not be significant, that is not relevant to NLIST.  Frank Anchor 12:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note from the creator.  Keep .  BilledMammal , I think you are confusing WP:NLIST and WP:GNG and you have yet to make a case as to why this article, or other similar list articles, are not notable.  WP:GNG is a handbook for general notability, while WP:NLIST is more specific to lists and I have seen has a somewhat lower standard.  Why is this Harvard list of draftees not notable, but others are?  Also, all of the linked sources mentioned above by User:Frank Anchor do relate to the article and abide by WP:NLIST and WP:GNG .  Please state a case as to why it should be removed beyond your opinion that it is not notable.  Debartolo2917 ( talk ) 05:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The others aren't relevant to this discussion; WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST .  The sources provided by Frank Anchor relate to the article, but of the four (including the one currently in the article) three are only lists of players from the Harvard Crimsons who joined the NFL.  Such lists aren't WP:SIGCOV and don't contribute to notability; unless you can find another source like the bleacherreport one we cannot keep this article.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 05:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Frank Anchor's sources look sufficient.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources given above do prove WP:SIGCOV .  Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 17:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NLIST per Frank Anchor's sources, per all above.  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 00:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NLIST , as noted above.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Vishen Lakhiani: Please review whether the reasons of the previous nomination still apply.  Janhrach ( talk ) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Literature ,  and Malaysia .  Janhrach ( talk ) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Weak Keep Article is ""oh look this man has created a company"" type.  References are extremely poor.  Fails WP:SIGCOV , WP:BIO .  scope_creep Talk 11:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He may get a pass via WP:NAUTHOR .  Worth a look.  If so I'll change my ! vote.  scope_creep Talk There is reviews on the boooks.  I think he probably passes WP:NAUTHOR .  I think he is probably not notable at the moment.  The coverage is quite poor.  scope_creep Talk 12:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep South China Morning Post and BBC seem to be about him, should have enough to keep it.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I concur with Oaktree b .  Additionally, NYT bestseller helps, Mindvalley is quite well known.  TLA (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Faculty of Archaeology: Redirect to University of Warsaw reverted.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Poland .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I assume the part of WP:OUTCOMES you mean is this: Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field.  Have you checked if this isn't one of those exceptions?  – Joe ( talk ) 01:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions .  – Joe ( talk ) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DElete based on quick glimpse I don't think it is notable.  SYSS Mouse ( talk ) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The page is under construction.  It has a higher status than an institute , and has a long history important from the perspective of archaeological research in Poland.  Many important scholars have been working there, such as Kazimierz Michałowski .  Give me some time to improve quality to prove the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES .  Also, look at the category of Category:Archaeological research institutes .  Nbarchaeo ( talk ) 09:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not policy.  There was an RfC a few years back specifically about using SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a rationale for deletion and the outcome was we couldn't.  I'd suggest that if the nominating editor can't give a better rationale, this should be closed procedurally as no valid reason for deletion.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 17:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, it also fails WP:GNG .  All of the sources provided are primary - they are all written and/or published by the University of Warsaw, its staff, and its students.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SailingInABathTub : But have you searched for other sources ?  – Joe ( talk ) 12:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If this page is kept, it needs to be renamed to Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw (or similar, but that is in line with other faculty pages).  Best not to move it until the AfD is complete though.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The faculty of archaeology replaces the institute of archaeology at the University of Warsaw.  This structural change is only 3 years old, and so secondary sources under the name ""faculty of archaeology"" are limited.  They do exist.  Plenty of them.  But mostly they are not significant mentions, as they are largely papers or staff bios that say that the author or whatever is a member of the faculty.  As such it may be TOOSOON to assess SIGCOV for an independently notable faculty.  But that is not the only reason to keep this page.  There is no doubt that the University of Warsaw is notable.  The University of Warsaw page is a reasonable length.  Readable prose is not much over 1,000 words, but the total word count, including all the lists etc., takes it well over 4,000 words.  So the question is whether the faculty of Archaeology is a good candidate for a spinout.  Apparently the faculty is the largest academic institute of its kind in Poland [39] .  Wikipedia also has other faculty spinout pages of various levels of quality, such as Faculty of Law of Paris (almost certainly independently notable), Faculty of Arts, Charles University (not clearly independently notable), Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University (not clearly notable and not clearly a good spinout).  I also searched previous AfDs and found a number of past AfDs of faculty articles, many of which were deleted.  E.g. [40] - redirect, [41] - no consensus, [42] - no consensus, [43] - delete, [44] - delete.  What I take from this evidence is that we do allow spinout faculty articles, but there has to be a reason why the spinout is warranted.  A stub article for an inconsequential faculty should be deleted, redirect or merged to the parent institution (and that may be the case for some existing faculty pages).  But where a parent institution's page is large, and where much can be said about the faculty, we allow the spinout.  In this case the faculty may be new but the institute isn't, and there is evidence for it being signficant.  Its output certainly seems to be significant.  Moreover this page was nominated for deletion hours after it was created, and no questions of notability etc. were raised on the article talkpage.  It is already improved from the point of nomination, and this may be a case where WP:DEMOLISH should have been considered and a talk page discussion started.  I therefore lean towards keeping this one (but with the name changed to Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw ).  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Well, I've tried asking, but it's been a few days now and no valid deletion rationale is forthcoming.  Asserting that sources aren't there isn't enough; there has to be a reasonable search (which would, in this case, at least include sources in Polish).  Sirfurboy makes a good case that these should exist above.  – Joe ( talk ) 11:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Failing WP:GNG , as stated above, is a valid deletion rational.  Particularly as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the University of Warsaw has not been presented in either the article or this discussion.  Stating WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not enough to pass WP:V .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not how it works , I'm afraid.  You need to give us some evidence that the sources don't exist – not just that they're not in the article right now .  Otherwise, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence .  Why should we spend time searching for sources when you, the person seeking its deletion, apparently haven't bothered?  There are 56 references listed in the article and as far as I can tell not a single sentence is uncited, so this is not a question of verifiability.  – Joe ( talk ) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have searched for suitable sources in English.  I have not searched for sources in Polish, as I do not speak Polish and therefore it is not reasonable for me to do so.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page has 56 sources cited on it.  More than twice as many as at its nomination.  Some lack independence, and many are primary, but when a source like this one [45] discusses the Warsaw school of thought, that points to significance.  Have you done any source analysis to explain why these references do not demonstrate SIGCOV?  Or would you perhaps accept that this one is a candidate for WP:HEY ?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I reviewed the sources in the article, this one stood out as potentially significant coverage.  I read the entire chapter.  It refers only to archaeology students at the University of Warsaw (and other Polish universities), it does not mention the faculty once.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it doesn't.  It does mention the institute though and seems to predate the creation of the faculty.  It also has good evidence for the significance of the faculty in Poland, because, for instance, it shows that Warsaw University produced most archaeologists in Poland in the period 1949-1980 (about 36% of the total) (page 202), and there are other indications of the university's significance.  The significance in that paper shows the significance of Archaeology at Warsaw.  My other comments above therefore pertain.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Comment There are very few sources on the Institute (1975-2020) or the Faculty (2020-), as it was formally established in 1975.  Most of the works focus on the development of archaeology in Poland, or Warsaw.  There are several archaeological institutions in Warsaw, the history of which is somewhat intertwined.  Usually such works are written after an jubilee.  A first work summarizing the history 'Dzieje archeologii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim' [History of archaeology at the University of Warsaw] was published in 1993.  [1] For more information, I found in the history of the Department of Historical Anthropology, which later became the Department of Bioarchaeology.  [2] A few years ago, the Institute celebrated its 100th anniversary (1918-2018).  [3] Nbarchaeo ( talk ) 16:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename Faculty of Archaeology (University of Warsaw) : The research cited and sources in the article are enough to meet GNG.  No objection if a consensus exists for another title, I may have the convention wrong.  // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is extensively cited and the topic has significant history; certainly the kind of spin-out article we keep on individual faculties.  I think the correct rename is to Faculty of Archaeology, Warsaw .  This is the normal way to name faculty and sub-colleges as far as I am aware.  See eg Keble College, Oxford .  -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Mikocki, T. (1993), KOZŁOWSKI, S.K.; KOLENDO, J. (eds.), ""Historia zbiorów starożytniczych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego"", Dzieje archeologii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim , Warszawa, pp. 27–40 ^ Sołtysiak, Arkadiusz; Jaskulski, P. (2000),  written at Warsaw , Anthropology at Warsaw University.  Antropologia na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim (PDF) , Warszawa, pp. 25–33 {{ citation }} :  CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link ) ^ Wróblewski, W. ; Klecha, A. (2020).  ""Archeologia jako fenomen kulturowy: 100 lat warszawskiej archeologii"".  Wydział Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego i inne aarcheologiczne ośrodki w Warszawie (PDF) .  pp. 51–59.  ISBN 978-83-951650-5-4 .  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.",keep
"Battle of Hasan Abdal (1813): Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 6 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have repaired this somewhat malformed nomination, which initially proposed deleting the nonexistent Battle of Hasan Abdal article.  (That this indicates possible overdisambiguation is a matter not necessarily relevant to AfD.)  No opinion or further comment at this time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Afghanistan ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources are reliable and from historians.  The article can be expanded on from existing sources.  Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 17:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Hari Ram Gupta is a reliable source.  Contemporary sources do not matter, see WP:RS , and WP:HISTRS .  Noorullah ( talk ) 02:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like more review of sources and whether or not this small ""battle"" was, in fact, notable.  Nominator, who didn't sign their statement, was User:Festivalfalcon873 Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the above comments.  Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Hélène Jawhara Piñer: Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 11:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , France ,  and Spain .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : no obvious evidence of self promotion or other COI, the article is well referenced to reliable secondary sources, and a basic search easily turns up more, so clearly passses WP:BASIC .  Jonathan A Jones ( talk ) 13:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it appears WP:BASIC notability is supported for her work as a scholar, writer, and chef, e.g. ""Hélène Jawhara Piñer is a Sephardic cookbook author with a PhD in medieval history and the history of food who's been recognised and awarded by a number of organisations, including most recently the Society for Crypto-Judaic Studies , for her engagement with Sephardic history research.""  ( BBC , 2022); articles about and reviews of her books e.g. Sephardi: Cooking the History, Recipes of the Jews of Spain and the Diaspora, From the 13th Century to Today : LAT  (2021), Forward  (2021, ""[she spent] six years researching the recipes of Iberian Jews of the Middle Ages""), Hadassah Magazine  (2021), Jewish Book World  (2021), SUR  (2022); e.g. Jews, Food, and Spain : Jewish Book Council  (Judges' remarks include ""also as a chef, she brings that vast wealth of knowl­edge and years of expe­ri­ence in the kitchen to her enlight­en­ing his­tor­i­cal study""); event announcement: UPenn  (2023)  ""This book was finalist of the Jewish Book Awards in the “Sephardic Culture” category, in 2023.""  While the article could benefit from some regular editing, available sources can help with the process.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep WP:SK3 : Nomination rationale is completely erroneous.  The main contributor appears to be a student in a Wikipedia-improvement project from the University of Pennsylvania; no self-promotion evident.  Some cleanup is needed (e.g. to remove external links in inline text and replace talk announcements, primary sources, and sources for off-topic material that are not about the subject herself by better secondary sources) but that is not a valid deletion reason either.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm finding no evidence of self-promotion or conflict of interest.  Fuligo septica , care to elaborate or provide evidence?  I'm also a bit curious how you became such a fast learner since this nomination was you 85th edit ever.  The article seems sourced.  Meets WP:BASIC and probably also WP:NAUTHOR based on the reviews of her books, and one of her books was a finalist for a notable award, and apparently she has received other awards.  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets NAUTHOR and is covered by popular press as well.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:SNOW .  Easy pass of WP:NAUTHOR .  pburka ( talk ) 04:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 04:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable author.  Carrite ( talk ) 15:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is ample evidence here that the notability standard is met.  A claim of ""self-promotion"" is insufficient to merit deletion.  Alansohn ( talk ) 03:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Debate on mixed script and hangeul exclusivity: I am pretty sure its subject is notable, but it cites almost no sources, and the ones it does cite only tangentially or ephemerally relate to the claims it makes.  Since it likely requires some working knowledge of Korean to rewrite this article into any adequate state, and its value is presently purely negative, I suggest deletion for now.  Remsense 诉 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Politics ,  and Korea .  Remsense 诉 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seeing how bad it is, I Support deletion, or at the bare minimum, draftification.  ''Flux55'' ( talk ) 06:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tentative delete .  The subject is definitely notable, but the article's bad.  For notability, if anyone wants I can pull up sources, but hopefully it's evident why changing the standard Korean writing system was seen as a big deal.  Debate involved nationalism, Korean independence activism , and practical linguistic concerns.  IMO the debate went on for around a century; it only really died down in the 1990s.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Precisely, and that's why I flinch so much nominating it—but the very fact that it's an important subject means it's a problem that the article is presently in such a state, and I do not have the expertise to properly fix it.  Remsense 诉 08:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote the article several years ago when I was several years younger and therefore (only slightly) stupider than I am now.  I have gained a lot more legitimate expertise on the topic now to probably be able to write a legitimately good article on it and could do so if you would like.  The original is very charged and highly opinionated.  I agree, is not well suited for this website.  Zgw3kszo ( talk ) 00:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking this cordially, I appreciate the good faith.  I would appreciate the opportunity to read another revision of this article.  Remsense 诉 06:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm happy to hear that.  Should I just revise the existing article?  Zgw3kszo ( talk ) 07:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you from me as well for the dialogue and offer to revise.  Yes, if there's a guarantee of significant revision, I'm happy to vote keep, and I think others would vote to keep as well.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 09:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be happy to revise it into a far better article.  What kind of timeframe should I aim for?  Zgw3kszo ( talk ) 01:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a native Korean speaker, I will try what I can do with it.  The article itself is definitely notable, and I think it most of its issues are susceptible to revisions.  00101984hjw ( talk ) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article.  I think the article still has some hopes of being revised into a decent article.  I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'll try my best to find additional sources and copywrite the text.  00101984hjw ( talk ) 04:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the edits that are now being done to the article.  I often run into relevant information about this debate; I may add my own copyedits and details at a later point too.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Jilly Juice: Sure, it was picked up by a buncha newspapers who laughed and tut-tutted about the ridiculousness and encouraged shock over the horrific health outcomes of it all, but, in sum, this is a story about a woman with a kinda of personality disorder who drummed up a small following on the internet and ran afoul of the FTC.  Wikipedia, ultimately, is an encyclopedia.  This is not encyclopedic and there is no decent way to discuss this and other similar snake oil flashes in the pan.  The article is pretty poor because it does not do much more than scoff.  And rightly so.  The subject is asinine on the face.  This is why I think Wikipedia ought to exclude it as a subject.  It's not a particularly popular fad, it seems to have no staying power, and I think those who were involved in keeping the article up were hoodwinked by tabloid journalism and train-wreck fascination.  jps ( talk ) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Medicine .  jps ( talk ) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article does need to be trimmed down a fair bit.   But references 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 (at least) are significant and reliable coverage, and I think we should have a record of ridiculous quack nonsense like this for when these bogus health claims get resurrected on the next social media platform.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a standalone article?  It seems that this just serves as a WP:SENSATION record at that point.  jps ( talk ) 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG -decent sources like [1] [2] [3] [4] There is a WP:SUSTAINED weakness in these sources being mostly 2018, but as of 2023 [42] , JJ is not forgotten.  Being asinine is not a reason to delete/exclude, that is WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and that essay is an essay).  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 12:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not so much ""I don't like it"".  More ""how is this worthy of an article""?  There are lots of things I don't like that are obviously worthy of articles.  This one strikes me as entirely ginned up because of the tabloid journalism and social media hyping.  I think that makes it a subject that fails WP:ENC prima facie .  YMMV, of course.  This is, after all, the encyclopedia of Pokemon as well.  :/ jps ( talk ) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång rationale, ongoing coverage proves staying power of the phenomenon.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 21:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It raised mild interest for a news cycle, and now society has moved on, and so should we.  TypoBoy ( talk ) 19:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is another pseudoscience scam that can best be handled as a small subsection in a related article such as juice fasting .  It's just another variant on that, only with a proprietor who knew how to better market her particular scam than most.  — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 20:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is still relevant and will be helpful for vulnerable people who might be tempted to try the product and do an internet search on it first.  The fact that people are talking much less about the initial sensational story doesn't change the fact that Jilly Juice still exists and is still potentially dangerous to new customers.  Besides that,current newsworthiness is a poor criteria for the value of information.  2600:1702:680:D00:793A:1A55:5512:8DD ( talk ) 04:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems well sourced, interesting historical curiosity I suppose.  Article could use a rewrite to focus on the investigation and shutdown of the product, but that's not really for AfD Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There are some quite in-depth reliable sources on the topic (e.g. the 4 mentioned by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång), and the fact that it's still getting referenced by RS in 2023 as an interesting historical example of an alternative medicine health scam means it's probably going to continue to be an interesting/notable ""historical curiosity"" (as Oaktree said) into the future.  (Also, less important, but WP:ONEEVENT is about BLPs, so not applicable here).  Endwise ( talk ) 07:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Gråbergs and Oaktree.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Lucchesi, Emilie Le Beau (February 1, 2020).  ""Cure or Con? Health products touted on social media are slipping by regulators"" .  ABA Journal .  Retrieved August 11, 2022 .  ^ Subbaraman, Nidhi (March 17, 2018).  ""Here's How A ""Poop Cult"" With 58,000 Followers Set Off A Facebook War"" .  Buzzfeed News .  Retrieved November 12, 2019 .  ^ Schwarcz, Joseph (June 1, 2018).  ""The Right Chemistry: Beware of self-proclaimed health experts"" .  Montreal Gazette .  Retrieved January 5, 2020 .  ^ Rahhal, Natalie (October 7, 2018).  "" 'Poop cult' leader 'can't be held accountable' for followers death"" .  The New Zealand Herald .  Retrieved January 5, 2020 .  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.",keep
"Louise Ipsen: No other citations can be found.  Google books found some passing mentions matching her name, but they could be for others with the same name.  Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople .  Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  I found no notable coverage to back up this article.  Zero.  It sorely fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BIO .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Once sources used, while a RS, is barely a one-liner.  Swedish Enclyclopedia?  which seems ok, but I can't find anything else about this individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One hit in Gscholar, appears to be a bio in German, but I'm not sure it's the same person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reason why you can't find sources about this person is because she is Danish.  Thus, she may not have many English language references, because the English speaking world has, until the era of the internet, not been very interested to write about the more obscure subjects of Danish history, such as notable women.  She is a Dane, and she is included in the danish language encylopedia of notable women of Danish history.  If you judge notablity from how many English language references there are about her, then there are many, many notable women of history that you should delete from Wikipedia.  Prior to internet, the English speaking world wrote very sparingly about the more obscure history (in this case, women's history) subjects of smaller countries such as Denmark.  It is one of the good things about the internet era that these obscure topics can be translated and made availabile to the English speaking world, since foreign language references are accepted in Wikipedia.  It would not be a good policy to contradict that development.  -- Aciram ( talk ) 21:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gscholar didn't turn up sources in any language, that's the issue.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not uncommon for obscure historical subjects which are less well known.  Historical 19th-century women of small countries are not likely to have much information online even when they are notable.  For example: there was zero results on Swedish actresses of the pre-1773 period online until they were given their first articles in Swedish language wikipedia.  None.  That was because Swedish theater history of that period was not even much known among Swedes, only the experts.  The internet era is changing all that.  Not every notable subject is yet online, particularly not about obscure subjects such as ""women's history"" which has long been neglected, and not all books are digitalized.  They are however to be found in actual material books outside of the internet, in this case not English language books.  -- Aciram ( talk ) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Aciram and WP:ANYBIO #3. pburka ( talk ) 00:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Regardless of gender, if major business executives of Denmark and other such countries qualify for inclusion on enWP, this should be kept. I am about to edit the article slightly for clarity. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk ) 17:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a business executive does not qualify anyone for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  However, being included in a dictionary of national biography does (per WP:ANYBIO ).  pburka ( talk ) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You apparently missed the word ""major"" in my comment.  Had you not missed it, I doubt you'd have thought your objection was warranted.  -- SergeWoodzing ( talk ) 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which notability guideline supports the inclusion of major business executives? pburka ( talk ) 21:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No notability guideline specifies categories of people of major interest. I'm surprised you don't know that. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk ) 11:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Aciram.  - Yupik ( talk ) 11:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : There are many versions of her names.  So far, I have come across Christine Louise Ipsen, Christine Lovise Ipsen, Louise Ipsen, Lovise Ipsen, Bjerring, Bierring , Biering, Bjering, etc (and I had never heard of her before seeing this AfD a half hour ago).  She is listed in the census of 1850 as Lovise Bjerring .  - Yupik ( talk ) 12:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Significance is established in the first couple sentences.  This is not a living person so we do not need extensive sourcing.  It seems that further sourcing is being researched though, and further strong sources if found will further bolster the case for keeping.  - Pete Forsyth ( talk ) 16:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Aciram Elttaruuu ( talk ) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Leith Ross (singer): The strongest notability claim here is of the ""got X number of streams on Spotify"" variety, which is no part of our notability criteria for musicians at all.  The ""awards"" criterion, meanwhile, is looking for top-level national awards that get media coverage for the purposes of establishing the notability of the award, such as a Grammy or a Juno, so the ""John Prine Songwriter Fellowship"" (sourced to its own self-published content about itself) isn't cutting it -- and the touring criterion is not automatically passed by every single musician who does a tour, but requires the tour itself to be the subject of media coverage (e.g. concert reviews, analysis of the creative significance of the tour, etc.) in GNG-worthy media sources, and just sourcing the existence of a tour to press releases self-published by the artist's record label to announce the tour isn't good enough.  But this is referenced almost entirely to bad sources that aren't GNG-building at all -- blogs, PR self-published by Leith Ross's record label, university student media, Q&A interviews where Leith Ross is answering questions in the first person rather than being talked about or analyzed in the third, and on and so forth.  Out of 20 footnotes, just one (an album review in Exclaim! ) counts as a reliable or GNG-building source at all, but one valid source isn't enough all by itself.  Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when Leith has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this, but nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete regretfully, per WP:MILL and WP:TOOSOON .  Firstly, there are reg flags .  There is slight notability and coverage, but not a fair amount .  If this artist had even won a notable queer performing arts fellowship, such as BOFFO or FIAR, then I would advocate for inclusion.  (For fans of this artist, they could apply for next year.)  Finally, I must agree with the nom as far as WP:NBAND applies.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 07:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , appears TOOSOON.  At this point, there just isn't enough about the person to craft an article here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : The article needs beefing up and clean up for sure, but at a glance it clearly meets WP:BAND on at least criteria 1 (I see headlining articles from Clash , The Michigan Daily , Exclaim! , ON Magazine , and Yahoo! in the reflist), and since they seem to have toured both nationally in Canada and internationally in the US and Europe, that would meet criteria 4 as well.  Again, the article needs a lot of work, but I'd say it absolutely meets the notability requirements to avoid deletion and deserves a chance to be improved.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 21:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional: I just edited the article to add more RS sources and better reflect their notability.  They've been pretty widely covered by notable outlets like Clash , Exclaim!  , Canada's National Observer , and Them , (some of it from before they went viral), as well as by notable bloggers like Alan Cross and Eric Alper , are signed to Interscope and Republic Records , and have toured internationally with Lord Huron , Andy Shauf , and Helena Deland .  Notability seems pretty secure at this point.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 00:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also just want to state that though the John Prine fellowship is not a Grammy, it is still an immense honor, especially for Ross to be the first ever recipient.  Newport Folk Festival is one of the oldest, most iconic festivals and music institutions in America and Prine was folk royalty.  His sudden death, especially being from COVID at the beginning of the pandemic, was a tragedy to many legendary songwriters and industry decision-makers.  To have Ross, who has only been putting music out since the pandemic started, be chosen as the recipient of the first fellowship in his name, on behalf of Newport, is a major feat!  Just wanted to put this out there because I know many fellowships can be simpler in essence to achieve but this one truly demonstrates the faith industry titans have in Ross and their abilities.  Elttaruuu ( talk ) 04:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Elttaruuu brings up a good point; the Newport Folk Festival isn't some small local thing, it's been running since 1959 and has hosted historic events like the Electric Dylan controversy and key early performances by Kris Kristofferson and James Taylor , and John Prine is widely regarded as one of the most influential and revered folk singer-songwriters of his generation.  It's not the only point of notability here to be sure, but an artist being the first to receive an award of that pedigree before they've even released a full album is no small feat.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Generally awards of the significance we’re talking about merit their own page.  This one isn’t even mentioned on the festival page.  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True, which is why I said it's not the only point of notability.  For that I would point to substantial coverage in multiple RS sources, touring internationally with notable artists, and being signed to two major labels.  Subject pretty solidly fulfills WP:BAND from where I'm sitting, especially for a newer TikTok artist.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 04:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m still reviewing the overall coverage to make up my mind, but the award is not a point of notability at all.  Also touring is not in and of itself important: only the extent to which there is non-trivial coverage of a tour, which the entry doesn’t offer.  Label also does not go to wiki notability.  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 04:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do see your point (I'd argue that being signed to Republic and Interscope is a big deal but granted that releasing a few singles on a major is not the same as releasing a full album with one).  I think the coverage from National Observer, Clash, and Exclaim! count for a lot (and even the non-notable sources seem to largely be either notable bloggers or sites that at least have an editorial staff),  but I recognize that simple album reviews and news of song releases are sometimes considered non-trivial.  I'd argue the subject still has a fair amount of notability, and at most I would recommend moving to draftspace rather than deleting, as I suspect they will receive more substantial coverage with their album coming out.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s also not on the folk fest page because it happened last year and as iconic and critical as so many events like these are to these festivals they have also become major money makers in the last couple of decades and are focused on devoting everything to upcoming profit.  Red Line Roots, a prominent folk magazine, spoke about longtime director and producer of the festival introducing Leith personally to the crowd and getting emotional speaking about Prine’s impact and carrying that on through musicians like Leith Ross.  http://www.redlineroots.com/2022/09/newport-2022/ Elttaruuu ( talk ) 05:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Longtime director and producer *Jay Sweet Elttaruuu ( talk ) 05:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It also appears Ross may have opened the festival and their performance and achievement of the fellowship was named in Rolling Stone https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/newport-folk-festival-best-performances-1386848/amp/ Elttaruuu ( talk ) 05:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The extent to which any award makes its winners notable enough for Wikipedia articles by virtue of having won it is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which you can or cannot source their win to media coverage demonstrating that the award would pass WP:GNG in the first place.  Awards that cannot be sourced to media coverage are not notable awards, and cannot make their winners notable for winning them.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is Rolling Stone and Red Line Roots not media coverage?  Elttaruuu ( talk ) 17:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, for starters, ""Red Line Roots"" is a WordPress blog, not a real or reliable media outlet, so it counts for absolutely nothing toward establishing the notability of anyone or anything.  Secondly, at the time I initiated this discussion (and at the time I added this comment), the only source for the John Prine fellowship was also a blog entry on another unreliable blog that isn't a notability builder either.  Rolling Stone is certainly a legitimate and usable source, but it wasn't in the article the last time I looked at it, and thus it's not my job to have known about a source that wasn't in the article yet.  But overall, evaluating the sources that are in the article now, the balance of the footnoting is still tilted far too strongly onto bad sources that don't establish notability, like Red Line Roots and the All-Campus Radio Network and YouTube videos and glancing namechecks of Leith Ross's existence in sources that aren't about Leith Ross (e.g. a person isn't notable just because some other person says ""I like their music"" in an interview that's fundamentally about that other person, so the Allison Ponthier interview in Cosmopolitan is not helping to establish any notability).  What's left for reliable source coverage that has Leith Ross as its subject simply doesn't add up to enough .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From Rolling Stone: Leith Ross Carries On John Prine’s Legacy This year’s Newport kicked off in full force with a stunning Friday-morning opening from Leith Ross, the first-ever recipient of the festival’s John Prine Songwriter Fellowship.  The Ottawa-raised singer-songwriter’s set of cry-laugh originals honored the late legend’s legacy in more ways than one, as they shared moving songs about family (“Understood”), hard-to-forget flames (“I’d Have to Think About It”), and a song about the melancholy of mortality disguised as an homage to Ross’ grandfather (“Tommy”).  “Oh, what a terrible burden/These decisions of mine,” they sang on the latter, just one of many gut-punch lines from a singer who seems poised for a career full of many more of those to come.  Elttaruuu ( talk ) 13:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just FYI, @ Elttaruuu , the content matters much less than how much content there is.  So instead of quoting a paragraph, it would be much more helpful to show there are many paragraphs in many good-quality sources.  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 14:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clash (multiple articles from), The Michigan Daily, Exclaim! , ON Magazine, Yahoo!, The Canada Observer, Them --- what am I missing here?  Elttaruuu ( talk ) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] feels absurd to act as though there aren't thousands of music articles on here with far less notability than this one that still pass notability Elttaruuu ( talk ) 15:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read WP:OSE .  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 15:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Michigan Daily has been removed as it’s student media at a school with no connection to Leith.  I will continue to look through the others but as Bearcat says and I have pointed out to you previously, it’s really hard to suss out the case for notability when an entry has a large number of sources that are poor-quality or only passing mentions.  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 15:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nearly every article here is entirely focused on the subject at hand, minus the festival articles because these magazines rarely cover individual artist sets when they have so much coverage to do of an event.  Elttaruuu ( talk ) 15:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry to say I'm starting to see the arguments against.  While it's true the subject has coverage from know  reliable outlets, with the exception of maybe the National Observer article, most of them either aren't focused on Ross or are album reviews or short news updates about new singles, which don't usually count for non-trivial coverage since music sites do those for thousands of artists and they don't usually give much info about the artist.  I do maintain that I think this article should be moved to draftspace rather than deleted wholesale, as I think the artist is likely to receive more coverage in the near future with an album coming out on a major label.  But at least at present, I'm starting to see the arguments against notability.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Randykitty ( talk ) 15:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment, besides winning a fellowship, there still isn't critical discussion of the artist.  I'm not seeing notability, likely TOOSOON.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Same here.  Like I said, I'm in favor of it being moved to draft, at least temporarily, to see if their debut album's release generates more significant coverage.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 23:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep Ross has had lots of coverage in major publication (indeed I came here because they're featured as the main artist on NME.com).  Perhaps there wasn't much coverage once upon a time, but I think it's one of the most obvious keeps I've see Cavie78 ( talk ) 23:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The NME article is actually really helpful, since it's a non-trivial profile and not just routine coverage like an album review or news announcement.  In fact, assuming we're also counting this National Observer article as non-trivial coverage (which I personally would, as their picture is at the top and it discusses their music and an album they helped organize in significant detail), that could be enough to satisfy WP:BAND ?  I think I might be changing my vote to keep.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 02:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also this AllMusic bio .  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 03:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I would not call this a particularly strong case ( Cavie78 , I see this is only the second AfD you’ve participated in since 2010–notability criteria have gotten a lot more stringent since then), but, definitely it’s improved with the NME profile.  The sum is good enough for me.  Innisfree987 ( talk ) 06:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] is plenty enough to meet WP:MUSIC bullet 1; with those five sources alone I would have written the article myself.  Chubbles ( talk ) 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm back at Keep .  There's enough coverage at this point.  Invisiboy42293 ( talk ) 15:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Gustaf Wachtmeister: Fails the general notability policy, as well as the biography-specific one.  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military ,  and Sweden .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Plenty of available sources, like Swedish encyclopedias.  See Svenska män och kvinnor : biografisk uppslagsbok , Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon or his entry in Nordisk familjebok .  Swedish Wikipedia also refers to Ätten Wachtmeister genom seklerna by sv:Sven Grauers , which I don't have access to right now.  Easily notable just looking at what's been digitalized, however.  / Julle ( talk ) 00:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Entries in various Nordic encyclopedias clearly establish notability.  Jfire ( talk ) 00:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG per above.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I quick check turns up possible sources per WP:NEXIST .  I sure hope someone adds a few to the article.  Lightburst ( talk ) 21:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Firefox 2 : would like to also suggest that the following be deleted as well Firefox 3.0 Firefox 3.5 Firefox 3.6 Firefox 4 1keyhole ( talk ) 02:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Clearly verifiable and notable.  Delete this article will definitely hurt Wikipedia.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 03:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong oppose: Nothing inherently wrong with any of these articles, what are you getting at exactly?  Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 21:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The articles included are closer in scope to Windows 98 than a hypothetical article on Firefox 98 (since the versions of Firefox in question are before Firefox changed their release model and those releases were major releases.) Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  To delete this article and the ones similar to it would be akin to deleting articles like Mac OS X 10.0 , Windows 98 , Android Eclair and numerous other articles like them.  They're major releases of software and are of relative importance; as The person who loves reading stated, this will most certainly harm Wikipedia.  Dawnbails ( talk ) 11:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all of them for now .  We need to see what's going to happen with Firefox version history and Firefox early version history first.  There may be a case eventually for merging these into the latter, but the general trend around Firefox version articles for the last decade has been to split them up given how long the pages were getting — so unless those version history pages are extensively cleaned up a merge is probably unwise.  For the time being, these are short but well-written & well-sourced articles about browser versions that were very popular at the time of their release, and so are important to people wanting to understand the development of the web.  They belong on Wikipedia.  – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me!  15:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable software.  Klausness ( talk ) 12:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Nasib : Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'll try and improve the page so that it is easier to see that it meets WP:NFILM .  Thanks. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (NB- In general, for released films with multiple sources, a redirect should be/is considered (to either director/list of film of the year by country).  [ reply ] Comment : There is this in UtusanTV.  There appears be SIGCOV in 120 Malay Movies .  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 00:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Besides the above there is also this , this , this , this and this , which should be enough for GNG.  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided above.  Does seem to meet WP:GNG .  S5A-0043 Talk 12:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per identified sources.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Battle of the Tendra Spit : It's definitively interesting.  However it's just one of the many Ukrainian landing incursions that have happened in the occupied southern territories.  So far these have been covered at Dnieper campaign (2022–present) .  As you can see by looking at the article there have been many such operations, with some being of a longer and larger extent than this one, and yet they don't have their own article.  I think this should be merged there.  We can't give an article to every single individual operation of this war.  Super Ψ Dro 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Russia ,  and Ukraine .  Super Ψ Dro 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST : The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.  Just because there have been many such operations and most do not have their own articles, some of which may be more deserving of one, does not mean that there is anything wrong with an editor singling one out and expanding it into an article.  ( WP:SUMMARYSTYLE )  The separate article provides information for the reader at a level of detail not available in the main article, and merging it into the main article would be WP:UNDUE .  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the battle was a separate landing from the Deniper campaign.  Also the tendra split is located in the Black Sea.  Not the Deniper river Salfanto ( talk ) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also I spelt Dnieper wrong.  My bad Salfanto ( talk ) 12:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move I agree with those above who say that this cannot be adequately covered in any other article.  But the current title, ""Battle of the Tendra Spit,"" does not seem to be sourced.  While many sources refer to the event taking place as a battle (such as this one ), it doesn't seem like any of them are refering to it as ""the Battle of the Tendra Spit.""  Gödel2200 ( talk ) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Sept Days : Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per completely absent significant coverage -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 13:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Guo, Yanxi 郭妍汐; Liu, Jinpeng 刘金鹏 (2016-10-14).  ""七天•10周年：加拿大七天文化传媒2006-2016"" [Sept Days·10th Anniversary: Canadian Sept Days Cultural Media 2006–2016].  People's Daily (in Chinese).  Archived from the original on 2024-05-22 .  Retrieved 2024-05-22 .  The article notes: ""《七天》报创刊于2006年7月7日。刊头为中英法三语《Sept七天  Days》, 以体现《七天》生活在加拿大多元文化的氛围之中，又由于《七天》是在官方语言为法语的加拿大魁北克省注册，因此法语优先。《七天》报为周报，一周七天，其含义是关注和涵盖生活的每一天。"" From Google Translate: """"Sept Days"" newspaper was founded on 7 July 2006.  The masthead is ""Sept Days"" in Chinese, English and French to reflect that ""Sept Days"" lives in a multicultural atmosphere in Canada.  And because ""Sept Days"" is registered in the Canadian province of Quebec, where the official language is French, French is given priority.  ""Sept Days"" is a weekly newspaper, seven days a week, which means to pay attention to and cover every day of life. "" The article notes: ""2007年，七天派记者奔赴阿富汗战场，对有加拿大军队参加的这场战争的性质和意义进行了零距离的观察和报道，七天记者胡宪成为海外华文媒体战地记者第一人；"" From Google Translate: ""In 2007, Sept Days sent reporters to the battlefield in Afghanistan to conduct close-up observations and reports on the nature and significance of the war involving Canadian troops.  Sept Days reporter Hu Xian became the first overseas Chinese-language media war correspondent;"" Cong, Ling 葱岭 (2021-09-06). ""加拿大蒙城，一位金融人的华丽变身"" [Montreal, Canada, a financial man's gorgeous transformation]. Xinmin Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22 . Retrieved 2024-05-22 . The article notes: ""这是一家活跃在加拿大法语城市蒙特利尔的华文媒体，创办16年，累计出版了上千期的中法文报纸杂志和8部书籍。 它是第一个向阿富汗派出战地记者的海外华文媒体，也是两次受邀随加拿大总理访华的当地华文媒体。 它创办读者俱乐部，举办了几十场各类文化、体育、商务活动，成了当地华人的联系纽带和精神家园。 "" From Google Translate: ""This is a Chinese-language media active in Montreal, a French-speaking city in Canada.  It was founded 16 years ago and has published thousands of issues of Chinese and French newspapers and magazines and 8 books.  It is the first overseas Chinese-language media to send war correspondents to Afghanistan, and it is also the local Chinese-language media twice invited to visit China with the Canadian Prime Minister.  It established readers’ clubs and held dozens of cultural, sports, and business activities of various types, becoming a link and spiritual home for local Chinese. "" The article notes: ""2006年，尹灵再次辞职，创办华文报纸《七天》。 那年，她40岁。 "" From Google Translate: ""In 2006, Yin Ling resigned again and founded the Chinese newspaper ""Sept Days"".  That year, she was 40 years old. "" The article notes: ""《七天》从一开始就摒弃了很多海外中文报纸翻译本地新闻、复制粘贴的做法，坚持自己采访、自己撰稿，一下子吸引了大批读者。 "" From Google Translate: ""From the beginning, ""Sept Days"" abandoned many overseas Chinese newspapers' practices of translating local news and copying and pasting.  It insisted on doing its own interviews and writing its own articles, and it suddenly attracted a large number of readers. "" Xu, Chang-an 徐长安 (2016-10-29). ""加拿大《七天》传媒发布法文报《La Connexion》"" [Canada's ""Sept Days"" media releases French newspaper ""La Connexion""] (in Chinese). China News Service . Archived from the original on 2024-05-22 . Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Sina Corporation . The article notes: ""蒙特利尔华文媒体《七天》传媒10月28日晚在当地举行晚宴，庆祝该报创立10周年。 该报新创办的法文报纸《La Connexion》也正式发布。 加拿大总理多为《七天》10周年庆祝活动发来贺信。 特鲁多说，值此《七天》传媒10周年之际，"" From Google Translate: ""Montreal Chinese-language media ""Sept Days"" held a dinner locally on the evening of October 28 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the newspaper's founding.  The newspaper's new French-language newspaper ""La Connexion"" was also officially launched.  The Prime Minister of Canada has sent congratulatory messages to celebrate the 10th anniversary of ""Sept Days"".  Trudeau said that on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of ""Sept Days"" media,"" Li, Dan 李丹 (2016-11-10). ""加拿大七天传媒成立十周年庆典在蒙特利尔举行"" [The 10th anniversary celebration of Sept Days in Canada was held in Montreal]. 美中时报 [ Sino-US Times ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22 . Retrieved 2024-05-22 . The article notes: ""《七天》是世界各国领导人访问加拿大时的必邀华文媒体。 中国国务院总理李克强在2016年9月23日访问加拿大时，亦特邀《七天》参与了华文媒体座谈会。 "" From Google Translate: """"Sept Days"" is the Chinese-language media that must be invited when world leaders visit Canada.  When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada on September 23, 2016, he specially invited ""Seven Days"" to participate in a Chinese media symposium. "" ""New voices, expanding horizons.  When Sept Days sent Montreal journalist Xian Hu to Afghanistan last December, the weekly Chinese newspaper was not only making a statement to its competitors in the community here, but to mainstream newspapers as well"" . The Gazette . 2008-02-23. Archived from the original on 2012-11-05 . Retrieved 2024-05-22 . The article notes: ""Sept Days competes with five other Chinese newspapers in a market of no more than 100,000 potential readers.  Its three full-time journalists and five freelancers focus on a mix of local, international and entertainment news.  Ten thousand copies are printed of each issue and, according to Yin, 50,000 people read the paper each week.  The paper is free of charge, and advertising and investments from the paper's board of directors keep it afloat, but Yin admits that it has yet to break even.  Sending Hu to Afghanistan was an unusual step for an ethnic newspaper, but it has earned Sept Days a certain notoriety in the Chinese community.  Last month, the paper sponsored a lecture by Hu on her experience in Kabul, and this month, it will send another reporter overseas to cover the presidential election in Taiwan. "" Lum, Zi-Ann; Taylor-Vaisey, Nick; Duggan, Kyle (2023-06-23). ""Fixer upper on the Hill"" . Politico . Archived from the original on 2024-05-22 . Retrieved 2024-05-22 . The article notes: ""Conservative Sen. Victor Oh was in Montreal earlier this month to drum up enthusiasm for Saturday’s rally on the Hill.  His visit was covered by Sept Days, a Montreal Chinese-language publisher with links to the Chinese Community Party.  Sept Days was among a handful of Canadian organizations that attended the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department media forum training in 2019, according to a recent report by Alliance Canada Hong Kong. "" Yu, Ruidong 余瑞冬 (2018-06-24). ""《加拿大华人精英录》一书在蒙特利尔首发"" [The book ""A Record of Canadian Chinese Elites"" was launched in Montreal] (in Chinese). China News Service . Archived from the original on 2024-05-22 . Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Phoenix Television . The article notes: ""由加拿大七天传媒出版社出版的《加拿大华人精英录》一书于当地时间6月22日晚在蒙特利尔首发，正式与读者见面。 "" From Google Translate: ""The book ""Canadian Chinese Elites"" published by Canada's Seven Days Media Publishing House was first launched in Montreal on the evening of June 22, local time, and officially met with readers. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sept Days ( Chinese : 七天 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  Cunard ( talk ) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: to allow time to assess identified sources Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and I have also semi'ed it to stop the disruption.  I don't involve a relist as Involved, but if someone else does feel free to revisit Star Mississippi 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY .  Article was in an abysmal state when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been expanded significantly by Cunard and the coverage outlined above easily demonstrates notability.  No mention of any WP:BEFORE search.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Jérémie Poirier : His top notability claim is that he's a draft prospect to the NHL, which is not an ""inherent"" notability claim in and of itself -- the highest level he has actually played at so far is the farm team system, which is not a level of play that guarantees automatic inclusion in Wikipedia either.  His only basis for notability at this time would be if he could be shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability, but this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by his teams and their leagues, with not a single GNG-worthy reliable source shown at all.  Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if he actually takes ice in a real Calgary Flames game, but just playing for the farm team isn't enough to earn a Wikipedia article in and of itself.  Bearcat ( talk ) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTAL violation to boot.  Ravenswing 13:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Article updated with WP:GNG quality sources.  Player meets notability due to franchise records with Saint John Sea Dogs and All-Rookie AHL team.  Arguably top honours.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 17:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What element of NHOCKEY do you claim this meets?   Being named to an all-rookie team or setting a franchise record meets no notability criteria whatsoever.   The criteria for junior league and minor-league players is quite specific: being an all-time top ten leading league scorer, or a First Team All-Star.  Ravenswing 18:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets general notability due to coverage of honours and records.  NHOCKEY irrelevant.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 19:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Local interest coverage in local interest contexts doesn't help to establish notability of the ""just because media coverage exists"" variety.  For a hockey player at the junior level, media coverage only builds a GNG pass if it's being given in the context of achievements that would satisfy a criterion listed in NHOCKEY, and does not build a GNG pass if it exists only in run of the mill contexts that hundreds of other players at the same level of play could likely also show.  GNG is not just a number L it also takes into account the context of what the person is getting coverage for , and considers local coverage in not-inherently-notable local contexts to be not worth all that much.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue that full articles discussing the player in question, in both of the major newspapers for the city of 1+ million people, including the players above and beyond achievements at the junior and minor professional level are more than enough to satisfy GNG.  I agree that a news article stating ""Jeremie Poirier scored a goal in tonight's win"" is run-of-the-mill and does not satisfy GNG.  However, the cited articles are now GNG satisfactory.  As for your statement that GNG is only applicable if used to satisfy SNG that is untrue.  WP:ATHLETE states ""Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.""  Poirier satisfies this.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 22:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The statement that ""For a hockey player at the junior level, media coverage only builds a GNG pass if it's being given in the context of achievements that would satisfy a criterion listed in NHOCKEY"" is absolutely untrue.   GNG means getting significant coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources.   It does not specify that the reason for the coverage has to be one of the few achievement that provide presumed notability under NHOCKEY.   While excepting ""run of the mill"" context that hundreds of other players at the same level of play could likely also show"" has some validity (up to a point), most junior hockey players do not have multiple articles specifically about them in the Calgary Sun or in TSN, and most do not have additional coverage detailing their achievements and potential as a top prospect and potential first round draft pick.  Rlendog ( talk ) 14:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets GNG so NHOCKEY is not an issue.   There is a full length piece about from the Calgary Herald / Calgary Sun in the article (and there is more available from the Herald / Sun as well that is not currently in the article), there is a full length piece from TSN, there are non-trivial items about him from the Hockey News and Hockey Writers.  I haven't gone through all the sources listed in the article but that is enough to meet GNG.  Rlendog ( talk ) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the sources in the article show a pass of WP:GNG .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article meets WP:GNG as per WP:HEY .  Flibirigit ( talk ) 09:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this does not violate WP:BALL , this is just a new page so I think someone can close this with no consenesus .  174.27.4.51 ( talk ) 03:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Fred Hammer : Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per my research and Habst's expansion.  To start, we have no archives of Luxembourg newspapers which would have covered him.  Despite this, we have arguable significant coverage from Olympedia (154 words), and then he received an obituary in Luxemburger Wort - it seems to be partially paywalled so I can't read the whole thing, but what I can see is that (translation) "" In Luxembourg, Fred Hammer is a household name "" - that quote is from 2020 .  He competed in the 1950s .  We also have mention on the Luxembourg Wikipedia that there is a section dedicated to him in the book Lëtzebuerger Olympia Lexikon , which would also be sigcov, and we have mention that he received the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg , which seems to be significant.  In all, there is enough to demonstrate notability for Fred Hammer.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Keep , I added several new sources to the article.  Most notably, his life is detailed in the book ISBN I added per the Luxembourgish Wikipedia, and I added his obituary where he is described as a (translated) ""household name in Luxembourg"" by the Luxemburger Wort .  He also meets WP:NATH as an international medalist, meaning we can presume coverage exists beyond this (surely if he is a ""household name"" then many other contemporary sources must exist -- though I do believe this is a keep even on the basis of these sources). -- Habst ( talk ) 17:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , satisfactory article and sources.  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per all above.  Svartner ( talk ) 02:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per improvements made since nom.  Per WP:GNG.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 13:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tropical Storm Sonca (2017) : It can easily be merged with the season article.  Incognito Fedora ( talk ) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Asia .  Incognito Fedora ( talk ) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong oppose/keep - Did you even see the impact that the storm caused?  Does that not warrant an article??  The only reason you would be nominating it is because of its meteorological history and top section, and even so, you can fix it yourself.  luis 💬 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, this is a deletion discussion.  Articles of individual tropical cyclones should not be deleted and should instead be redirected if not notable.  Merge discussions of those articles take place on either the parent talk page (being the season which the storm formed during) or the talk page of the article itself.  luis 💬 14:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : news coverage establishes notability.  Owen× ☎ 16:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article itself might be short but this clearly passes WP:GNG .  The storm received wide coverage and the fairly high death toll makes it notable.  🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 00:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Home County Music & Art Festival : History6042 ( talk ) 01:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Music , Events , Organizations ,  and Canada .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and flag for expansion.  Article does admittedly need improvement, but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources rather than on whether or not they're all already in the article yet — and with over 1,000 hits in ProQuest the sourcing clearly does exist to improve it with.  For an event that's been in operation since 1974, you can't presume that Google tells the whole story by itself, and absolutely have to go spelunking in the archives to check for older pregoogle stuff.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , totally agree with bearcat .  {{ Sources exist }}.  ihateneo ( talk ) 00:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NEXIST Lightburst ( talk ) 14:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Touché Restaurant & Bar : This source is more about the building it was in.  And this source is more about the redevelopment of the building the restaurant was in.  There is also a ""Touché Restaurant"" in Miami https://chilledmagazine.com/must-mix-ginger-root-cocktails-from-touche-restaurant-miami/ but not sure if it still open.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Oregon .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the WP:RS it was notable per WP:NTEMP .  We also have no requirement that RS be national or international, just reliable and in depth.  We are WP:NOTPAPER so we have room for such articles.  Lightburst ( talk ) 18:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator).  This is yet another nomination by LibStar, who seems to be nominating articles by me indiscriminately, or at least without completing thorough source assessments before jumping to AfD.  I've asked them to slow down, or use tags/talk page comments instead of mass nominating, but here we are.  The subject has received plenty of secondary coverage in reliable sources.  I could potentially see the page being moved, if editors feel the historic building is more notable than the most recent restaurant which operated there, but there's definitely a notable topic here.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes the WP:GNG .  No objection to reworking this to the building.  Can be done after discussing on talk page.  Which begs the question: why was this nominated for deletion at all.  gidonb ( talk ) 17:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article covers this restaurant, previous restaurants and the historic building.  Plenty of reliable, independent references.  Passes GNG.  Yes, could be it's the building that's more notable.  The article does mention a number of previous occupiers (Develan's and Remo's) not just Touché.  I'd suggest, if I may be so bold, retitling under something like Fire Station (Touché Restaurant).  Also, if Wikipedia allows, there could be redirects for the previous restaurants, unless separate articles can be written for those.  Rupples ( talk ) 14:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"World Football Elo Ratings : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being unofficial is not a deletion rationale.  Also, could someone confirm this page's history?  It was kept in 2011 for passing GNG, but the history for the page only goes back to 2018.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being unofficial it probably doesn't qualifiy for a Wikipedia article.  Also, I can see that the article has been already reduced significantly removing excessive details, also due apparently to copyright reasons; but also because it was clearly way to detailed for a wikipedia article.  Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk ) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You still have not provided a valid deletion rationale.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – World Football Elo Ratings uses an alternative methodology to the contested IFFHS similar to that used in chess.  I consider it completely valid, in addition to having a very broad database of national team matches.  Svartner ( talk ) 04:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The old article history can be found here .  Messy move history.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Svartner @ Geschichte The valid deletion rationale is the following: the subject, in my opinion, does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.  This because the ratings are an unofficial implementation of the Elo formula, similar to other unofficial existing rankings.  World Football Elo Ratings uses an alternative methodology to the contested IFFHS similar to that used in chess : not exactly.  There is no IFFHS rating for national teams; if you mean the FIFA World Rankings the method is slightly different, instead it is practically identical (except for some football-specific adaptations, such as goal difference and home team advantage) to the Elo system used in chess.  I consider it completely valid is a personal opinion, which is not relevant for WP:NPOV .  I hope to have been clear about my arguments.  Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk ) 11:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Football Elo Ratings .  Giant Snowman 19:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman I don't think a discussion in 2011 is still relevant in 2024 14 novembre ( talk ) 08:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It has sources.  Giant Snowman 19:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GiantSnowman's comment and evidence above.  The age of sources isn't a valid reason to dismiss them out of hand.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no valid deletion rationale given and no change in prior consensus.  Specifically, I would say that this source and to an extent this source provide WP:GNG coverage.  Jay eyem ( talk ) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article should be made WOFR (World Official Football Ratings) and I want to see the article  ALL TIME BEST Elo Ratings where No.1 is 1954 Hungary 2232, No.2 is 2014 Germany 2223 -- Wikipedion2024 ( talk ) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's tournament : Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia .  Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you planning to nominate all previous years too?  It should either be all or none in my opinion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do you think Asian Games is not especially notable?  It`s a multi-sport games with more than 10,000 competitors.  Yikesaiting ( talk ) 01:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What do participants think about a merge (alongside Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games – Women's tournament ) into Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games ?  Edward-Woodrow • talk 11:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WildCherry06 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is easily notable as the Asian Games is one of the major multi-sport events that is held.  HawkAussie ( talk ) 10:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a major competition.  Could use some refs but other than that, no need to delete.  Kante4 ( talk ) 13:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, the only thing is this might have been a little WP:TOOSOON .  The event is ongoing now though, and should be populated shortly.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep All users above did not comment about GNG, so here are examples of coverage: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .  I wouldn't say they are strong signs of notability, but they should be enough for BASIC .  Merging can also be possible although it might look a bit messy.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Scientific American Library : The topic is adequately covered in the Books section of the main Scientific American article but an attempt to restore the redirect has been reverted so bringing here for consensus.  Mccapra ( talk ) 08:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Education .  Mccapra ( talk ) 08:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The notability is already sufficient.  There are also articles of the same type like Princeton Science Library Science Masters series -- Htmlzycq ( talk ) 09:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I find the block-of-text list of titles in the main Scientific American article unhelpful, but I like the links to notable authors in the new article.  Would it be appropriate to replace the text in the main article with the better text from here?  Or would that make the main article too large, or give this undue weight?  Incidentally, the rest of the book section in the main article could do with clarification too: is the single bulleted item the output of the 2010 publishing imprint named above, or a third, separate venture?  Elemimele ( talk ) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this, listing topics like this is not very helpful.  The Animal Mind; Atmosphere, Climate, and Change; Beyond the Third Dimension; Cosmic Clouds; Cycles of Life • Civilization and the Biosphere; The Discovery of Subatomic Particles; Diversity and the Tropical Rain Forest; Earthquakes and Geological Discovery; Exploring Planetary Worlds; Gravity's Fatal Attraction; Fire; Fossils and the History of Life; From Quarks to the Cosmos; A Guided Tour of the Living Cell; Human Diversity; Perception; The Solar System; Sun and Earth In contrast, listing books and authors is more convenient to access.  But according to Scientific American Library | LibraryThing , at least 70 books need to be listed, which is too large for the main article.  Htmlzycq ( talk ) 16:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep From Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Specialized list articles : Lists of works include bibliographies and discographies .  Bibliographies are a list of relevant references for a subject area, including books, journal articles, and web articles; discographies are a listing of all recordings on which a musician or singer features, or may be compiled based on genre or record label This is a bibliography of all books published under the Scientific American Library book series.  Since there are at least 70 books in the series, this is a valid spinoff from Scientific American to avoid undue weight in that article.  Here are book reviews for books published in the Scientific American Library series as well as sources that discuss the series more generally: Kreyche, Gerald F. (May 1999).  ""Evolving Brains by John Morgan Allman / Scientific American Library, 1999, pp. 224, $34.95"" .  USA Today .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  Sejnowski, Terrence J. (1999-02-19).  ""Evolving Brains by John Morgan Allman Scientific American Library, New York, 1999. 238 pp. $34.95. ISBN 0-7167-5076-7"" .  Science .  283 (5405): 1121.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  Neal, Bryan (November–December 1996).  ""From inner space to outer space: education and entertainment on CD-ROM"" .  American Scientist .  Vol.  84, no. 6.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  The article notes: ""A number of CD-ROMs are reviewed including 'A.D.A.M. The Inside Story,' 'Digital Humans' and 'Scientific American Library: The Planets.'"" Van Volkenburgh, Elizabeth (January 1996).  ""Life Processes of Plants"" .  BioScience .  46 (1).  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  The review notes: ""Plants are expert engineers and organic chemists that can move without muscles and nerves, tell time, and even have a busy social life in Arthur W. Galston's Life Processes of Plants. This text is one of the series of topics books published by the Scientific American Library , which is known for its engaging inside views of current fronts of scientific discovery.""  Rial, J.A. (July–August 1995).  "" 'The gate and the key of the sciences': Mathematics: The Science of Patterns. Keith Devlin. 215 pp. Scientific American Library, 1994. $32.95"" .  American Scientist .  Vol.  83, no. 4.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  Saterson, Kathryn A. (July 1998).  ""Conservation and Biodiversity: Andrew P. Dobson. Scientific American Library, New York, 1996. 264 pp., illus. $32.95 (ISBN 0-7167-5057-0 cloth)"" .  BioScience .  48 (7).  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  Worthington, Paul (November 1993).  ""CD-ROMs of science"" .  PC World .  Vol.  11, no. 11.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  The article notes: ""The many works in the Scientific American Library will soon be making the transition to CD-ROM, thanks to Byron Presis Multimedia. The CD-ROM version of the Scientific American Library will include many separate discs; the library includes 45 printed titles. The texts are targeted at the general reader, and are authored by some of the top names in science."" ""Scientific American Library: The Planets"" .  Library Journal .  Vol.  122, no. 14.  1997-09-01.  p. 228A.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  Johnson, Dave (May 1996).  ""RedShift 2 and The Planets take differing views of the universe"" .  Computer Shopper .  Vol.  16, no. 5.  p. 252.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  The review notes: ""Byron Preiss Multimedia's $54.95 Scientific American Library: The Planets and Maris Multimedia's $54.95 RedShift 2 are educational packages that let amateur astronomers explore the solar system."" ""Scientific American Library: The Universe"" .  Library Journal .  Vol.  122, no. 14.  1997-09-01.  p. 228.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  Holzberg, Carol (1997-12-01).  ""Scientific American Library: Illusion"" .  Library Journal .  Vol.  94, no. 7.  p. 649.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  Mosley, John E. (February 1997).  ""The planets"" .  Sky & Telescope .  Vol.  93, no. 2.  p. 59.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale .  The abstract notes: 'The Planets' is the latest addition to the Scientific American Library.  The nicely designed and easy-to-navigate CD-ROM, an ultimate tour of the solar system, is composed of the 'Planetary Museum,' 'Virtual Solar System,' 'Planetary Traveler, 'Observatory' and the book 'Seeing the Solar System.'"" ""Stars, by James B. Kaler, (Scientific American Library, 1992), ISBN 0-7167-5033-3, 273 pages, hardcover, $24.95"" . Astronomy . Vol. 21, no. 6. June 1993. p. 93. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale . Pemberton, Heather (November 1993). ""Exploring Planetary Worlds"" . CD-ROM Professional . Vol. 6, no. 6. Information Today . p. 221. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale . The article notes: ""Byron Preiss Multimedia will develop CD-ROM versions of the Scientific American Library, published by W.H. Freeman.  Written for the general reader by distinguished scientists and illustrated with the latest in scientific graphics, the venture marks W.H. Freeman's first step into electronic publishing. "" ""Exploring Planetary Worlds: David Morrison, (Scientific American Library, 1993), ISBN 0-7167-5043-0, 238 pages, hardcover, $24.95"" . Astronomy . Vol. 22, no. 2. February 1994. p. 94. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale . ""A Short History of the Universe"" . Astronomy . Vol. 23, no. 4. April 1995. p. 96. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale . The review notes: ""A Short History of the Universe is the latest addition to the Scientific American Library of Science. "" Reed, Christopher (August–September 1994). ""Life Processes of Plants, by Arthur W. Galston (Scientific American Library/W. H. Freeman; $32.95)"" . Horticulture: The Magazine of American Gardening . Vol. 72, no. 7. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale . Van Epen, Karen (Winter 1995). ""The Emergence of Agriculture: Bruce D. Smith.  Scientific American Library, 1994; 231 pp.  ISBN 0-7167-5055-4.  $32.95 ($35.95 postpaid)"" . Whole Earth Review . No. 88. p. 55. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale . ""The Universe and the Planets"" . Astronomy . Vol. 25, no. 9. September 1997. p. 94. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale . The review notes: ""Two programs in one!  This deluxe CD-ROM set from the Scientific American Library features The Universe and The Planets in a single package, for both Windows 95 and Macintosh computers. "" Maione, Ian (September–October 1999). ""The Honey Bee: By James L. Gould and Carol Grant Gould.  Scientific American Library, New York, 1995.  ISBN 0-7167-6010-X.  239 pp.  Paperback"" . Skeptical Inquirer . Vol. 23, no. 5. p. 52. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via Gale . Cunard ( talk ) 08:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid split from the parent article. This article is big enough to stand alone. Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 11:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . On grounds of list size it seems a valid content split. As the article stands it doesn't come across as informative presentation-wise as nothing in the lead paragraph sets out reasons for the order in which the books are listed, but that's for a separate discussion. The nominator hasn't directly mentioned notability, but under WP:SPLIT this article is required to pass notability guidelines. My understanding is that the series would need reliable, independent sources commenting on/reviewing the whole series or at least a part of the series, not just the books individually and I'm not sure content in the links provided by Cunard sufficiently does so. Probably more out there but I've found little, so reserving judgement. Rupples ( talk ) 23:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists , ""Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.  Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. "" Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Information , which says, ""The list may be a valuable information source.  This is particularly the case for a structured list.  Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. "" It also lists Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Navigation , which says, ""Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks ) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. "" Scientific American Library is ""a valuable information source"" and ""contain[s] internally linked terms"".  It provides a bibliography of the books published under the Scientific American Library series and includes the blue links and interlanguage links of the books' authors.  Cunard ( talk ) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Cunard.  Thought it strange notability not mentioned in the nomination.  Given this, I recommend to Keep this as a separate article owing to the size of the list and space for potentially more detail to be added.  Rupples ( talk ) 01:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Kirakira (video game) : Metacritic has no reviews .  Maybe sources exist in Japanese, but nothing useful seems to be found on ja wiki.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The game did get significant coverage in Siliconera , suggesting there is potentially more out there despite the vague name not doing it many favors.  It also got a review from UK Anime Network , but the jury is out on whether they are reliable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Reviews in Siliconera and RPG Fan , both reliable per WP:VG/S .  2 reviews in UK Anime Network: [13] , [14] .  Per WP:A&M/RS reviews by Andy Hanley are reliable.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 13:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Mika1h, the game has enough sources to pass WP:GNG . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing . Sources located above address my concerns. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"South Dakota Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame : Let'srun ( talk ) 20:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries , Organizations , Baseball ,  and South Dakota .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG .  I am amazed this has been an article since 2007 .  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 20:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there's a good amount of coverage in newspapers available through newspapers.com and many years the induction of new members are covered by various newspapers in South Dakota (and some coverage out of state).  Examples (not exclusive but maybe the best I could find in half an hour): State baseball hall of fame to welcome five Hall of fame presents amateur baseball lore , ""The facility is thought to be the only one in the country devoted to a state's community baseball lore.""  Perry to be in Parkston Five to be enshrined in SD baseball hall Lake Norden's claim to fame [27] Move over Cooperstown Amateur shrine keeps baseball memories alive (very connected to the Hall since Mel Antonen is connected to it but probably worthwhile for info to add to the article): ""One building stands out the South Dakota Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame. The Hall was built in 1978 because my dad, Ray, a baseball fan, had an unshakeable determination to give his town of 427 a big-league touch. The Hall became his legacy, and every fall a new group of players and umpires is inducted.""  S.D Hall of Fame Boasts 31 Members Hall of fame (full page photo spread with some text on the opening of the building in 1977) Baseball hall houses memories, tributes Big honors for amateur baseball players [28] bit of coverage from out-of-state of the building opening in 1977 (including a bit about Xerox trying to make a directory of all halls of fame in the US? That mentions this is the only one for amateur baseball at that time.) There's coverage that spans from the 1950s through today.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For review of Skynxnex's sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep does seem to have enough local coverage.  AryKun ( talk ) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : new sources seem fine, but the article needs a rewrite to incorporate inline citations.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Shihab Thangal Charity Trust : The article fails WP:NONPROFIT .  The primary sources include press releases and local coverage about some charity works did by them.  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , India ,  and Kerala .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have added translations of the titles of the Malayalam-language newspaper articles used as references.  The Hindu is a national newspaper, and there is also international coverage from the Saudi Gazette.  I think that the coverage adds up to notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If 2 reliable sources aren’t enough to establish notability then I don’t know what is.  So keep per WP:GNG Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Yep, looks to meet WP:GNG .  Tollens ( talk ) 06:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"JPL (cyclecar) : I'm not seeing significant coverage per the GNG.  JMWt ( talk ) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Michigan .  JMWt ( talk ) 17:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as per above and cool history page to have Mr Vili talk 22:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a tribute to the legacy, the page has existed from 2007 to the present.  However, frankly speaking, it does not meet the General Notability Guidelines (GNG).  -- Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 08:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - covered in at least two reliable sources (Kimes, Georgano), both independent of the subject.  I see no justification for deleting this entry.  Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added two more sources, expanded a touch to include the revised, water-cooled Model F. Mr.choppers | ✎ 19:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - with multiple reliable independent sources, it passes GNG, and the article has enough content to explain the topic.  -- Sable232 ( talk ) 15:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : sourcing in history looking good after additions.  notability met.  Password (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Archbishop Makarios III Lyceum : Equal width ( C ) 16:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools .  Equal width ( C ) 16:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While schools are not automatically notable, in my own WP:BEFORE , I have found and added a number of reliable/independent sources which support the text and would appear to support a claim to notability (of what appears to be a relatively large school).  Otherwise there is no indication whatsoever that the nominator undertook any kind of BEFORE themselves and have stated that they are ""not good at finding sources"" . ) Guliolopez ( talk ) 11:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Guliolopez.  Meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Sourcing is sufficient to support an article.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"In Praise of Hard Industries : I don't see any evidence that this book is widely considered significant.  A single book review does not, I think, confer notability.  At best this would be a smerge to Eamonn Fingleton , though I am not sure that should exist either.  Guy ( help! - typo? ) 15:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete : I found this article that might cite the book under its reprint title: [1] , but it's paywalled.   Otherwise nothing found.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Ireland ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources Galbraith, James K. (1999-09-12).  ""Made in the U.S.A.""  The New York Times .  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 .  The review notes: ""These are provocative arguments not very persuasively made. In Praise of Hard Industries is anecdotal, spurning statistics or other corroboration. It is overstated: American manufacturing isn't exactly dead, something that, reading between the lines here about Kodak and Boeing, one learns. The policy prescriptions (savings tax incentives, tariffs) are shallow.""  Campbell, Duncan (2001).  ""In praise of hard industries: Why manufacturing, not the information economy, is the key to future prosperity"".  International Labour Review .  140 (2): 215–216.  ProQuest 223996617 .  The review notes: ""This book fits comfortably within the comparative-styles-of-capitalism genre, and many of its central observations are not necessarily new. The author's critique of the short-term focus on profits rather than a long-term focus on productive efficiency is a case in point. ... But to equate the information economy with the knowledge-based service sector alone, as the author implicitly does, is excessively narrow. Information and communication technologies have transformed the manufacturing sector itself - in fact, in ways lucidly described by the author, who nonetheless stops short of showing how manufacturing is very much a part of the information economy.""  Buchholz, Todd G. (1999-09-20).  ""Bookshelf: A Fondness for Factories. In Praise of Hard Industries by Eamonn Fingleton"".  The Wall Street Journal .  ProQuest 1798411839 .  The review notes: ""Mr. Fingleton's ""praise of hard industries"" goes like this: Economics that focus on manufacturing are more durable, more dependable and better protected from competition that economies that rely on ""soft industries"" like, well, software, finance, health care and other services. ... But even if we accept Mr. Fingleton's assertions, doesn't the consumer benefit from competition?""  Sixel, L.M. (1999-10-10).  ""A sophomoric argument for manufacturing"" .  Houston Chronicle .  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 .  The review notes: ""But In Praise of Hard Industries gives the impression that manufacturing is about as dead as a doornail and must make a comeback if the United States is to be great once again.The book, written by financial journalist Eamonn Fingleton, sets up a straw man - the service industry, which he refers to as ""post-industrialism. "" ... Fingleton could be excused if he had done some original research to reach his conclusions. But he hasn't, relying mostly on previously published newspaper and magazine articles. Newspaper reporters, of course, are great sources of knowledge, but I was expecting something more original - and profound - from the book.""  Taylor, Gilbert (1999-09-15).  ""In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity"" .  Booklist .  Vol.  96, no. 2.  p. 201.  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale .  The review notes: ""For those dubious about the march of laissez-faire, Fingleton provides an infopacked argument with a nationalistic, Buchananite accent.""  Farris, Dale F. (1999-08-13).  ""In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity"" .  Library Journal .  Vol.  124, no. 13.  p. 108.  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale .  The review notes: ""Fingleton (Blindside), former editor with the Financial Times and Forbes, bravely challenges the current tendency to be awestruck by the information or postindustrial economy with this solid work on the many strengths of a manufacturing-based economy. ... An important work; highly recommended for all academic libraries."" ""In Praise of Hard Industries"" .  Publishers Weekly .  Vol.  246, no. 31.  1999-08-02.  p. 65.  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale .  The review notes: ""Bolstered by close analysis and chock full of intriguing examples of manufacturing triumphs and untapped opportunities, Fingleton's sobering report deserves close scrutiny by CEOs, labor leaders and policy makers.""  Boaz, David (November 1999).  ""In Praise of Hard Industries"" .  The American Enterprise .  Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 .  Retrieved 2023-10-22 – via Gale .  The review notes: ""In a book that cites as authorities cranks ranging from Germaine Greer to Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan, it's no surprise to run across crank ideas from the mundane--like the Holy Grail of renewable energy--to the truly novel:"" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow In Praise of Hard Industries to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Could we get a further assessment of newly found sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Full length reviews in NYT and WSJ, and in at least one academic journal, with Library Journal / Booklist / Publishers Weekly to round it out, is a clear WP:NBOOK pass.  Jfire ( talk ) 04:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I added the Houston Chronicle source from Cunard's list and another from the National Post.   A lot could be fleshed out from those sources but notability should no longer be in question.  BBQboffin ( talk ) 03:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Perfect Harmony (TV series) : Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television ,  and United States of America .  Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 19:07, 24 April 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 April 24 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:COMMONOUTCOMES ; primetime series on American broadcast networks are generally kept, and even removing the week-to-week ratings sources it more than passes GNG.  Nominator attempted to nominate Tom Swift and that was also kept.  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , implausible that a network television series that ran for a full season across two calendar years would not have sufficient coverage to be found.  BD2412 T 20:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I found plenty of in depth coverage - eg https://variety.com/2019/tv/reviews/perfect-harmony-nbc-review-bradley-whitford-1203347611/ BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we should soft delete this page 2800:810:498:E74:8500:1E10:DDC3:636E ( talk ) 22:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Please state a proper rationale for deletion; 'soft deletion' would be a nomination with no votes for two weeks, which is not a possible result here.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  The nominator does not understand how Wikipedia works, and runs a WP:Single-purpose account to fruitlessly nominate various TV series.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Quick WP:BEFORE finds multiple reliable sources discussing the show Shazback ( talk ) 18:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : these nominations are clearly nonsense.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Sandy Poulsen : Shellwood ( talk ) 22:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Article needs work, but subject is notable.  Olympian 1 , successful business and  land owner 2 , 3 ,  [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , ski results 8 , 9 in NYT , author of a book 10 , 11 . Jaireeodell ( talk ) 22:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of these citations are for a person born in 1918; likely a relative, but not the person competing in the 1972 Olympics.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 00:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for catching that.  -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 12:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG with sources like this , this , this , this , this , and this .  The person with the earlier birthdate appears to be her mother, who apparently also had the same name.  Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 10:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG and Ejgreen77's sources.  pburka ( talk ) 20:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It fits with WP:GNG however it does need a lot more things to be added it seems more like a page in progress rather than something that needs to be deleted.  Swaggalicious ( talk ) 07:45, 01 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Awrangzib Faruqi : Most references provide only a vague and fleeting acknowledgment of his existence, with one source even labeling him as ""certain Aurangzeb Faruqi.""  Furthermore, his absence of electoral victories disqualifies him based on the stipulations outlined in WP:POLITICIAN .  This cumulative evidence underscores the compelling rationale for advocating the removal of this Wikipedia article.  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians .  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 01:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 02:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A highly controversial but very much notable person.  The article needs improvement not deletion.  Muneebll ( talk ) 10:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NPOL sets *inclusive* criteria, not meeting those criteria is not grounds for deletion, it only indicates that presumed notability is not available.   NB WP:NEXIST , simple search shows sourcing to satisfy the WP:GNG : eg BBC Urdu (2015) , Nawaiwaqt (2021) , Daily Pakistan (2023) .  AfD is not clean up.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can see multiple reliable sources of Urdu version to satisfy GNG.  M.Ashraf333 ( talk ) 11:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP This article already has many references from reliable sources - newspapers and book sources.  In my view, there is no doubt about his notability.  Meets WP:GNG ...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Julian Trevelyan (pianist) : I have done a Google search to see if this subject has received sustained coverage from reliable secondary sources , but all I could find were a few articles from small, local outlets.  Six citations in this article are from the subject's website ; one is from Amazon .  CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Excluding the references from his own website, I think the rest of them add up to notability.  Local is okay for musicians.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of the two citations from local news sources, the subject is only the main focus in one.  The other is a passing mention in an article about home schooling.  Combined they do not establish notability according to WP:NSUSTAINED .  — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 17:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain.  マリオマリオ ( talk ) 21:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject has won several awards and meets WP:MUSICBIO .  Naomijeans ( talk ) 17:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : His awards seem to satisfy #9 at WP:MUSICBIO .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 20:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"The World in Your Home : Boleyn ( talk ) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Education .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America , New York ,  and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added some content and some citations to the article.  I hope that those will help.  Eddie Blick ( talk ) 02:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on newly added sources.  Donald D23 talk to me 11:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : For a lost 1940s TV show, we at least have a claim to significance, record on where it aired and some of what it contained, and a review.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per HEY .  Sources have since been added and show a variety of coverage from when the show aired that establish notability.  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 02:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Lindsey Cardinale : Nothing notable aside from her last-place finish on American Idol (season 4).  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television ,  and Louisiana .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject .  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.  Sources Wirt, John (2007-08-10).  ""American Idol was invaluable experience for Cardinale"" .  The Advocate .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""Lindsey Cardinale made the leap from fairs and festivals to American Idol. In 2005, the then 20-year-old singer from Pontchatoula was among the TV talent show's top 12 contestants. ... Post-American Idol, Cardinale continues performing at fairs and festivals in Louisiana and, when her band can make the trip, out of state. Having performed in public since childhood, she loves a big crowd. ... Cardinale is planning to appear in an independent film to be shot next year in Texas. She has an album in progress, produced by Carl Jackson ..."" ""Ponchatoula native working on new album"" .  The Advocate .  2015-02-18.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""Cardinale, who has been singing since she was a young girl in Ponchatoula, placed 12th on Season 4 of “American Idol” and then watched as her roommate at the time, Carrie Underwood, finished first and skyrocketed to fame. She is still friends with the six-time Grammy Award-winning artist. Cardinale moved to Nashville and started performing at the city’s popular songwriters’ rounds, where her sultry voice, beauty and rugged sense of humor soon won over the locals. Before long, she was collaborating with other, more seasoned songwriters. ... Until recently, Cardinale divided her time between music and one of her other passions — horses and outdoor events. As an expert roper, she has won several competitions, including CMA Fest Celebrity Roping, the release said.""  Franklin, Mark (2009-11-21).  ""Lindsey Cardinale: School 1st, music 2nd, for now"" .  The York Dispatch .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""Four years removed from her appearance as a finalist on American Idol, Lindsey Cardinale still hasn't released that debut album. She still hopes to, someday. But right now, she has another priority - finishing college. ... Now 24, Lindsey is a journalism major with a minor in songwriting at Middle Tennessee State. And she's just a semester shy of a spring graduation.""  Walker, Dave (2006-01-13).  ""Not Idle - Active local 'American Idol' alum offer advice for newcomers"" .  The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""Cardinale missed Hurricane Katrina because she was in Nashville, Tenn., working on a couple of tunes with a professional songwriter. Next step is securing representation in hopes of building a country-music career. A Southeastern Louisiana University student pre-""Idol,"" Cardinale has put her education on hold to pursue her career. ... In addition to some local broadcasting commercial work (including for Coca-Cola and Bill Hood Ford), Cardinale has continued to perform in public. The biggest show was in her hometown of Ponchatoula in late July.""  Bachman, Kara (2017-08-06).  ""Former North Shore reality stars dish about life in front of camera"" .  The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""Similar sentiments about the genre are expressed by country singer Lindsey Cardinale, of Ponchatoula. She made it through to the Top 12 on Season 4 of “American Idol.” ... Today, she still writes music and tours with her band. She thinks reality TV is here to stay."" ""How Lindsey Cardinale can win ""American Idol"" "" .  Entertainment Weekly .  2005-03-14.  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""What's Off Key: Since she arrived in Hollywood, Lindsey's performances have been so lethargic — and her song choices so uninspired — that she's gone from early front-runner to massive long shot. Clothes Call: Possesses a youthful beauty that requires a breezier, more playful wardrobe than we've seen in recent weeks. Oh, and Lindsey, teal is not your color.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lindsey Cardinale to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 00:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion that together show significant coverage for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER .  Reading the following - ""Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable."" - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to appropriate season of American Idol , which is what I probably should have done in the first place.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to the sources provided above, her singles show post- Idol notability.  I've added an article from The Star Press as a source for her duet with Stephen Cochran .  -- Jpcase ( talk ) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Brave Family : Tagged for notability since 2015 Donald D23 talk to me 12:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Games , Korea ,  and South Korea .  Donald D23 talk to me 12:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify .  Need multiple sources for notability.  Flurrious ( talk ) 02:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : I think due to generic name of show, there seem low coverage in English.  In native language, shows seems notable. -- AAonlyA ( talk ) 20:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be happy to vote keep, but please tell us more. What sources in Korean suggest notability? Ko wiki article  at ko:용감한 가족 is no better than what we have. The only source there is the link to a minor news outlet ( ko:OSEN , no en wiki article) about actor joining the show [11] . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per my comment above. Weak b/c I did not do a BEFORE (if sources exist they exist in Korean). We need a Korean BEFORE before we can really make a decision here, sigh. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  One source in Korean (see WP page in Korean for link) at Osen ( reliable ) describing the program and some participants a little bit more extensively than the one source on the page.  At the very least redirect to List of programmes broadcast by the Korean Broadcasting System (where it is not yet mentioned).  See also: Other source in English and various sources in Korean on the Spanish Wikipedia article, fwiw. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 00:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Incorporating sources from the Spanish Wikipedia article ought to be enough for notability.  Flurrious ( talk ) 22:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Flurrious , are you still arguing for draftification then?  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added the citations to the English page.  Flurrious ( talk ) 21:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article appears to meet WP:GNG with the additional sources.  Tollens ( talk ) 00:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw per consensus.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Pearl Berg : Unless she becomes the oldest person alive, I don't see this article being notable.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Indiana .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in several reliable sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaireeodell ( talk • contribs ) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC) -- Signing because I forget to do that a lot. Jaireeodell ( talk ) 21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, Interstellarity , this nomination (like that for Elizabeth Francis ) has been made without any reference to the relevant notability criteria. Were this Guinness World Records , ""simply being the nth oldest person alive"" might be insufficient to be listed. It's not. Here, the question is whether sources exist. They do. Examples: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . -- Usernameunique ( talk ) 21:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Will respond on other page.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 22:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets notability guidelines, as discussed above.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 23:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Even less notable than Elizabeth Francis.  I seem to detect a note of America-centrism here: why not nos. 7 and 8?  Do they not count because they aren't American?  Athel cb ( talk ) 10:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correction .  I see that No. 7 does have an article, so it's just No. 8, Okagi Hayashi, that is missing.  Athel cb ( talk ) 10:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually attempted to create articles for Hayashi as well, but unlike Francis and Berg, Hayashi does not seem to possess in-depth coverage beyond the organizaztions that certified her, as well as unreliable listicle articles that data dump stats from Wikipedia.  EytanMelech ( talk ) 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets general notability guidelines of significant coverage in reliable sources .  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 17:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Nominator appears to have withdrawn looking at their comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Francis I was otherwise going to say redirect and create a mini biography for now, I'm still skeptical on the sourcing and length but time should fix that.  N1TH Music ( talk ) 14:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Danijela Stefanović : Justarandomamerican ( talk ) Have a good day!  16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators .  Justarandomamerican ( talk ) Have a good day!  16:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Philosophy ,  and Serbia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Greece ,  and Egypt .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Google Scholar profile: [27] Worldcat holdings - 79 records.  Many are for collections of papers from conferences.  Other are dissertations she supervised.  About 20 are her books and collectively they're held in about 400 libraries with holding ranging from 88 for one book down to 1.  I recognize at least 3+ different languages; some of the lowest holdings are in Serbian.  Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics notes: ""For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. (Google Scholar is not totally irrelevant in many cases, for it now does include citations to books—it's worth a look). In these fields one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat ) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied.""  She has a sparser article in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, arz:دانييلا ستيفانوفيتش , probably because of her Egyptology work.  I'm just a muggle with this stuff, I leave it to someone more academically informed to interpret these results.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A search in JSTOR shows that her books are being reviewed in respected journals and her work overall is cited significantly above the norm for scholars in ancient history.   It's not a slam dunk pass in every way but meets WP:NPROF for impact of work.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mscuthbert , I found only one review of a book of hers on JSTOR, quite a bit short of what I'm looking for in WP:NAUTHOR .   Did you find more?   The citation record looks like a good start, but WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF .  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 08:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very weak keep .  I found and added to the article three reviews of two books.  That's above threshold for WP:AUTHOR for me, but only barely.  This appears to be a book field rather than a journal field, so the low citation counts in Google Scholar are not problematic (although they also do not contribute to notability).  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Like David Eppstein, I was leaning to the view that, if notable, it was as an author.  Based on the above, I agree it is a weak keep.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak Keep - per David Eppstein, based on book reviews she just barely passes WP:NAUTHOR .  -- hroest 18:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein.  Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Hatirjheel Thana : No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.   This defined as the area within the jurisdiction of a particular police station, within the city of Dhaka.  Not a ""place"" in a normal or SNG sense of the term.  These type of districts are specifically excluded under NGEO.  North8000 ( talk ) 19:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police , Geography ,  and Bangladesh .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , thanas of Bangladesh are indeed notable because in Bangladesh we also regard them as place (be officially or unofficially).  Thana is also administrative subdivision in Bangladesh, and in census report you can find thana based population data ( Census tract , for example see Uttar Khan Thana ).  It proves that we refer thanas as ""place"" in general sense and it is indeed a legally recognized place .  Also I found many sources about it, so it is only matter of verifying these sources you can find in google to see if they really are reliable or not.  Mehedi Abedin 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is no logical reason for Hatirjheel Thana, an administrative division of DNCC , to be deleted.  A thana means an area which is controlled by a police station.  Hatirjheel Thana being removed means that Motijheel Thana , Gulshan Thana , Dhanmondi Thana , Shahbagh Thana and Tejgaon Thana and all the others also has to be removed.  Uss157 ( talk ) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The SNG specifically excludes the more abstract ""set of lines on a map"" : "" Census tracts, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable."")   For example, I live in a town that  truly acknowledged to be presumed notable.    I also live in many other legally defined districts.... legally defined sets of lines on a map which are different than those of the town.    A school district, a junior college district, a fire protection district, a mosquito control district, a precinct, a census tract, a water authority district, a park district.    All of the rest of those are not presumed notable.  If you asked me where I lived, the answer would never be telling you one of the latter.   Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 12:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep shazid ( আলাপ ) 06:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Ishtiak Abdullah ( talk ) Keep per the above comments, see WP:NGEO .  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Language Rights Support Program : Tagged for notability issues since 2010.  Fails WP:NORG .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Law ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There seem to be quite a few discussions of the program in Canadian government materials (e.g. [27] , [28] , both PDF).  While I don't know whether these can be considered independent of the program, given its government funding, there are also scholarly papers (e.g. [29] , [30] ) at least from 2006 to 2017.  Cnilep ( talk ) 03:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable government-financed program with good references already present in the article.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep NORG is met by sources found by Cnilep — siro χ o 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tamil genocide : [48] Nobody recognizes any ""Tamil Genocide"".  The creation of this WP:POVFORK is a clear-cut misuse of Wikipedia as per WP:SOAP and WP:RGW .  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 02:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well sourced article which passes WP:GNG .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 02:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No it does not.  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article may lack thorough sourcing, but discussions on recognising the Tamil genocide are taking place globally.  For instance, the Canadian government, the Tamil Nadu government, the provincial government of Northern Province in Sri Lanka, and the Minister of Home Affairs of India have recognized the genocide.  The preliminary work on the ""Tamil genocide"" page shall be enhanced to provide comprehensive and necessary information to Wikipedia readers.  ALKBH5 ( talk ) 11:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — ALKBH5 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close .  The page is currently fully protected (until 3 June) and only uncontroversial edits are allowed, which a deletion nominatin certainly is not.  — kashmīrī TALK 03:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The edit to put notice on the main page was already requested.  Some admin will eventually put it.  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 03:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, deletion is not a non-controversial edit.  Secondly, and more importantly, deletion discussion in principle aims at identifying problems with the given article, and editors usually work to fix them as the discussion develops.  Unless it's a case of WP:TNT , editors are unable to address problems when full protection is in place.  (Granted, it wasn't possible to work on this particular article anyway because of WP:TAGTEAM ).  — kashmīrī TALK 07:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kashmiri : The AfD  nomination was already added to the main article hours ago.  [49] You should strike your ! vote now.  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Protection does not allow improvement, so my rationale stands.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is fully protected until 21:01 on 30 May 2024 UTC, not 3 June.  — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The claim about copied content by a sock puppet is no longer valid as the article has since been significantly edited and altered by other users and enough reliable sources have been provided to justify its existence.  So the claim that ""nobody"" recognizes Tamil genocide is clearly false and not a conclusion that can be reached by a person who has fully read the entire article or crosschecked the cited sources in the lede itself.  It's a work in progress and more improvements can be made , which was what I was trying to do before users started revert warring and got the page protected.  May I also remind the admins that there have been two proposals in the past for its merger and rename , both of which were opposed by most users.  Furthermore, there is a place in Wikipedia for ""genocides"" that do not have universal nor official UN recognition, such as Bangladesh genocide , Black genocide in the United States , Guatemalan genocide and East Timor genocide .  In any case, complete deletion cannot be justified. --- Petextrodon ( talk ) 04:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear admins : In every May marking Tamil genocide remembrance , there's a spike in interest in this topic mostly from Sri Lankans.  So I'm not surprised by their participation here.  What's intriguing is the large number of users with no significant prior editing in Sri Lankan topic (but with a history of mostly editing Indian topic, including canvassing each other there) are all suddenly taking the same stance.  Not one dissent.  Even their wording is similar in that they are all absolutely sure no genocide took place and that no one recognizes it.  Admins need to look into potential off-Wiki coordination. --- Petextrodon ( talk ) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A note to admins : There are several users who have cast their vote to keep ( 1 )( 2 )( 3 ) but in the wrong sections, possibly due to their inexperience.--- Petextrodon ( talk ) 23:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - If we go through the contribution history of this article, it seems to me that these users User:Oz346 , User:Petextrodon , User:Okiloma , User:Beastmastah , User:Omegapapaya , User:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards are working as a group to keep their point of view in the article.  I have come across these same editors in other Sri lanka civil war related Wikipedia articles as well.  Also, what I have noticed is that whenever there is a discussion going on related to a Sri lankan civil war topic, they collectively come and cast the vote that favors them so that the majority is always favored.  It should be also noted that three of the users I have mentioned here User:Okiloma , User:Beastmastah , User:Omegapapaya have been blocked from editing for reasons such as using multiple accounts.  If we look at the profiles who voted in oppose to this rename , they seem not to be neutral editors if we go through their contribution history.Futhermore, Tamil genocide has not been recognized by the UN or any other famous Human Rights Organizations such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty.  There is a need for independent neutral Wikipedia contributors to look into this issue and provide a solution.  I believe this article should be deleted or at least renamed to ""Tamil Genocide Allegation"".  I hope my observations will be useful for Admins when coming up with a decision.  JohnWiki159 ( talk ) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a baseless personal attack.  Just because many editors have common interests in pages, does not mean they are all working together.  In fact, if you look at the edit history on this article, User:Beastmastah used his sock to make edits [50] which I had publicly opposed on his talk page: User talk:Omegapapaya .  Also in previous votes, many uninvolved editors also voted for similar conclusions (you are not an uninvolved editor but have a pro-Sri Lanka edit history and coincidentally became active just today after a hiatus).  So you should back up your claims with hard evidence.  And regarding UN recognition, there was a clear conflict of interest at the UN and it was not politically neutral in its response .  Oz346 ( talk ) 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a personal attack.  These are my observations and I have presented them here for others to consider.  Also regarding the UN recognition, they haven't recognized this.  What are you trying to tell by pointing that there was a ""conflict of interest at the UN"" ?  So are you using this point to assume that the UN recognized this ""Genocide""?  This similar approach has been used throughout this article.  What has been done in this article is combine material from multiple sources to reach this ""Genocide"" conclusion.  Even most of these sources don't mention about Genocide.  This is WP:SYNTH .  Also, the UN and other human rights organization such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have reported war crimes committed by both sides.  They haven't mentioned anything about ""Genocide"".  The article War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War is already there which talks about the war crimes committed by both parties.  If we take a look at this ""Tamil Genocide"" article, it is so much biased.  The UN panel report says LTTE used civilians as a human buffer, killed civilians who attempted to flee the LTTE, fired artillery from among civilians before quickly moving away leaving the civilians on the receiving end of the return fire, forced recruitment of the children to fight for the LTTE [1] .  Aren't these also a ""genocide""?  Why is only one party being mentioned in this article?  Also look at the use of the words.  In the article, it says ""Sinhala army"" instead of Sri lankan army in some places.  Unbelievable.  Also regarding the ""Permanent Peoples' Tribunal"" decision, the International Crisis Group says ""The credibility of the quasi-judicial process was undermined by the absence of any attention to violations committed by the LTTE and the lack of input from representatives or advocates of the Sri Lankan government and military"" in this report [51] .  JohnWiki159 ( talk ) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a slanderous personal attack when you claim I'm working with these sock puppet abusers ""as a group"", especially when I have publicly opposed their unreliably sourced content.  It's an attempt to smear.  The UN system is not completely neutral as their own internal investigations have proven.  Some UN officials were complicit in the massacres by downplaying and hiding them.  To say that there was no genocide just because the UN has not said it yet is ludicrous.  In order for the UN to recognise it would require legal proceedings to take place, which no UN member state is willing to initiate (as most are allied towards the Sri Lankan state not Tamils).  So the UN as a whole is not a neutral arbiter.  This is broadly an article on the genocide of Tamils by Sinhalese nationalists, hence the focus on genocidal acts by the Sinhalese dominated government.  There are no reliable sources claiming that the LTTE committed genocide against Tamils.  So no, their actions against Tamils are not ""also a genocide"".  If you have a problem with words like Sinhala army those can easily be changed to Sri Lankan army, it's not a major problem.  Finally, the International Crisis Group is a biased western government orientated research group and are not neutral either.  They have openly lectured Tamils to renounce separatism.  One of their former heads for example was involved in downplaying the East Timor genocide : http://www.etan.org/et2007/august/11/08gareth.htm .  ICG's argument that a genocide tribunal against the Sri Lankan government was undermined by lack of focus on LTTE crimes does not disprove genocide.  If someone commits genocide, the separate criminal actions of another person does not absolve them of genocide.  The Sri Lankan goverment were invited to defend themselves at the tribunal, but they refused, so the tribunal cannot be blamed for that.  Oz346 ( talk ) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You raised the question, ""Aren't these also a genocide?""  The term genocide is defined as the ""intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.""  This definition includes a physical element, which consists of the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  I am afraid that the acts you claim to have been committed by the LTTE do not meet the criteria of genocide.  The actions attributed to the LTTE, while grave and serious if they are true; however, do not appear to fit the specific legal and definitional criteria necessary to constitute genocide as outlined above.  ALKBH5 ( talk ) 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — ALKBH5 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment These pages are in watchlist hence editing them ,I have been editing Sri Lankan articles since 2006.  The article does have WP:SIGCOV coverage and article with significant coverage cannot be deleted.  58 Editors have edited this page making 726 edits and that is substantial editing by others .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Move :The page was created by a sock who also actively and openly canvassed at least on reddit and is affected by heavy sock and meatpuppetry.  The charge of Genocide remains allegations and accusations, with no UN investigation establishing Dolus Specialis .  Many of the sources used in the article are WP:SYNTH and references acts that are not Genocide and sources themselves make no mention of Genocide.  There is also the issue of WP:TAGTEAM that needs to be addressed as well.  - UtoD 07:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are several reliable scholarly sources discussing the topic of 'Tamil genocide', so it is notable enough for its own article.  Several peer-reviewed sources are indexed by Google Scholar on this topic.  The article has already gone through a discussion to merge, and a discussion to rename, and now a discussion to delete (see its talk page).  There are several people who do not like the details in this article being seen on wikipedia.  But that is not a valid reason to remove.  Oz346 ( talk ) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Military ,  and Sri Lanka .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep firstly it is a procedural close as the article is protected.There are scholarly sources about Tamil Genocide and particurly the Tamil massacre's in 2009 is called Genocide.Further G5 is not applicable as there has been that have  been substantial edits by others.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to note that the 2009 Tamil massacre has its own dedicated article .  There's no term ""genocide"" there.  — kashmīrī TALK 08:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] G5?  It's not a speedy deletion!  — kashmīrī TALK 08:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per JohnWiki159 and also WP:SOAP .  Wikipedia cannot be used for pushing an agenda.  CharlesWain ( talk ) 09:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This The Peoples’ Tribunal Sri Lanka made a comprehensive ruling that qualified the events in Sri Lanka as genocide against the Tamil populace commit by the Sri Lankan government in accordance with international law.  All major parties in Canada have recognized that a genocide took place on the island. @ HereforOnce777 ( talk ) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — HereforOnce777 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep reliable scholarly sources discuss Tamil Genocide.  It passes WP:GNG .  Articles well sourced cannot be deleted.  Socking is not relevant as there  have  been substantial edits by others.  27.4.1.83 ( talk ) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — 27.4.1.83 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and JohnWiki159.  I came here from ANI report.  This article is clearly making fun of the word ""genocide"" since no such genocide against the Tamils actually took place.  Orientls ( talk ) 09:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personal opinions do not matter.  We don’t make up articles from thin air, either it has reliable sources backing up or not.  If you ask a Turk, Armenian genocide didn’t happen.  Well that is not good enough reason, just because you felt it didn’t happen.  Prove it Kanatonian ( talk ) Kanatonian ( talk ) 18:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move there’s been enough use of the term that it can be acknowledged through an article; however, I’m not convinced that it has enough of a mass recognition as genocide in the academic or legal worlds for Wikipedia to deem it as such, and those who don’t want it called “allegation” seem to universally misunderstand what we mean when we say “allegation.”  We’re not saying that the occurrence of the incidents themselves are “allegations” necessarily but the claim that they amount to genocide is, genocide being a specific legal term for which Wikipedia has certain standards to use.  SinhalaLion ( talk ) 11:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe deleting it and adding the sepcific allegatiosn of Genocide back to the War Crimes page.  Large sections of the article have nothing to do with the Genocide allegation and is more about seperate accusations like displacement, settler colonialism etc and many sources don't even mention Genocide as an allegation.  Article is excessively bloated by WP:SYNTH .  - UtoD 12:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since the article is very poorly sourced and draws a lot of its content from existing that seem to use the same sources.  Advocates of this page [52] claim that there are many academic sources, however they have not assisted in the efforts undertaken to improve the quality [53] .  Furthermore, from what I see there seems to be an underlying agenda at play here.  Kalanishashika ( talk ) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — Kalanishashika ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Really bad bias and POV.  Littered with AI-generated text everywhere, such as ""This act of reconstruction not only restored the physical monument but also served as a reaffirmation of the community's commitment to remembering the past and seeking justice. The rebuilding of the statue in Jaffna stands as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Tamil people and their continued struggle for recognition and reconciliation.""  Needs to be completely overhauled; blow it up and start all over again, WP:TNT .  Florificapis ( talk ) 15:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Questionable passages like that can easily be removed or rectified without having to nuke the whole page.  Oz346 ( talk ) 15:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Florificapis : A WP:POVDELETION is, in fact, against WP:NPOV policy.  – Konanen ( talk ) 12:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep What a bad faith nomination, littered with procedural errors and personal attacks.  A badly written article is no reason for deletion.  A contested subject matter is not a reason for deletion.  If enough reliable sources said that a genocide happened in Sri Lanka, then as an encyclopedia content creating community we can create an article.  If the article is not written from neutral perspective or it is not balanced or uses peacock words we have enough notifications to improve the article.  This is total hogwash, speedy close.  Kanatonian ( talk ) Draft-ify the current article is an embarrassment (partially because, per tradition, the The Wrong Version was protected; Special:Permalink/1225326372 is merely bad).   It is argumentative, and has no clear topic-boundaries.   Other articles, such as War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War , cover (most of) the topic area better.   The one exception is about historiography in particular; the post-war discussions of whether the specific word ""genocide"" should be used are a coherent topic that isn't discussed elsewhere.   This needs to be completely re-worked, and doing so in draft-space will hopefully lower the temperature.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No Tamil genocide ever happened.  War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War already exists.  We should not trivialize the word ""genocide"".  Lorstaking ( talk ) 06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  it's some times confusing in most of the world's warring fronts whether it's War Crime or Genocide happend, but there are enough books discuss on Genocide .  Lustead ( talk ) 12:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No genocide against the Tamils ever happened contrary to this POVFORK.  ❯❯❯ Pra vega g=9.8 16:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a personal opinion with absolutely zero back up as to why HereforOnce777 ( talk ) 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — HereforOnce777 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Lorstaking.   Created by a sock, the article is sending a misleading message.  Raymond3023 ( talk ) 10:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are reliable sources that discuss the possibility that genocide occurred in Sri Lanka so there is no issue with Wikipedia having an article on the subject.  The nominator and others claim that the article is a WP:POVFORK but they haven't said from where - is there an article that says the genocide didn't happen?  Others have stated that allegations of genocide can be included in the war crimes article but that article already exceeds size guidelines so it makes senses to have genocide in a separate article.  Agree that this is a bad faith nomination by an Indian editor who has had no previous interaction with this article or any other Sri Lankan article.  Same with his Indian friends CharlesWain, Orientls, Lorstaking, Pravega and Raymond3023.  The only argument these meatpuppets can make for deleting the article is that it didn't happen.  However, I do agree with the positive criticism by independent editors that the article is in a very poor shape.  It lacks focus.  I am open to suggestion of moving to draft space.  Obi2canibe ( talk) 15:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's a Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, various academic articles and books identifying it as a genocide, and plenty of documentation regarding various crimes against humanity that would constitute the definition of genocide.  If the problem is that the article is poorly-written, then improve it to better reflect Wikipedia's standards without denying proven facts.  -- Anonymouseditor2k19 ( talk ) 16:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Anonymouseditor2k19 ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Canada has a Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day , and the article in dispute itself is linking to various pogroms against the Tamil committed in Sri Lanka.  A genocide does not have to be successful or accepted by the perpetrators as such to receive the label; attempted genocide is still a genocide.  Konanen ( talk ) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Canada recognises the Tamil genocide and there are several experts who either see evidence for a potential genocide or recognise it as genocide.  The article definitely needs to be heavily rewritten and ""Tamil Genocide Accusation/Allegations"" would be a more appropriate title, but deleting it altogether would be ignoring history.  Rayanblaq14 ( talk ) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Rayanblaq14 ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Canada does not recognise any ""Tamil genocide"".  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Whether it does ""actually"" constitute genocide or not it seems that there are plenty of sources discussing it.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Darusman, Marzuki ; Sooka, Yasmin; Ratner, Steven R. (31 March 2011).  Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (PDF) .  United Nations .  Keep Cited sources like Rome-based Permanent Peoples' Tribunal found Tamil genocide happened.  Let's respect the views of experts and ignore the personal opinions of nationalist users unqualified to make that judgement.  Laxshen ( talk ) 10:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closing admin : several accounts ! voting ""keep"" have either never been active in this topic or have not at all been active in recent months or years.  There's a real possibility of off-wiki co-ordination.  — kashmīrī TALK 10:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator also an Indian editor, you too an Indian Editor; within an hour of this AfD nomination, you have come out with your comment.  You should explain how it is possible.  Lustead ( talk ) 12:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this topic Japanese or Indian?  You are targeting  people by imagining their nationalities as ""Indian"" despite the topic being also Indian.  You edited after more than 1 year and 4 months only to vote on this AfD for saving this ridiculous article.  That's why others believe that you have been canvassed.  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 13:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article has nothing to do with India.  Did you even bother to read it before nominating it for deletion?  Obi2canibe ( talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This topic is not Japanese or Indian, but Sri Lanka specific but why majority of the ""Delete"" votes are coming from Editors who have contributed India specific topics.  I am involved since 2007 Sri Lanka War related topics, someone can't influence me, vote ""Keep"" ....  but as I mentioned in the Keep vote above there are enough books discuss on Tamil Genocide and it's not ridiculous.  A war which happened in the final phase by sending out the UN agencies in the war zone leaves room for War Crime and Genocide.  Lustead ( talk ) 14:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This subject is about Tamils who are mostly found in India.  Even if you are going to deny that, then still, there is whole Tamil genocide#India on this article and content related to India has been mentioned a number of times outside that section as well.  Your claim that this subject is unrelated to India is entirely false.  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your explanation relating with Tamils in India and other issues doesn't give enough justification why majority of the editors involved India related topics are here.  You just nominated without any iota, others are just here to support you, that's all.  Lustead ( talk ) 15:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lustead , any further ethno-national personalization will result in immediate sanctions.  I've already blocked one user for it, so please be sure you live up to these standards.  El_C 01:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As one of the editors who did not previously edit on this topic I want to note I found this AfD like I find many - via a noticeboard on Wikipedia.  Simonm223 ( talk ) 13:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete misleading sock creation.  After reading the whole article, one can conclude that nobody recognises this non-existing ""genocide"".  There is already List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces , War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and more.  Calling it a ""possibility"" or ""attempted genocide"" is not enough for letting you get around the misleading claim of a ""genocide"".  Azuredivay ( talk ) 15:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep A cursory examination of Google Scholar demonstrates a preponderance of reliable academic sources discussing it.  These include [54] very recent work] on the topic of Necropolitics as it intersects with genocide, book chapters , and academic interviews.  Considering the extensive and varied nature of the high quality sources on the topic I'm somewhat perplexed that anyone would claim this did not meet the WP:GNG threshold.  Simonm223 ( talk ) 19:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Preponderance of reliable academic sources ?  Sanglap is of doubtful reliability, is published by an unknown publisher and has no impact factor.  The other two are interviews and can't be used to establish notability (see WP:PRIMARY ).  Can you provide actual academic sources that can be used on Wikipedia?  — kashmīrī TALK 13:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One is a book chapter.  Simonm223 ( talk ) 19:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "" book chapters "" talk about the ""Sri Lanka's war crimes"" and that has been already covered at War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War .  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 03:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Nominator wrote Nobody recognizes any ""Tamil Genocide"" .  An absurd statement like that gives me the impression that the nominator didn't even attempt an WP:BEFORE .  There is quite clearly a preponderance of reliable academic sources discussing the genocide of the Tamil people.  The most basic of research would have demonstrated that to them.  Tar nis hed Path talk 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Further to what I wrote above, when I performed a search using Jstor I found [55] , [56] and [57] all of which reference the Tamil Genocide.  When I performed a search using ProQuest I found [58] , [59] and [60] all of which reference the Tamil genocide.  As I wrote above a search on Google Scholar locates many more sources.  Tar nis hed Path talk 12:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Beyond that, there are books with ""Tamil genocide"" in the title: [61] Ravenswing 18:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Book by Francis Boyle who is himself a human rights lawyer, noted for several cranky ideas .  Absolutely not a good source when it comes to deciding WP:GNG .  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 04:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Books by human rights lawyers are disqualified as reliable sources?   Hm.   That must be a new guideline.   Could you link that for me?  Ravenswing 04:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Human rights lawyers are well and truly qualified to talk about human rights abuses.  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the alleged ""cranky ideas"" that you hyperlinked, it only confirms why Professor Boyle is indeed a qualified authority on this topic and your attempt to cast aspersions on him is baseless: ""During the war for independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Boyle became the first international-law legal adviser to the first Bosnia-Herzegovinian president, Alija Izetbegovic. Boyle prepared and filed with the International Court of Justice Case 91, also known as the Bosnian genocide case claiming that genocide took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that Serbia was responsible for and complicit in that genocide. The final verdict of the case in 2007 stated that while Serbia had not committed genocide, genocide indeed had taken place in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that Serbia was responsible for ""failing to prevent and punish the genocide which it knew was taking place. "" ---- Petextrodon ( talk ) 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 9 seems to talk about the use of the term genocide by the Tamil community rather than necessarily call what Sri Lanka did a ""genocide. "" 10 is about poetry. 11 doesn't work, and 14 literally only shows one book with ""Tamil genocide"" in the title. I would even argue that 8 is largely about what the protesters saw as genocide. Hence ""Tamil genocide accusation"" may be more appropriate given what the WP:RS themselves say. SinhalaLion ( talk ) 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Further, even using Google Scholar , [62] refers to the allegation made by critics of Sri Lanka. I don't have access to [63] but I recall somehow coming across it some time back and, if I remember correctly, it said that what happened in Sri Lanka is better described as ""proto-genocide"" than ""genocide. "" [64] I can't access but seems to talk about the protesters' allegation of genocide. Hence, ""Tamil genocide accusation"" or ""Tamil genocide allegation"" may be more appropriate.  And this is ignoring that Google Scholar itself returns some hits that wouldn't be acceptable by Wikipedia's standards (e.g., I saw three master's theses).  SinhalaLion ( talk ) 02:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SinhalaLion , It's an incomplete article yet even at this stage there are several competent authorities on the matter who used the genocide description: 1) Kingsbury (2012) 2) Short (2016)  3) ICJ Review  4) Permanent Peoples' Tribunal  5) Harman (2021)  6) Prof. Francis Boyle  7) Israel Charny (1994).  I can also add PEARL (before my entire paragraph on sexual violence was unfairly removed due to revert war) although they aren't an academic journal but advocacy group with legal background whose founder has nevertheless published in journals and used the genocide description [ 1 ][ 2 ].  There are several more scholars who briefly describe the Sri Lankan state violence as genocidal which didn't make the article but can be added later somewhere, although the user Kashmiri already thought it was citation overkill.  So, at what point do we say we have enough reliable sources?  ---- Petextrodon ( talk ) 11:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried not to remove any scholarly reference that would discuss the events as a genocide.  It was rather duplicate references to mass media that I removed.  — kashmīrī TALK 11:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Response So, at what point do we say we have enough reliable sources?  A lot more than what you’ve presented, to be honest.  I haven’t read Kingsbury or Short — do they actually accuse Sri Lanka of genocide?  One of the references you cited is an advocacy group airing its views.  Even as per your argument, you have “brief” references to “genocidal” and I’m not sure that meets Wikipedia’s standards.  Anyways, my comment was more to highlight the flaws in the methodologies proposed by other commenters that they claim back their stance.  For anyone who actually takes a look, these methods get  thin pretty quickly.  I’m also ignoring that Google Scholar returns hits that says that Sri Lanka didn’t commit a genocide.  I’d say, overall, the case for Wikipedia call this page “Tamil genocide” is weaker than those of Bangladeshi genocide and Guatemalan genocide, though I’ll concede Black genocide and East Timor genocide I’m not so sure.  But perhaps all this is immaterial to the overall question at hand since I’ve already voted to Keep (though I would want this article moved to the draft space for rework and renamed to accusation).  SinhalaLion ( talk ) 12:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also Transgender genocide .  ""A lot more than what you’ve presented, to be honest.""  Isn't that subjective?  What's the appropriate cutoff point?  As for the aforementioned genocides, some of their sources too may only briefly mention genocide without detailed legal analysis.  If dozens of detailed legal analysis by international law experts is the bar you're aiming for, I'm afraid many ""less popular""  genocides will fall short of it. --- Petextrodon ( talk ) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Transgender genocide is so poorly written and unfocused that I'd be willing to TNT it.  — kashmīrī TALK 15:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having a quick look at Transgender genocide it seems like an essay and a bit WP:SYNTHy .  I'd have to have a look at it in more detail to say whether it deserves WP:TNT or not though.  Tar nis hed Path talk 02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Whether there actually was a planned genocide of Tamils or not, the plain fact is that there are numerous reliable sources either claiming so or discussing the subject.   That's enough to sustain an article on the subject, and I'm surprised at the number of non-newbie editors who are for some reason ignoring WP:N here.   Aside from that, I won't belabor the disgusting fallacy that one needs to have demonstrated prior interest in South Asian articles to apply the same notability and verifiability standards here as applies to all articles.  Ravenswing 18:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question: to all editors voting Keep: since many of you refer to ""numerous reliable sources"" mentioning or discussing the term Tamil genocide , while providing 2–3 links at most, will you likewise argue to keep an article titled Palestinian genocide , given the existence of an incomparably higher number of sources mentioning or discussing the latter term?  Or will you use a completely different yardstick, as the editors there have done?  Because the issue of naming consistency in genocide-focused articles is of paramount importance, as it has already used an incredible amount of community time.  — kashmīrī TALK 18:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I don't believe there has been a ""genocide"" against Palestinians, yes, had I participated in the October AfD, I would have voted to Keep, for the exact reason you proffer -- that it's a widely discussed topic with many reliable sources -- regardless of my personal opinion on the subject.  Why?   Were you expecting otherwise?   Do you yourself allow your personal politico-ethnic views to override dispassionate applications of Wikipedia guidelines and policies?  Ravenswing 04:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kashmiri , firstly WP:OTHERTHINGS applies here.  Each subject should be evaluated on its own merits.  Secondly, you can't expect every one who might participate in one AfD to participate in all AfDs.  Thirdly, speaking for myself only, I voted along similar lines to what I did here when I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel .  Not that it should matter to how I vote here because as I stated above WP:OTHERTHINGS .  I really don't see that your question has any validity insofar as what keep voters might or might not do in other discussions.  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kashmiri , Yes I would, especially the current Gaza offensive which has striking similarities to the 2009 Mullivaikkal massacre (as several commenters have remarked) but with the reservation that definite wording may be premature as it's an ongoing conflict.  That however didn't prevent you from giving the "" strongest possible support "" to recognizing Palestinian genocide as early as 3rd of March this year, when most of the accusations were about genocidal intent but barely any reliable source explicitly confirming genocidal actions .  As for the ""higher number of sources"", note that Palestinian genocide lede also includes progressive advocacy groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights and a writing by a Palestinian doctoral student Rabea Eghbariah which was rejected by the Harvard Law Review (not that I have issues with them but you have challenged Tamil genocide article on similar grounds ).  However, it's also true Palestine has a greater media coverage since it has a lot of powerful international backers due to various geopolitical and religious factors, although far more Tamil civilians died in the 2009 Mullivaikkal massacre with UN complicity.  Tamils have no such powerful backers, sometimes left forgotten .  Even the Indian Hindu nationalists are known to justify persecution of the Tamil people due to their equating the Sri Lankan Tamil issue with Kashmiri separatism and ethnic bias against Tamil Nadu .  In any case, can we not also wonder whether you approach this topic with the same yardstick as you have done repeatedly in Palestinian genocide discussions?  Your edit history here and in Tamil genocide article and its various talk discussions speaks for itself. --- Petextrodon ( talk ) 11:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrator note : To aid the closer, participants are allowed to mark single-purpose and dormant accounts with {{ spa }} or {{ canvassed }} , respectively.  But in the interest of transparency, these need to be accompanied by a sig + timestamp in small text (<small>text</small>) so that it's clear who had placed a given tag when.  Thank you.  El_C 19:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tamil Genocide was committed by Sri Lankan military assisted by most of the western countries + India, Pakistan, china and Russia.  Over 169,000 innocent Tamil people were slaughtered by the Sinhala military.  Tamils were prosecuted by Sinhala since the independence of SL in 1948.  Tamil genocide page is essential for public knowledge.  Canada has acknowledged by the Tamil genocide and multiple US congressmen/women have voiced concern.  A resolution was passed for Tamils to exercise self determination and an independent referendum for statehood.  This page must not deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.140.74 ( talk ) — 98.97.140.74 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  18:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided above by TarnishedPath and supporting argument by Ravenswing , as well as other strong policy based arguments scattered throughout this thread.  I agree with the criticism that the article needs cleanup, but that has nothing to do with its notability, and I'd be happy to help with said cleanup if we end on ""keep"".  I have no background in this topic, and like a few others found this argument from the admin noticeboard; I'm frankly disgusted by the amount of comments above which ignore policy in favor of their own personal opinions.  There's a reason for COI policies, and editors should steer well clear of arguing to delete articles just because they don't agree with what sources say.  If reliable scholars are discussing ""XYZ Genocide"" then it is a notable topic, even if the world isn't in total agreement on the issue.  Chiselinccc ( talk ) 05:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chiselinccc 100% on what the reliable sources say, as against what other government recognise.  We do reliable sources not original research.  Additionally as you note WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  The article can be improved, it's not at a WP:TNT point requiring starting from scratch.  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - As noted by several ""keep"" arguments as well, the case of a ""genocide"" is not clear at all, as such I don't think we should be having article over a dubious subject.  Wikipedia is not for WP:ADVOCACY .  At best, a section can be created on War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to discuss whether any genocide really took place or not.  Currently that article has some content about the ""genocide"" claims but it can be placed on a specific section.  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 11:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I think the accompanying notes in this ! vote are wilfully misleading, as I personally am unable to find any Keep ! vote that actually questions the validity of a case for genocide.  After all, it is not our purpose as Wikipedians to question the dubitability of valid sources from our WP:SOAPBOX , but to WP:ASSERT facts in a neutral manner.  The topic is verifiably notable enough—by way of numerous valid sources (all linked to within this AfD discussion) confirming or arguing its existence—to warrant the topic’s inclusion to WP as an article.  – Konanen ( talk ) 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Abhishek0831996 , can you please list who those several ""keep"" voters are who make an argument that the case of a ""genocide"" is not clear and provide specific quotes to back up your assertion?  Tar nis hed Path talk 22:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SinhalaLion said "" I’m not convinced that it has enough of a mass recognition as genocide "", Konanen said "" attempted genocide is still a genocide, "", Obi2canibe said "" There are reliable sources that discuss the possibility that genocide occurred in Sri Lanka "".  This confirms my comment thatthere is no clear case of genocide even according to several ""keep"" supporters.  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 03:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As may be, but that's not relevant.  The measure of the notability of a subject is that subject's coverage in reliable sources.  Ravenswing 05:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I object.  That is a misconstruction of what I said in my ! vote.  My, perhaps poorly worded, meaning was that a genocide does not have to have been successfully carried to completion to be considered as such, which can also be verified in the lead of Genocide : acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part , a national, ethnical, racial or religious group See also Genocidal intent .  But, as Ravenswing accurately says, this point is not relevant to the validity and notability of the article.  – Konanen ( talk ) 12:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Abhishek0831996 no it doesn't.  All of those comments do not say 'that there is no clear case of genocide' or even imply it.  Those statements do not confirm the correctness of your statement.  Tar nis hed Path talk 01:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I do not see a reason to delete given that 'Tamil genocide' is discussed by a plethora of reliable sources.  This alone is sufficient ground to have an article, regardless of whether its status as genocide is questioned or not.  Brat Forelli 🦊 01:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I had closed a recent RM concerning this article.  I agree that the topic itself is unsubstantiated and has only passing mentions in sources, let alone passing WP:GNG.  >>> Extorc .  talk 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is a terrible nomination by a user who has either lied about there being no one who recognized Tamil genocide or hasn't read the content he's disputing.  The introduction to the article clearly cites several sources that do.  The nominator mentioning a banned sock puppet has poisoned the well, and misleads voters, since it has no relevance to the current version.  It's a bad faith nomination that makes an extreme claim and suggests an extreme solution.  Airjordan2k ( talk ) 16:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Airjordan2k ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion.  — kashmīrī TALK 18:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kashmiri , can you provide evidence for your claim that this editor was canvassed to this discussion?  Tar nis hed Path talk 01:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify - Given the extreme dubiousness with regards to the subject and mostly forked content on the article, the page cannot stay in the current form.  Zakaria ښه راغلاست ( talk ) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"John De'Mathew : Dying in a traffic accident isn't notable, rest of their career appears non-notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kenya .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Kenya’s vice president William Ruto paid tribute to him ( CNN ) and he is called ""the celebrated king of benga"" by The Standard , one of Kenya's largest newspapers (see here ).  This article by The Standard notes a few ""bestselling hits"".  Mentioned here as a successful Gĩkũyũ musician, and as an ""genius"" who could sway public opinion in this book .  While it is unfortunate that most of the coverage lacks depth and mainly consists of articles written after his  death, I don't believe that this should undermine his notability.  Mooonswimmer 01:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral there are sources but they are not in depth Adler3 ( talk ) 00:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are references to make him notable.  FXBeats21 ( talk ) 07:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I think WP:GNG is passed by these sources [47] [48] [49] [50] .  I've ! voted weak keep because a lot of the coverage of him online is about his death, however I think the sources linked gives more information about his life.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was offline sources, but WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a bad argument to make.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough national coverage to meet WPSINGER.  116.92.232.6 ( talk ) 02:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tuko.co.ke : No notability.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , Companies ,  and Kenya .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because this project has dozens of sources which are recognizable and noteworthy.  Obviously has made significant contributions in its home country.  International and regional notability is still notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathantx ( talk • contribs ) 15:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please list WP:THREE sources (and no more) that pass WP:SIRS .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : this looks like a promotional refbomb.  ""Buisiness exists, business does business things"" is an accurate way to describe it.  All the references appear to be non-independent coverage or no-byline news briefs.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks like a lot of sources but it's refbombed. Some sources merely confirm minor awards won. LibStar ( talk ) 03:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep one of the major/biggest Kenyan news media, with a refbomb problem though. Looks notable and as a small article or a stub could look even better. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 09:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BoraVoro can you highlight which sources you think show notability?  -- asilvering ( talk ) 09:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per its inherent notability as the largest digital media in Kenya, and also significant coverage from books on Kenyan politics and media about the website, I added to the page. This also balances other references which are not too deep so to say. P.S. Promotional content should not lead to a vote for deletion, just as neutral content should not warrant a vote to keep the page. -- NiLok223 ( talk ) 10:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NiLok223 can you highlight the sources you've identified as sigcov in this discussion, please?  -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . According to kenyans.co.ke, Tuko.co.ke is one of the most popular media outlets in Kenya, with the highest traffic among other sites in the country, as confirmed here or here . Such ratings confirm the notability and the article meets WP:GNG -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source you list might squeak past WP:SIRS , if that can be considered WP:SIGCOV , but the second one does not provide SIGCOV at all.  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 09:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the prose is in the form of a list and it feels ADVERT-y.  Could be notable with a WP:TNT .  If one of the Keep ! voters finds good sources out of all of those, please let me know.  —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts!  16:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have found additional evidence from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism confirming that TUKO is a leading media in Kenya, which should help with notability issue.  [66] .  Regarding sources, I already added two books that provide comprehensive coverage and analysis of the subject's significance in Kenya's media landscape.  -- NiLok223 ( talk ) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NiLok223 , it would be really helpful if you - or anyone else - could clearly identify what you think are the best sources with the most significant coverage.  It is very possible that people who have already ! voted delete will change their minds if shown good sources (see for example the !vote immediately above your comment).  Everyone who has called for ""delete"" has already looked at the article, so telling us ""it's in the article"" won't help.  If we've missed something (which is easy when it's so refbombed), please let us know what it is.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've cleared out a lot of the refbomb. It should be easier to see the relevant sources now. I haven't rewritten anything or checked any of the sources for verifiability or notability, but it should be easier for someone to convert the remaining ""list of facts"" problem into actual narrative sentences. Editors mostly concerned with the adverty nature might want to take a second look. -- asilvering ( talk ) 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the subject is definitely notable as the most or top-3 most visited websites (not media) in Kenya.  I would suggest deviating from the classical approach as per WPNCORP and WP:THREE since the media often do not cover their rivals (I've recently read somewhere a good discussion on that matter on Wiki).  Additionally, the Tuko website is the biggest news publisher on Facebook globally (not in Kenya) surpassing the global leader Daily Mail - per Oct and Nov 2022 reports by social media engagement tracking firm NewsWhip [67] and [68] .  According to Alexa ranking (Feb 2022), Tuko was the third most visited website in Kenya after Google and YouTube, followed by Facebook.  Therefore, the page meets the General Notability Guidelines (GNG).  The sources added during that discussion, including books and others, and the removal of advert lines significantly improve the page as well Johnpaul2030 ( talk ) 08:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Abu Abdo : -- فيصل ( talk ) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  فيصل ( talk ) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions .  AllyD ( talk ) 15:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Brennan, James (2020-11-17).  "" 'Aleppo: A Taste of the City That Was' by James Brennan"" .  Fine Dining Lovers .  Archived from the original on 2023-04-28 .  Retrieved 2023-04-28 .  From https://www.finedininglovers.com/who-we-are Internet Archive , ""Fine Dining Lovers is an international digital platform, supported by S.Pellegrino and Acqua Panna , the waters accompanying the best dining experiences around the world. ... Launched in 2011, we are a multimedia magazine publishing original videos, podcasts, long-form articles and more. ... The magazine’s editorial staff is based in Milan. Stories are also written by a freelance network of more than 50 people covering the globe."" ""The article notes: ""Down a dusty lane, a few people had gathered outside a signless cafeteria.  It was Al- Fawwal, and the man behind the counter was Abu Abdo.  He was making ful medammes, which wasn’t a great surprise.  Because that’s all he had ever made.  Every day, from 3am to just gone noon, for the best part of 50 years.  ...  Abu Abdo’s ful medammes consists of large fava beans, slowly simmered in copper urns until soft and mushy, served with red chilli paste, garlic and a choice of either lemon juice or tahini.  That’s it, no alternatives.  You either like lemon or tahini or you don’t like Abu Abdo’s ful.  Watching him work is to see a man truly in his element, like Steve McQueen behind the wheel of a Shelby Mustang.  Fluid, graceful, elegant.  His body moves like mercury as he goes from tahini, to beans, to chilli paste to olive oil.  Splashing them into bowls or plastic bags in a flowing, liquid ballet of functional movement.  You worry that if he stops he’ll seize up and crumble into a billion pieces.  He’s as much a part of his restaurant as the dented worktops and the big blue gas canisters that fire up his ful.  Take away Abu Abdo and the walls would crack and the heavy wooden shutters would bang themselves closed in resistance. "" The article notes: ""Abu Abdo’s really is one of the last true bespoke dining experiences - you know exactly what you are going to get, you know who’s going to cook it, and you know you can’t quite get it like that anywhere else.  It’s been in the community for 150 years, handed down from father to son with a responsibility to keep on doing what they’ve always done. "" Dryef, Zineb (2016-12-30). ""C'était au temps où Alep vivait… Des souks à s'y perdre, une cuisine raffinée, des communautés cohabitant dans une relative harmonie… Ainsi allait la vie à Alep, avant les bombes.  Une ville riche et vivante qui n'était pas pour autant une cité idéale"" [It was at the time when Aleppo lived... Souks to get lost in, refined cuisine, communities living together in relative harmony… Such was life in Aleppo, before the bombs. A rich and lively city which was not an ideal city.]. Le Monde (in French). Archived from the original on 2023-04-28 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 . The article notes from Google Translate: ""Haj Abu Abdo Al-Fawal only served one dish, ful moudammas.  Dried beans that he cooked overnight in large copper pots, seasoned with lemon, sesame cream, a drizzle of olive oil and Aleppo red pepper flakes.  The best foul moudammas in the world.  Behind the counter of the eatery founded by his grandfather in 1885 in the Christian quarter of Jdeideh, he poured generous ladles of this creamy white puree from seven o'clock in the morning to an uninterrupted procession of Alepps who left with the preparation in a plastic bag.  ...  This stopover at Abu Abdo's, like the peaceful evenings, the boring mornings, the simple life, without fearing for oneself or for his family, is now only a pre-war memory.  From Aleppo before the deluge of fire.  ""It was exquisite,"" recalls Anissa Helou, a Lebanese-Syrian cookbook author. "" Datian, Christine Vartanian (2023-02-16). ""Recipe Corner: Memories of Aleppo's Favorite Foul (or fūl)"" . The Armenian Mirror-Spectator . Archived from the original on 2023-04-28 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 . The article notes: ""Aleppo’s Abu Abdo, for example, is a ful parlor specializing in ful, a typical breakfast meal: fava bean soup with a splash of olive oil, lemon juice and Aleppo’s red peppers.  This family business has been open for over 70 years.  “On a recent day, the owner ladles ful into plastic bags for the to-go crowd — workers as well as businessmen — because it’s the best in town. Abu Abdo has become a kind of trademark for the ful in Aleppo,” says Samir Akkad, a regular customer and a native of the city. ”"" Brennan, James (2010-09-01). ""Syria seen through the eyes of a foodie"" . Gulf News . Archived from the original on 2023-04-28 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 . The article notes: ""It's 6.30am in Aleppo, and the cobbled backstreets of the Christian neighbourhood of Al Jdeideh are all but deserted.  The morning's first rays of sunshine are blearily spreading across shuttered shopfronts, which remain firmly shut.  Except for one.  Hajj Abdo Al Fawwal is a tiny restaurant that's been feeding the same dish to Aleppo's early risers every day for the last 150 years.  And a small crowd is gathering in anticipation of today's fix.  The dish is ful medames, a traditional Syrian favourite of soft-boiled fava beans, served either with tahini or lemon juice and drizzled with red pepper paste and olive oil.  But it isn't just the locals who start to clamour for one of the few tables in the cramped dining room - a few inquisitive tourists have joined the ranks to experience one of Aleppo's legendary dining institutions .  In the 55 years that Abu Abdo has been serving his famous ful, he's never quite seen so much interest from foreigners.  "" Amos, Deborah (2010-01-05). ""Food Lovers Discover The Joys Of Aleppo"" . NPR . Archived from the original on 2023-04-28 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 . The article notes: ""One, known as Abu Abdo, specializes in ful, a typical breakfast meal: fava bean soup with a splash of olive oil, lemon juice and Aleppo's red peppers.  The family business has been open for more than 70 years.  On a recent day, the owner ladles ful into plastic bags for the to-go crowd — workers as well as businessmen — because it's the best in town.  Abu Abdo has become a kind of ""trademark"" for the ful in Aleppo, says Samir Akkad, a regular customer and a native of the city. "" Azzam, Itab; Mousawi, Dina (2017). Our Syria: Recipes from Home . Philadelphia: Running Press . ISBN 978-0-7624-9053-0 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""Abu Abdo's, the ful maker's shop in Aleppo, is a landmark that is more than a century old.  Abu Abdo himself passed away a long time ago, but generations of his children and grandchildren have passed on the secrets of the trade and kept the business going.  Before the war, if you wanted a takeout, Abu Abdo poured the ful into a plastic bag and tied it up, but we won't judge you if you use Tupperware!""  Allen, Brooke (2011). The Other Side of the Mirror: An American Travels through Syria . Philadelphia: Paul Dry Books. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-58988-068-9 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Google Books . The book notes: ""The working-class neighborhoods have their own delicacies, and Aleppo even boasts a Seinfeldian Soup Nazi: Abu Abdo, where people line up first thing in the morning with their own plastic containers to take away portions of the restaurant's wildly popular ful , fava bean soup. "" Helou, Anissa (2010). Heddings, Kate (ed.). Food & Wine annual cookbook 2010: an entire year of recipes . New York: American Express Publishing . p. 19. ISBN 978-1-60320-120-9 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""One of Anissa's favorites is Abu Abdo's in the Christian quarter.  ""Abu works nonstop from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., deftly ladling ful from a large copper jar into bowls or plastic bags,"" she says. "" This is her adaptation."" "" ""حج عبدو الفوال"" لم ترحمه آلة الحرب في سورية فمضى بأطباقه إلى مصر"" [""Hajj Abdo Al-Fawal"" was not spared by the war machine in Syria, so he went with his dishes to Egypt].  Alraddar (in Arabic).  2013-02-06.  Archived from the original on 2013-04-16 .  Retrieved 2023-04-28 .  The article notes from Google Translate: """"Hajj Abdo Al-Fawal"" was not spared by the war machine in Syria, so he went with his dishes to Egypt ""Abu Abdel-Fawal"" intends to open tomorrow, Thursday, a bean shop in Egypt, after the destruction of his famous shop in the Al-Jadida neighborhood of Aleppo during the clashes that took place months ago last year between members of the Syrian Arab Army and militants opposition. "" Oughton, Julie, ed. (2011). Ultimate Food Journeys: The World's Best Dishes and Where to Eat Them . London: DK . p. 172. ISBN 978-0-7566-8600-0 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""... for one of the city's most traditional and heartwarming experiences, have a breakfast of ful medames at Abu Abdo's tiny restaurant in Jdeideh.  The old man has been serving the same dish of fava beans, tahini, lemon juice, and red pepper paste for around 50 years, and he's a legendary character in the city. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Abu Abdo 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 ) 10:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard and WP:HEY .  gidonb ( talk ) 05:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"PEP (People, Events and Places) Talk : Donald D23 talk to me 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep multi-awarded show and a precursor to most Philippine feature programs.  Please do some WP:BEFORE next time.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced that either of the awards the show won are major. They all seem minor and not notable. Just because a show won an ""award"" doesn't make it notable...unless the award is a major, recgonized award. Also, being a precursor to other shows is not a gauge of notability, unless citations can be provided saying as much. Otherwise it is just conjecture. My BEFORE, which I did, brought up nothing to support notability, and I am not sure your rationale is enough either. Donald D23 talk to me 11:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow PMPC STAR awards minor and not notable. Nah, we're done talking here. I'm not dealing with this. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep and ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination .  Um yeah, Catholic Mass Media Awards and PMPC Star Awards for Television are major; in fact the latter seems to be the only award giving body for solely devoted to television.  This screams like ""ignorant foreigner!"" to me.  There's still time to withdraw this nomination and stop wasting our time.  Howard the Duck ( talk ) 16:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: with reminder to avoid personal attacks against the nom, thank you.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 20:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Gayle Anderson : One of the two references is connected to the subject, another is a trivia source.  Career section is also under-referenced and thus does not comply with WP:BLP .  A09 ( talk ) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women .  A09 ( talk ) 12:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The whole article is supported with two sources only which, I agree, would be scarce even for a general article but the requirements for WP:BLP are even stricter and prescribe sufficient media coverage and secondary sources to prove their notability. -- Rodgers V ( talk ) 13:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ Rodgers V : What do you think about #1 of WP:ANYBIO as subject got 3 Emmys.  A09 ( talk ) 15:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note for researchers, especially on the Miami side: she was known as Gail, not Gayle, in Miami.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , barely, but the unsourced material needs to be removed.  I think the content here Gayle Anderson#Awards and recognition passes the line.  // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but recommending that editors consider a WP:TNT .  I personally think the article has potential given the awards nomination.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep only because she has won Emmys, but the article is in dire need of work.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 00:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per editors above and per WP:ANYBIO with her Emmy awards.  Shout out to Timothy for TNTing the unreferenced material here.  Nomader ( talk ) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above comments; a simple search on the Emmys website confirms her award (e.g. here ).  Straughn ( talk ) 20:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Jean Dubuis : I looked for better ones and found only self-published or dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality.  gnu 57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions .  gnu 57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ""dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality"" are appropriate references for this topic.  If you can add them in that would do as independent references.  I added in an independent external link, that is about a third of what is needed for GNG proof.  Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 23:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 04:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 04:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  It would be nice to see more participation here.  It would make a closure more straight-forward.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep echoing @ Graeme Bartlett the chief complaint here seems to be the nature of the sources cited, not the lack of sources.  Aside from the primary sources (not unusual for an author) the article cites a number of websites that treat Dubuis as important, for example [59] , [60] .   I just added this [61] from the Theosophical Society .   These independent sources vouch for his importance among members of the community of alchemy researchers, substantiating WP:NAUTHOR #1, namely that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors .  Oblivy ( talk ) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Michael Acevedo : BLP, see tagging in article for problems with in article references, nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 00:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Finance ,  and Argentina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If you are wondering why the article is written like crap, it is because it is machine translated from the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia .  Even the article title is incorrect; the subject's name is Miguel Acevedo, not Michael.  Regardless, the other sources in the article, primarily [44] , as well as this article I found, should be enough to fix the verification issues.  Subject passes WP:NPOL as an Argentine vice governor, which is equivalent to an American lieutenant governor.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have cleaned up the article, which cost me nearly an hour.  I hope that the article creator learns from this and no longer creates machine-generated garbage blindly copy-pasted from other language projects.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have blocked the creator from creating new articles due to failing to attribute original sources, and lodged a WP:CCI report.  Stifle ( talk ) 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NPOL as a vice governor per Curbon.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 14:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) : Case of WP:BLP1E that was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (2nd nomination) , but it was recreated.   Referencing is very poor (there are no quality RS that cover the subject in any SIGOV outside of being in lists of famous winners).   I tagged the article a year ago and suggested it should be redirected as IPs were constantly adding badly referenced WP:PROMO material about his other business interests, but when I WP:BOLDLY redirected it a few days ago, having not had any response to my notices, User:Robert McClenon felt it was better to send to AfD.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only seeing now that it was also at AfD a third time (that AfD wasn't logged on the Talk Page) where it was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (3rd nomination) .   Having read the sourcing that was provided for the 3rd AfD, I think it was pretty weak, and a redirect, to his entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden would be a better solution.  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Arts , Television ,  and History .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've now restored the AfD tag from the article, since it was removed by Oompaloompa1971 for apparently no reason.  CycloneYoris talk!  00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject .  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.  Sources McNear, Claire (2020).  Answers in the Form of Questions: A Definitive History and Insider's Guide to Jeopardy!  .  New York: Twelve .  ISBN 978-1-5387-0232-1 .  Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books .  The book notes about Bruce Lou: ""As a student, he’d done quiz bowl, the team trivia competition often found in scholastic settings, and won the National History Bee—a contest organized by David Madden, who was a nineteen-time Jeopardy! champion in 2005—and Lou found himself missing the competition.""  The book notes: ""As Watson entered crunch time, Jeopardy! granted IBM access to notable champions from years past, including nineteen-time winner David Madden, whose streak was second only to Ken Jennings’s at the time. Madden played two games against Watson.“"" The book notes: ""A number of Jeopardy! alumni’s new chapters, perhaps unsurprisingly, have to do with trivia. David Madden was a twentythree-year-old grad student when he first played, and as he left the studio after his twentieth game with vouchers totaling more than $430,000, he wasn’t sure what he wanted to do. ... A quiz bowl alum, he ultimately used his winnings as seed money to found International Academic Competitions, which hosts, among other things, the annual National History Bee and Bowl.""  The book notes: ""David Madden, the nineteen-time champion, remembers auditioning in the Jeopardy! studio in May 2004. With him was a friend named Jeff Hoppes, who was called to be on the show just before Madden and ultimately became one of the final victims of Ken Jennings, coming in second in the seventieth game of Jennings's seventy-four-game winning streak. Hoppes, Madden says, first played quiz bowl in high school when he was a classmate of Rutter's, and then went on to marry eventual six-time Jeopardy! champion and Tournament of Champions runner-up Larissa Kelly. Madden, Rutter, and Kelly made up the winning team in the All-Star Games.""  Grant, Meghan (2019-03-04). "" 'Jeopardy!' All-Star Games finals include Ridgewood native"" . North Jersey Media Group . Archived from the original on 2024-04-29 . Retrieved 2024-04-29 . The article notes: ""This Bergen County person is competing in the ""Jeopardy!""  All-Star Games this week. ... Who is former champion David Madden of Ridgewood? Among the former champs will be Madden, a member of Team Brad, one of the six trios of top players in the tournament. ... Back in 2005-2006, Madden won $432,400 in 19 rounds in a row — the third-longest winning streak in the game — earning a rank among ""Jeopardy!"" top players. ... Madden founded International Academic Competitions, running about a dozen contests in 30 countries, including the National History Bee and National Science Bee, hosting tens of thousands of students. Former players have gone on to ""Jeopardy!"" teen and college tournaments, and five staffers have won on the show.""  Grant, Meghan (2019-03-05). ""Ridgewood native David Madden and Team Brad win 'Jeopardy!' All-Star Games"" . North Jersey Media Group . Archived from the original on 2024-04-29 . Retrieved 2024-04-29 . The article notes: ""Ridgewood native David Madden and his partners on Team Brad won a decisive victory on ""Jeopardy!""  All-Star Games, and the $1 million prize. ... Madden earned a spot on the All-Star Games roster by winning 19 rounds in a row in 2005 and 2006, the third-longest winning streak in the show’s history. He was “drafted” by team leader Brad Rutter, along with Madden’s former Princeton classmate, Larissa Kelly. ... Madden used some of his first ""Jeopardy!"" winnings, a $432,400 pot, as start-up money, going on to found International Academic Competitions.""  Coutros, Evonnie (2005-09-23).  ""Ridgewood grad strikes it rich on 'Jeopardy!' "" .  The Record .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-29 .  Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Newspapers.com .  The article notes: ""Former Ridgewood resident David Madden hit the jackpot this month, but it wasn't in the lottery. Madden, a 1999 graduate of Ridgewood High, had a 19-day winning streak on ""Jeopardy!"" and walked away from the game show with more than $430,000 in cash. Madden, 24, a graduate of Princeton University, lost to a 24-year-old self-employed musician from Decatur, Ga. The episode aired earlier this week. ... Madden, who now lives in Berlin, is studying for an advanced degree in international relations at Frei University.""  Daugherty, Haley (2023-02-17).  ""Greater Latrobe Senior High School to host national quiz competition"" .  Pittsburgh Tribune-Review .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-29 .  Retrieved 2024-04-29 .  The article notes: ""International Academic Competitions was started in 2010 by Jeopardy winner David Madden. He and his wife, Nolwenn Madden act as executive directors and they expanded the competition globally in 2012.""  Adams, Caralee J. (2013-07-01).  ""Reviving History Instruction: What's Old Is New Again"" .  Education Week .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-29 .  Retrieved 2024-04-29 .  The article notes: ""With the goal of engaging students more deeply in history, David Madden, a “Jeopardy” champion and former high school and college quiz-bowl player, established the National History Bee & Bowl in 2010. Now in about 2,000 schools—elementary through high—individual Bee competitions and Bowl events are held throughout the country. Mr. Madden, 31, discovered there was plenty of demand.""  Ferguson, Mike (2014-02-08).  "" 'I'll take history for $1,000, Alex': Founder of history bowl attends Montana competition"" .  Billings Gazette .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-29 .  Retrieved 2024-04-29 .  The article notes: ""Montana high school history buffs can thank David Madden’s 19-day winning streak on the game show “Jeopardy!” nine years ago for the chance to show off their own knowledge Saturday at Skyview High School. Madden, 32, is founder and executive director of the National History Bee and Bowl, an individual and team competition with about 50,000 participants in more than 200 places around the country and overseas, too. About 60 students competed all day Saturday in the state championship held in Skyview’s theater. ... Madden, a graduate of Princeton University, founded the organization four years ago on his more than $400,000 in winnings on America’s most famous quiz show.""  Zarnowski, Tatiana (2011-02-28).  ""Saratoga Springs competition will test knowledge of history"" .  The Daily Gazette .  Archived from the original on 2014-07-22 .  Retrieved 2024-04-29 .  The article notes: ""National History Bowl and Bee, a private, for-profit startup company, is based in Ridgewood, N.J., where owner David Madden is from. The company conducted a pilot competition there in May. In 2005, Madden reigned in a 20-game run on “Jeopardy!,” the second-longest ever after Ken Jennings, who had a 74-game winning streak.""  Strauss, Robert (2005-10-09).  ""Worth Noting; I'll Take Quiz Kids For $600, Alex"" .  The New York Times .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-29 .  Retrieved 2024-04-29 .  The article notes: ""Mr. Madden was the captain of the Quiz Bowl team at Ridgewood High, and was on a similar freshman team at Princeton.""  Pakkala, Tiffany (2008-01-10).  "" 'Jeopardy' winner turns to hiking with a purpose"" .  Savannah Morning News .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-29 .  Retrieved 2024-04-29 .  The article notes: """"Jeopardy"" fans remember him as the calculating young trivia expert who won 19 times on the game show and left with winnings more than $442,000, in part because he sought out the ""Daily Double"" early to maximize his cash.  Now David Madden, 26, is crunching numbers for a different reason: He's hiking 3,000 miles to help raise money for a group that offers free and low-cost lodging to hospitalized soldiers and their families. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Madden to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 05:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of these refs is WP:SIGCOV on the subject in a major regional/national media outlet - none. No main regional or national American news outlet thinks he is notable enough to do a piece on him - if they don't think he is notable, why do we? Passing mentions, and mostly for the BLP1E, in small media outlets, is not the General notability guideline . If that was the case we could get rid of BLP1E as a guideline as most cases have such coverage. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 08:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject received significant coverage in 2005, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020, and 2023. A person who falls under WP:BLP1E does not receive sustained significant coverage over 18 years for his activities. He was a nineteen-time Jeopardy! champion in 2005. He founded the International Academic Competitions, which hosts the annual National History Bee and Bowl. He competed in and with his partners won the ""Jeopardy!""  All-Star Games in 2019. A person who has received significant coverage for multiple events does not fall under WP:BLP1E . The subject is from New Jersey. The subject received significant coverage in a 2020 book published by Twelve . He received significant coverage in a 2014 article in Billings Gazette , the largest newspaper in Montana. He received significant coverage in a 2008 article in the Savannah Morning News , a regional newspaper that covers the Savannah metropolitan area and parts of South Carolina. He easily meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria . Cunard ( talk ) 08:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But he hasn't received any significant coverage.  If WP:GNG was ""significant number of passing mentions in non-national/regional sources"", then he would be a keep.  But the requirement is for ""significant coverage"", and in quality sources (of which there is also none). I could create an AI to scan 3rd tier US media to find names briefly mentioned (many of which will have a BLP1E element), and I could create 1 million more Wikipedia BLPs in the morning, but I would probably be in ANI shortly after. No encyclopedia outside of Jeopardy! fan sites, will ever have an article on this subject.  His entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden captures everything that is notable about his BLP1E. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources such as Pakkala 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPakkala2008 ( help ) , Ferguson 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFerguson2014 ( help ) , Grant 2019a harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGrant2019a ( help ) , and McClear 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcClear2020 ( help ) are not passing mentions. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, ""multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"". Cunard ( talk ) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There is no requirement on WP:SIGCOV for sources to be ""a major regional/national media outlet""; topics can be covered locally and still be notable.  WP:NOTPAPER .  — Ost ( talk ) 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sourcing identified by Cunard is lasting and diverse in its source markets.  I think this is beyond BLP1E territory.  Star Mississippi 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets Basic.  Desertarun ( talk ) 20:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Miss America 2024 : Was already redirected once and was contested twice, so I'm expecting a PROD to also be contested, hence skipping that step.  Taking Out The Trash ( talk ) 17:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't really think it's too soon, it's basically in less than a year from now.  Barring some terrible thing happening, it will more than likely take place.  A few decent sources already in the article as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Miss America until date and venue are confirmed.  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.   There are already 4 contestants crowned, with a bunch more coming up in the next few weeks.   I don't think its too soon for this article.  Karalott84 ( talk ) 18:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b , seeing as how there have been ninety five previous iterations it's somewhat likely the 96th will occur.  Although the article's wording implies the pageant has already taken place ""Miss America 2024 was the 96th edition of the Miss America pageant"" , I think the likelihood that it will occur later this year and the valid sources outweigh reasons to remove.  It is a good faith entry in the encyclopedia and if we remove it now, it will only reappear later this year.  WhichUserAmI ( talk ) 18:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The redirect is intended temporarily; we need a confirmed venue and date before an article is created, and this has been consistent for any article, pageant or not (and the continued pageant project/ANI drama makes draftspace a no-go).  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ MrSchimpf I'm curious if you have some easy links to discussions/similar coming to that consensus.  I don't recall seeing that requirement for future events when there's sufficient other coverage and it is likely enough to happen.  Thanks.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Skynxnex - The pageant project has been dead for a while anyway, so I don't see what weight something that doesn't exist holds.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 15:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b, the fact that there are contests being crowned who will compete, and we're at the point if somehow it doesn't happen (or is moved to next year, say), we'd still want an article about it and this is a decent place to start.  Looking at WP:CRYSTAL again: for #1, it almost surely will happen and the event is notable; for the amount that this fits within #2, we know more than generic information, so this article passes since #3 through #5 are not relevant.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm voting to keep this due to the fact that we already know that various people are qualified for it and that makes it part of the competition.  I'd vote against it if Miss America 2025 was posted today.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 15:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"2020 Williamsburg massacre : No sustained significant coverage.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events ,  and West Virginia .  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems to have sustained coverage, as there has been a long running controversy over the DHS treatment of the children.  2023 Lawsuit alleges DHHR knew children were in danger in Oreanna Myers case 2023 Lawsuit alleges child abuse was reported to DHHR, they took no action 2021 Fire investigation turns into murder-suicide 2021 ‘Witchcraft rituals’: Disturbing details about Oreanna Myers who killed five children 2021 Following murder-suicide, questions brought up about CPS referral process It also possibly had a significant impact on Virginian law [48] .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any sort of retrospective study or analysis here that would amount to sustained coverage.  I just see news stories in response to new events like the lawsuit.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My reading of WP:SUSTAINED is that it does not necessarily require that - ""Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability"".  I read sustained to be over a non-breaking news period of time (given that the heading is ""over a sufficiently significant period of time"").  Also from what I can see the sources do offer analysis in the context of WV's child care systems and used as an example event that demonstrates the failures of it.  But I think you may have a different interpretation of that policy than me.  Since this has been covered on and off for a few years, made international news, and seems to be discussed with some analysis I think it is okay to keep.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 18:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  There needs to be more sourcing and proof of extended/sustained coverage.  If the DHS's treatment of the children is established, it needs to be included in the article.  Additionally, the article needs a fair amount of editing.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the time for draftifying may be a bit past, given that this article has existed in mainspace for a while.  If it survives I volunteer to add the later sources/DHS stuff, draftying is either prolonging the inevitable deletion or keeping it out of mainspace for no reason PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds good to me.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per discussion immediately above.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Seems to be a notable event, and the sources provided are all valid.   Sadly, larger and intervening events are going to preclude sustained and ongoing coverage for years to come for things like this.   If there were a trial, there would certainly be more coverage, but in a murder-suicide there's not going to have been one.   There will certainly be more sources available, likely including online newspapers, such as the Herald-Dispatch and Charleston Gazette .  P Aculeius ( talk ) 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SUSTAINED and PARAKANYAA's sources.  Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  Sorry—not trying to SHOUT .  Stony Brook babble 20:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Paula Surridge : No RS or SIGCOV (The Guardian link is to contributed content), fails WP:GNG; WP:NACADEMIC Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 10:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Not my area but the top citations in GS [10] are quite promising (201,179,127,93,87) though total citations are fairly low.  There are 3 coauthored books, for which reviews should be sought.  The Guardian appears to treat her as an expert.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Keep per reviews found by David Eppstein.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 21:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I found two reviews each of two books, added to the article.  Because the books are coauthored and two of the reviews are of multiple books, I think by themselves they would only make a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR but putting them together with the citation record above and WP:PROF#C1 I think it's enough.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 04:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"No Reasons : No others found in a BEFORE.  Previously deleted in an AfD, but recreated.  Donald D23 talk to me 23:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom .  Donald D23 talk to me 23:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , in small part, to Spencer Hawken , the writer and director.  There's some verifiable info that could fit in that article.  — siro χ o 07:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Norris, Michelle (28 November 2013).  ""Essex lands starring role in new films"" .  The Essex Enquirer .  Archived from the original on 16 February 2016 .  Retrieved 17 August 2023 .  {{ cite news }} :  CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( link ) The article notes: ""The story of No Reasons revolves around Jodie, a fresh faced young teenager who one day fails to come home from school.
 The focus is then put on her parents, Sally and Paul as they try to piece together the tatters of their life without their much loved child.  But as the story probes deeper the movie will reveal a darker more sinister side as to why Jodie disappeared.  Hornchurch and Brentwood are going to be the key locations within the movie, with private properties already secured for filming.  The cast already includes 80s sensation Emily Lloyd and filming is due to begin shortly. "" Greene, Andy (2 February 2014). ""Death Walks, The World's First Zero Budget Horror Movie, Completed"" . Famous Monsters of Filmland . Famous Monsters of Filmland . Archived from the original on 2 February 2014 . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . The article notes: ""Last year Spencer Hawken and Lucinda Rhodes created the movie Death Walks, they followed this up with a very different horror story Revisited.  Now they begin work on No Reasons, a thriller centered around every parents nightmare.  Set in Brentwood and Hornchurch the movie begins with the disappearance of 14-year-old Jodie, the movie then follows an 18 month journey for the parents as they try to discover what has become of their daughter.  It’s not until a private investigator steps in however that a terrible secret, and a hidden underground world becomes exposed.  The movie is being shot for a modest £30,000 which in movie terms is very little indeed, yet the creators have gathered a very interesting cast together that includes some big names from yesteryear.  “I’m a big believer in picking up people that have been forgotten by the mainstream, we have a clutch-full of very popular former Eastenders stars, a once Oscar nominated actress, and some familiar faces doing something very different to how we normally see them,” says Spencer Hawken,“ some of whom we have already gone public with, others we are keeping tight lipped about for as long as possible. I love when your sat watching a film or a TV show and suddenly this familiar face pops up you were not expecting.”  Hawken describes No Reasons as a tale unlike any other, a bit like Grange Hill meets Saw.  “I’m a big believer in not doing what others are, No Reasons is a genre-jumping movie, with some very edgy ideas, and a very vivid imagination.”  Names currently attached to the project include Daniel Peacock (Robin Hood – Prince Of Thieves), and Jessie Williams (TV’s Tracy Beaker and The Dumping Ground). "" ""Kickstarter Film 'No Reasons' Looks for Funding"" . Love Horror . 14 May 2014 . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . The article notes: ""Kickstarter, the site that acts as a springboard for many aspiring film makers is being used by film making duo Spencer Hawken and Lucinda Rhodes to fund the last part of their film project, No Reasons.
 The pair have completed 90% of the film and the final piece of funding is to enable them to add some much needed special effects and give the final bit of polish to this piece of work.  No reasons is a dark thriller that revolves around the disappearance of a young schoolgirl and follows follows Paul (Marc Bannerman) and Sally (Lucinda Rhodes) as they struggle to comes to ters with their missing daughter and search for answers.
 The film plays as a whodunnit but contains taboo elements which have led it to be described as ‘contraversial’ and compared to films such as A Serbian Film and The Human Centipede.  The cast contains a fair amount of notable talent and the project looks certain to draw plenty of attention in the horror community, making it an excellent gig to get involved with for any potential backers. "" Russell, Rickey (5 February 2014). ""Cast Announced For No Reasons"" . Movie Pilot . Movie Pilot . Archived from the original on 29 March 2014 . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . {{ cite news }} :  CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( link ) The article notes: ""The cast has been announced for Hawken Rhodes’ “No Reasons”.  Marc Bannerman, Lucinda Rhodes, Roland Manookian, Elisha Applebaum, Lorraine Stanley, Daniel Smales, Scott Mullins, Jazz Lintott, Jon Guerriero, Daniel Peacock, Dexter Koh, Jessie Williams, and Holly Boeva have all signed on for the Spencer Hawken directed project.  When Jodie goes missing, her parents are left behind to pick up the pieces.  They frantically try every option to get her to come home, or for her kidnappers to release her.  While they search the mortuaries looking for clues, a private investigator discovers a murky world and a terrible secret everyone wants to keep. "" Anderson, Hayley (24 March 2014). ""Havering plays the starring role in future blockbuster"" . Romford Recorder . Newsquest . Archived from the original on 15 February 2016 . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . {{ cite news }} :  CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( link ) The article notes: ""Spencer Hawken, 40, of London Road, Brentwood, a screenwriter, producer and director, has chosen the borough once again as the backdrop to his latest creation, No Reasons.  He describes it as “a mixture of the makings of a kitchen sink drama as well as a horrific crime thriller”.  Spencer directed Death Walks, a zombie movie filmed in Havering last year.  His new project stars famous faces in the form of ‘Allo Allo’s Vicki Michelle and 2013 Big Brother runner-up Dexter Koh. Dexter said: “No Reasons has reignited my love for the British film industry. It’s amazingly wicked!”  Other stars include ex-Hollyoaks actor Stuart Manning and Roland Manookian, who has worked with director Guy Ritchie and who said he wanted a role because of its “level of darkness”. Focusing on the aftermath of a girl going missing, there are elements that have been inspired by some of the top British crimes in the past 20 years, Spencer said. He added: “There are certain parts of the film that have been taken from four separate news stories that caught my attention, making it an incredibly dark picture.”  From Hornchurch Library in North Street, Hornchurch, to The Brickyard bar and grill in South Street, Romford, the film is mainly set in Havering. Spencer said: “When we shot Death Walks in Romford, we got so much support from the area and that was kind of the incentive that drove us to coming back here.”  Residents were given a chance to be part of the movie. Former Harold Wood schoolboy Spencer said: “I hope the people of Havering will really enjoy it.”  No Reasons will be released at a date to be announced this year.""  Anderson, Hayley (24 March 2014). ""Film No Reasons to be premiered at Mercury Mall"" . Romford Recorder . Newsquest . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . The article notes: ""A film which has been 18 months in the making, will be shown for the first time at Premiere Cinema in the Mercury Mall on Friday. No Reasons is described by director Spencer Hawken as a “kitchen sink horror” with plenty of plot twists as the audience follows the tale of a couple’s 14-year-old daughter going missing. Famous faces are seen throughout the film, including former Hollyoaks and Casualty actor Stuart Manning, Vicki Michelle from ‘Allo ‘Allo! and Jazz Lintott from The Real Hustle. Locations such as The Brickyard, Mercury Mall, in Romford, and Fairkytes Arts Centre in Hornchurch are used as backdrops.""  Wilkin, Andy (12 May 2014). ""No Reasons (Movie) by Spencer Hawken and Lucinda Rhodes"" . Archived from the original on 12 June 2017 . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . {{ cite news }} :  CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( link ) The article notes: ""No Reasons (Movie) by Spencer Hawken and Lucinda Rhodes. No Reasons is the story of a missing girl and the family left behind. Over the course of 18 months the story follows Paul (Marc Bannerman) and Sally (Lucinda Rhodes) Bryant, as they struggle to come to terms with her disappearance. No Reasons plays out like an old fashioned whodunit, there are clues, mysteries, revelations, and shocking secret that everyone wants to keep. No Reasons also stars Lorraine Stanley (who currently is shooting Suffragette with Meryl Streep and Helena Bonham Carter) as Simone a woman so terrifying she puts Glen Close’s performance in Fatal Attraction to shame. Vicki Michelle an actress known to millions for three decades thanks to her role in Allo Allo. Roland Manookian star of The Business, The Football Factory, and Goodbye Charlie Bright. Anna Karen best known for her performance as Olive from 70’s smash hit comedy On The Buses. Stuart Manning of popular teen soap Hollyoaks. Dexter Koh runner up of of 2013’s Big Brother. Jessie Williams children’s TV icon with successful shows The Dumping Ground and Tracy Beaker returns already under her wing for several years at the age of just 15. Jazz Lintott star of BBC3’s The Real Hustle, and the controversial thriller Airbourne. And last but no means least Daniel Peacock (Quadrophenia, Only Fools And Horses) as the bungling private investigator Maurice. What makes No Reasons so unique is it’s story, it covers a number of touchy and taboo areas not yet covered by British cinema. Compared already by industry players as a combination of Kitchen Sink drama meets A Serbian Film and The Human Centipede, and compared in controversial ranking by industry head Steven Woolley as on a par to Ken Russell’s The Devils. It is also with a budget of just £25,000 one if the lowest budget British movies ever to be made with such an enormous cast of familiar faces. Director/writer/producer Spencer Hawken promises there has never been a British movie quite like this, and that is why so many known performers lowered their fee to be part of the action. The film was shot in Havering and Brentwood, Essex with hundreds of people volunteering for roles, and to help put the film together. Big locations such as Romford’s The Brickyard gave their venue to the films producers for use in the film. Other locations included Big Cars, The Havering Well, Brentwood Police Station, and dozens of private residences. 90% of the movie is complete! with the aforementioned special effects scenes being all that remains to shoot.""  Marshall, Lucy (January 24, 2021). ""From Orchard Park to Amazon Prime: The Hull actor told he would never make it"" . Hull Daily Mail . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . The article notes: “The horror film actor added: ""I had a few sleepless nights when characterising Kevin, even though your playing a character you can’t help but become overwhelmed by the themes. I think you have a certain level of performance confidence to take these types of roles on. I based my character on an old school teacher, he had slicked hair to the side flat to his head which inspired the characteristic in the film. He always wore a suit jacket or shirt and had square point shoes I even managed to get those details into the film. Despite all this we have had great positivity through the success of No Reason, I’ve not heard a bad thing about the film expect it's not going to be for everyone as it is very dark.”  Bannerman, Stuart (6 September 2016). ""All the reasons to watch No Reasons ( Now on Prime Video)"" . frompage2screen . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . The article notes: “The movie covers some pretty despicable characters. It's great to see Mark Bannerman stretching himself and doing something completely different believe me this is different ... A couple played by Marc Bannerman and Lucinda Rhodes have lost their child. She's been missing for some time and over the course of the first half hour of the film that time frame shows that kind of progresses. It's a little bit hazy as to how long she's been missing but we're talking like a couple of years. They are the kind of people that try and pull you back so you've got a collection of some nice characters and some not nice characters, who all eventually become not nice characters ... It's not an easy film to talk about there are a lot of themes in there, it's a lot to unpack ... As an independent filmmaker in Britain you need that enthusiasm, you need that drive otherwise your movie is not going to get made. It's a pretty solid movie it looks good, it sounds good."" ""No Reasons (2021)"" . letterboxd . 11 February 2021 . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . and No Reasons (2016, 2021) . YouTube . 11 February 2021 . Retrieved 17 August 2023 . The article notes: “A bad take on a difficult topic, this movie contains more sexual assault and rape scenes than I've ever seen put to film, and it does it all with no impact, no gravitas, and an air of flippancy that honestly just made me upset. This isn't even a ""dare"" movie like A Serbian Film, it handles everything in such a juvenile, adolescent way for bad attempts at continually ramping up perceived shock value and falls flat in every relatable way as a result.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ‘’ No Reasons ’’ to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and WP:Film which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  It also meets the requirements of receiving full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.  The film is historically notable, as evidenced by given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.  S6GHSAM4 ( talk ) 10:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Plenty of evidence above that WP:NFILM is met, primarily through WP:NFP .  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This article is fairly thorough and meets the GNG.  The Essex Enquirer, Famous Monsters, and first Romford Recorder sources look good, and there is clearly enough information to be gleaned from the various other reviews and database entries to write a proper article, which it seems has been done.  Toadspike ( talk ) 22:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Lena Luthor : four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Comics and animation .  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there appears to be significant coverage of this character, including related to her role in Supergirl (TV series) , e.g. [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , and on GScholar , but also as a comic book character, e.g. DC Comics Ultimate Character Guide New Edition (p. 121), The DC Comics Encyclopedia New Edition (p. 192), DC Comics Encyclopedia (pp. 26, 35, 311, 366, 794, 795, 832), Superman (pp. 97, 112, 752, 885, 943, 1166, 1197, 1284), Disability and the Superhero: Essays on Ableism and Representation in Comic Media (p. 78 - comparing her portrayal in the CW/Arrowverse to her comic book depiction), etc.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 08:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The character guides were all written by DC or in partnership with them so not independent.  Sources 2-6, 8 are episode recaps.   The superman one is pure plot summary Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first one is casting news, which talks about the fact that TVLINE has casting news.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are also two books cited in the article at the time the nomination; American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1960s, 1960-64 and The Essential Superman Encyclopedia .  The scholarly literature on the character at GScholar is independent, e.g. [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , as is the analysis cited above comparing her representation in comics and television.  And while I quickly pulled sources from extensive GNews results, sources such as Supergirl: Lena Luthor Is Only the Latest Example of the Arrowverse’s Biggest Problem ( CBR , 2021) (#7) and Arrowverse: Why Kara And Lena Aren't Real Friends ( Screen Rant , 2020) (#8) seem to offer secondary evaluations of the character.  Also, based on coverage of this character in various comics, as well as the television series, there does not seem to be a single redirect target, so per WP:PAGEDECIDE , this context also seems to support keeping and further developing this article.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems like majority of this coverage is on the arrowverse version.  From the looks of it that version is more notable, could we potentially split the page into two seprate ones?  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:WHENSPLIT does not appear to support this, according to size, the notability guideline (e.g. the available coverage for various comics and the TV series and WP:PAGEDECIDE , ""where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page""), and neutrality (e.g. disability/ableism coverage discussing the comics character in a wheelchair and the television character).  Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first two books seem like plot summaries for fans, at the level of our current article.  The scholarly literature shows some potential but it is paywalled/snippetted.  I would be willing to consider a keep vote but it is the reponsibility of those arguing for keep to show there are sources and not just that WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES .  Please use Wikimedia Library/LibGen and like to access the scholarly sources and either quote passages here that demonstrate non-trivial analysis that meets SIGCOV or improve the article and ping me.  Until then I vote to redirect this while preserving history, since what we have is pure unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've notified Wikiproject Women in Red about the AfD and how this article may benefit from further research and development.  From my view, this character verifiably has appeared in multiple television shows and comics (and this article is linked by roughly 230 or so articles ), so a redirect may not help improve or maintain Wikipedia .  I think questions related to how to organize and improve an article for a character this integrated into the encyclopedia could benefit from a talk page discussion.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Per the various break downs of sourcs (by myself and User:Piotrus above I think mabye there is enough to merge it into List of Supergirl characters .  Personally I dont think the comic book character is notable while the Arrowverse character has potential.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions .  Beccaynr ( talk ) 08:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the claim of @ Beccaynr : or merge with List of DC Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge .  Too trivial for Wikipedia.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] That's...not a deletion argument.  You don't get to decide what's trivial.  Reliable source coverage is what determines notability.  Otherwise you're arguing all fictional characters are trivial?  Silver seren C 03:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument.  Some fictional characters are trivial, some aren't.  I note that the vastly more important fictional character the Baron de Charlus does not get a page although he has an article in Britannica.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] But isnt that arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There appears to be quite a bit of significant coverage of Lena Luthor from an academic and published book perspective, particularly in relation to feminism and the LGBT community.  Here's just one example of that, among many.  And that attention has appeared to only expand due to the recent television shows due to the writers essentially using queerbaiting to generate interest.  Silver seren C 03:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources given above and due to her notability not just in the comic book series but also regarding LGBTQ+ and feminism.  Whilst some reception would be great for the article, deletion is not appropriate.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 03:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing vote to Strong keep per Siroxo's sources and analysis.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 07:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The academic sources found by Beccaynr are sufficient to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG .  — siro χ o 04:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to try to save editors some time in this discussion, here's some from two of Beccaynrs sources.  Not an exhaustive representation of those sources.  Hicks in Supersex , 2020 ( available via TWL) has multiple pages of SIGCOV including for example.  ... season 2 saw Supergirl undergo several  dramatic  changes,  including  the  introduction  of  Lena  Luthor,  the  adopted  sister  of ...  Lex  Luthor.   In  her  original  Action Comics appearances, Lena is Supergirl’s best friend, and unaware that  she  is  related  to  Lex  Luthor.   Because  of  Lena’s  ESP  powers,  how-ever,  Supergirl  is  constantly  worried  she  will  unwittingly  “confess”  her  true identity to Lena.  In addition, because she knows who Lena’s brother is,  Supergirl  continually  doubts  the  veracity  of  Lena’s  friendship.   The  television series imports these tensions while slightly rearranging their specifics.  Because Lena is a Luthor, she is mistrusted by most people in National  City.   The  key  exception  is  Supergirl,  who,  for  the  most  part,  trusts Lena has good intentions, even as she continues to keep the identity of her alter ego a secret from her.  Lena herself notes that her friend-ship with Supergirl exists “against all odds”: “Who would’ve believed it? A Luthor and a Super, working together.”36 The emotional drama of the friendship that develops between both Lena and Kara as well as Lena and Supergirl  is  bolstered  by  these  tensions  and  by  the  onscreen  chemistry  between  Benoist/Supergirl  and  McGrath/Lena.   This  in  turn  fuels  fans’  championing of a romantic interpretation of the two’s relationship.  ...  In some ways, the Supercorp fandom is organized around the figure of Lena Luthor rather than Supergirl; Lena typically works as a self-insert character, and stories are frequently told from her perspective and/or con-structed to prioritize her point of view.  Tumblr user katiemccgrath argues that  “the  Supercorp  fandom  is  just  a  bunch  of  bottoms  self-projecting  onto lena luthor and that’s Valid.”53 One effect of this conventional pat-tern is that, instead of reifying a patriarchal framework that would seek to  contain  Supergirl’s  supersexuality,  the  Supercorp  fandom  celebrates  Supergirl’s  abilities  and  her  sexual  dominance  of  Lena.   Although  some  fans do openly identify with Supergirl and make Lena/McGrath the object of  their  sexual  desires,  they  appear  to  be  in  the  minority.   In  some  fan  conversations, lusting after Lena is even (jokingly) disapproved of; some Supercorp shippers react as if it places the fan in competition with the all-powerful Supergirl, who has already “claimed” Lena.  Church, in Girl of Steel , 2020, has a 19 page essay dedicated in large part to the subject.  Here are two snippets: Lena, conversely, constructs her ""normal"" public persona as a stereotypical CEO based on her own experiences: she is guarded with those around her and apprehensive towards trusting them.  Both are responding to societal assumptions of how females and millennials would behave in contemporary society, and use these assumptions to create a false self for the public that are interpretations necessary for assimilation.  ...  For Lena, her public/ private masks work much differently.  Rather than suppress her power draw from anger, Lena has to constantly suppress her vulnerability and insecurities from the public.  As a CEO of a billion-dollar company, she cannot afford to be seen as weak or emotional.  She also cannot express anger because National City's citizens are wary of her family's psychotic history.  On an individual level, the series suggests that like these characters, we all have parts of ourselves that we repress to either protect others or ourselves.  On a more symbolic level, it also highlights society's fear of strong, powerful women as demonstrated by National City's reaction to these characters as well as the characters' need to repress their true selves.  — siro χ o 07:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The second source is good but the first one seems to be more of a plot summary with some comments about Lena-Supergirl relationship, but next to nothing about Lena herself (that is not plot summary).  That said, we are getting close to having enough content to warrant keeping this.  Anything else?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What I quoted here from the first source is sufficient to demonstrate SIGCOV, but I did include a link above that grants access via TWL, if you want to read the source in full.  Fair warning, the source itself is uncensored.  — siro χ o 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is the partial quote available at p. 78 from Disability and the Superhero: Essays on Ableism and Representation in Comic Media (2023), critiquing her portrayal in Supergirl as a ""missed opportunity to portray bodily diversity"" and stating ""There are various iterations of Luthor in other media, one of the most prominent versions being a wheelchair user..."" this is a link to 29 results with partial quotes for ""Lena Luthor"" in the Girl of Steel: Essays on Television's Supergirl and Fourth-Wave Feminism (2020) book the Journal of Lesbian Studies article abstract includes, ""The Supercorp fandom refers to the platonic friendship between Kara Danvers, aka Supergirl, and her friend Lena Luthor. [...] Supergirl’s screenwriters were notorious for placing Kara and Lena in heteronormative relationship scenarios, effectively queerbaiting (or covert courting) the audience by suggesting a romantic relationship never explored on-screen""; The New York Times briefly covers SuperCorp in 2017, and CBR has more coverage in 2020.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, while I have not found access to American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1960s, 1960-64 , based on its description, this does not appear to be a plot summary - it is used in the article to cite Lena Luthor's first appearance in a comic; the book's description is focused on the history of comics, including ""significant publications, notable creators, and impactful trends"".  At the Wikipedia Library, there is a review of Cosmic Adventures of the 8th Grade from the School Library Journal , Brickey, Morgan, Jul2016, Vol.  62, Issue 7, Literary Reference Center Plus (...""Thankfully, as Linda, she makes a friend in Lena Thorul, but Lena is not who she seems...""); there is another review in Teacher Librarian , ""Women Who Fly."", Sanders, Joe Sutliff, Jun2010, Vol.  37, Issue 5, Master File Complete (...""Fortunately, Kara's gloomy roommate is very supportive--but who is that bald super-villain she keeps sending e-mails to?""...) Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, Bleeding Cool ( 15 Oct 2014 ), reviews various iterations of the Lena Luthor character as part of presenting her latest appearance in a comic; this does not seem to be a plot summary, but instead secondary context that finds her past presentations noteworthy for understanding her character.  And The Worst Things Lex Luthor Has Ever Done ( CBR , 2016) includes ""...the absolute worst example involved Luthor's own sister, Lena Luthor. Lena is a paraplegic. In ""Adventure Comics"" #5,...""  Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CBR also provides an overview in 2020 noting Lena Luthor's debut is Superman Girlfriend Lois Lane #23, her character development, and her role in DC Super Hero Girls (as Lutessa Lena Luthor) and her role in Smallville as Tess.  CBR also mentions this in 15 Times the Arrowverse Copied Smallville (2016), e.g. ""One of ""Smallville's"" biggest reveals came two seasons later, explaining that Tess was actually Lex's biological sister, Lena Luthor, who their father had given up for adoption.""  Screen Rant makes a connection in 2021 between Smallville and the comics, i.e. ""Tess discovered her birth name in the final season was Lutessa Lena Luthor, confirming she was Lex's canonical sister from the comics.""  Tor.com , in a 2017 review of the Supergirl episode ""Luthors"", mentions: ""knowing next to nothing about Lena’s history in comic book canon, [Kara and Lena's] interactions are lacking in any dramatic irony for me.""  CBR also includes Lena Luthor in Smallville: Every Main Character's Age , with biographical information and references to various appearances in the show; the source suggests age ""can help a viewer understand character dynamics and relationships"".  Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But a repeeted theme with these seems to be the television versions, and what this article is about is the comic.  Mabye the page could be reworked into primarly being about the television, but I'm not seeing very much on the original comic version Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is not only about various comics; the lead and sections cover comics, television, and other media.  And various sources refer to a comics canon, and the relevance of her past portrayals in various comics, including when discussing individual comics, as well as her role in television, indicating a connection between portrayals that does not seem to support a split (which as noted above, also does not seem supported by WP:SPLIT ).  I have also found two reviews that note her role in the graphic novel Cosmic Adventures of the 8th Grade , and two reviews of her role in Robot Chicken's DC Comics Special 2 .  I also think the secondary coverage for various portrayals as a group helps support the concern I expressed earlier about the 200+ articles that link to this article and my suggestion about discussing article reorganization and improvements on the article talk page.  Perhaps this article would work better if it is edited into more of a list , because Lena Luthor characters across various media appear to be notable as a group or set, and it could benefit the encyclopedia to have one article written in summary style .  I am concerned about the potential impact of a merge/redirect of Lena Luthor to the Arrowverse, when she is otherwise so widely linked for other roles.  According to WP:LISTN , each individual role does not need to be established as independently notable; based on the available sources, it appears we can provide an encyclopedic resource by providing an overivew and directing readers to the particular Lena Luthor portrayal they may be seeking when they visit this article.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CBR (2022) also provides an overview of various portrayals of Lena Luthor in 10 Greatest Golden Age DC Legacy Villains (""Lena Luthor is a character that has been changed a lot by the shifting tides of DC continuity""); The New York Times , in A ‘Crisis’ Brings Together Many DC Comics Heroes (2019) reports on the television series ""inspired by 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths, a 12-issue comic book series"", Lena Luthor is mentioned.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Screen Rant discusses a portrayal of Lena Luthor in a comic ( Adventure Comics #6 ) in The Most Evil Thing Lex Luthor Ever Did is Still Outrageous (2022) - this appears to be commentary, not just a plot summary.  Screen Rant ( 2020 ) also reviews Robot Chicken's DC Comics Special 2 , which includes a story with ""an impromptu trip to the beach where Lex’s daughter Lena has absconded with Superboy"" [...] ""Highlights include a Grease-style singalong with Lena Luthor and Superboy and Aquaman summoning an army of seahorses to defeat Starro.""  An IGN review includes, ""there's also a running conflict involving Luthor's daughter Lena ditching her father to hang out with her boyfriend Superboy on the beach for spring break. That culminates in one of the longest and most intricately crafted segments I can remember from the series as the Legion of Doom frolic on the beach, battle the Justice League, and then unite to confront a common enemy.""  Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My problem with that is those seem to cover other things, that happen to include her more as passing mentions.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the WP:SIGCOV guideline, trivial mentions are discussed, including Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material ; an example of a line of text is offered that is ""plainly a trivial mention.""  By contrast, the first Screen Rant source in the comment above ( 2022 ) has two grafs of commentary and discussion related to Lena (beginning ""And as one savage moment shows, even the lives of his own family aren't safe..."" and ending ""...giving his own sister hope before snatching it away is the perfect example of why Lex is above all, a monster."") This appears to be both significant coverage and secondary commentary, according to the guideline.  In the second Screen Rant source ( 2020 ), Lena Luthor is discussed in the context of the sketch ranked the best and described as the longest, and as part of a ""highlight.""  This is a review that helps show her appearance in a notable work, along with the IGN review (2014) describing her role as part of a ""running conflict"" and also offering secondary commentary supporting the notability of the work.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaving the issue of what should happen to this article aside, Screen Rant is a content farm that should never be used for assessing WP:Notability or WP:Due weight .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a 2021 RfC about Screen Rant with the conclusion "" Screen Rant is considered to be a marginally reliable source. It might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses.""  Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether a source is WP:Reliable , i.e. usable for WP:Verification , is orthogonal to its usability as an indicator of WP:Notability and WP:Due weight .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we disregard the screen rant source, most of what your bringing up is plot summary Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough coverage has been found to convince me this meets the general notability guidelines.  D r e a m Focus 10:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"King of Cards (manga) : Two reviews are from a defunct blog of dubious reliability.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This series meets WP:NBOOKS by having reviews from two different sources, the Manga Life reviews are regarded as reliable by WP:ANIME/RS , and the Newtype USA review is from a reliable magazine.  Jumpytoo Talk 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't the same as Manga Life .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The entry in WP:ANIME/RS is referring to the English website Manga Life, not the Japanese magazine.  Specifically, it mentions Manga Life is good for reviews up until May 2011.  This website was an offshoot of Comics Bulletin.  Jumpytoo Talk 21:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; it has multiple reviews in reliable sources, so it meets WP:NBOOK .  Link20XX ( talk ) 22:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, but where are they all?  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 00:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The further reading section has two links to Manga Life (which is a reliable source) as one review, and a reference to a Newtype USA review.  While I do not have access to this source, I assume good faith that the review is significant.  That's two good sources, which fulfills the at least two requirement of WP:NBOOK .  Link20XX ( talk ) 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the reliabiity of the sources and reviews offered.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm not a fan of this manga, but it does meet the WP:NBOOKS policy, since the source material is deemed appropriate by WP:ANIME/RS .  In short, it should be kept, rather than deleted or merged.  Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 00:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment After further investigation, I accept these reviews as RS.  However, is that enough to establish notability?  What is the notability standard specifically for manga/anime/manhwa, etc.?  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NBOOK#Coverage notes states that Though the concept of a ""book"" is widely defined, this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels ( although it does apply to manga ) , so there is no question that NBOOKS applies here (as for whether it applies to manhwa, manhua, OEL manga , etc is not elaborated on, so I would assume it does not apply).  WP:NBOOKS#Criteria states that The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews .  Manga Life is a review, and I assume Newtype USA is one as well, thus it is the subject of two or more non-trivial published works independent of the book itself, so it meets that criteria.  Regarding the notability of anime, it depends; manga that are notable often contain information about their adaptations, as is common with other book articles.  Anime may be eligible for WP:NTV , WP:NWEB , or WP:NFILM depending on its method of distribution.  The general notability guideline also applies.  Link20XX ( talk ) 23:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, Newtype is a reputable publication well known to fans of Asian pop culture.  So that means it meets WP:NBOOK .  Does it also meet threshold standards?  According to WP:BKTS , it needs an ISBN and it needs to be catalogued in Japan.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 00:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Media Arts Database (from the Agency for Cultural Affairs ) lists the first volume as having the ISBN 4592173813 and here is its entry in the National Diet Library .  This information exists for all 9 volumes, but I'm too lazy to link them all.  Link20XX ( talk ) 00:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, the English translation also has an entry in the Library of Congress and an ISBN for each volume, with the first being 9781401213121.  Link20XX ( talk ) 00:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Girl Out of the Ordinary : Has been lacking any sources since 2008 ( WP:GNG ).  I have searched and can’t find any reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability.  Dan arndt ( talk ) 01:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada .  Dan arndt ( talk ) 01:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Beverley Mahood#Albums per nom.  Jfire ( talk ) 05:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Beverley Mahood#Albums : Lacks independent SIGCOV The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 09:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Keep per the new references provided by Donaldd23 and Nfitz.  Looks like there are references with SIGCOV.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Reviews in Waterloo Region Record [29] , Ottawa Citizen [30] , The Province [31] , Winnepeg Sun [32] Donald D23 talk to me 02:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jumping in here with some publicly accessible links to the articles above: Waterloo Region Record Ottawa Citizen The Province Winnipeg Sun — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in addition to the notable reviews above, the album was surely the impetus for her Juno nomination shortly after it's release.  I really can't fathom this nomination.  I'm not sure where User:Dan arndt searched, but it certainly doesn't seem it was the right place for sources from last century.  Please withdraw the nomination.  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , in answer to Nfitz 's comments - the reviews of the album in the regional newspapers are not readily accessible or verifable as they require a subscription to access - I accept in good faith that they exist, however it would help the discussion to understand whether they are substantive reviews or press releases.  Secondly statements such as ""the album was surely the impetus for her Juno nomination"" smacks of personal opinion , without any providing corroborating sources or references.  Thirdly I have searched the web extensively to locate sources required to establish notability, but if you can direct me and other editors to where these sources exist then this would assist the ongoing discussion.  So in answer I am not proposing to withdraw this nomination.  Dan arndt ( talk ) 07:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would have helped, User:Dan arndt , if I'd included the reference I was going to add about a Juno nomination!  It's very easy to find references in both Proquest and newspapers.com, which are accessible through Wikipedia Library; checking Wikipedia Library is really a must (especially for people from this era); see the instructions at WP:AFD - particularly WP:CONRED in WP:BEFORE about ""Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability"".  While just searching the web might suffice for something released 5 years ago, it isn't enough for this.  Normally if ""regional"" is tossed around in an AFD discussion it's because the coverage is from the hometown paper - which is certainly true in the dozens of articles that can quickly be found in The Record - which is a major paper.  But it seems a bit of a stretch to also apply it to some of the other biggest papers in the country!  Ottawa, Winnipeg, Vancouver!  These are 1000s of miles apart!  Another 1000 miles further east is Halifax - so here's a reference from the Halifax Daily News .  The album's release got coast-to-coast coverage; and her Juno nominations mentioning the album made national papers and magazines, such as a lengthy piece in Saturday Night written by Don Gillmor and in the biggest national news agency ( Canadian Press ) which even uses the album's name as a pun in the article title .  A decade later national pieces about Mahood still mention the album, such as in the National Post .  Please withdraw this BEFORE failure.  Nfitz ( talk ) 18:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  While I am seeing sources for ""Girl Out of the Ordinary"", I would advise a bit of caution on taking them exclusively to refer to the album , as a single of the same name from the same artist charted in Canada and peaked at No. 10.  There is some coverage of the album within a broader article The Record ( D1 , D2 ) and another in The Ottowa Citizen .  But many of the reviews I can find are quite short ( The Winnipeg Sun , The Province ) with the exception of the one in The Record given above.  I do lean towards keeping here in light of the broader sourcing situation and WP:NALBUMS #1, though I can't blame the nom for making this nomination—search engines indeed return very little.  Some arguments above were made that the artist was notable and so we should keep this, but notability of music albums is not inherited per se from the notability of the individual who wrote them (see: That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article in NALBUMS), and passing mentions (even if years after the fact) don't contribute towards WP:SIGCOV .  Still, the sources presented here and that I can find via newspaper archives are probably enough to get this over the hump.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Bharat Mandir,Rishikesh : can we blow it up?  lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions .  lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Uttarakhand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - article was hijacked.  It was previously Silhua , an article about a village that is likely notable.  That article should be restored really.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event : There doesn't look to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this match, and the match itself has just WP:ROUTINE coverage.  All of the ""Background"" section is not directly relevant to the match and could be covered in separate articles about the teams' cricketing histories, and the match details are already covered in Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket , India ,  and Australia .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but not necessarily strongly - I guess you could make the argument this would be better merged, but there was a lot of coverage of the political portion of the event.  I am finding some sustained coverage, especially because Albanese was invited back for the final.  SportingFlyer T · C 09:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The match did recieve significant coverage in March 2023 in India.  The series article you mentioned does not have much as compared to the content of this article.  Moreover, if you do see, that series article itself is in an ongoing split discussion.  Similar events like Namaste Trump have pages; and this was followed by an entire match.  Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 09:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 ; unlike Namaste Trump or Howdy Modi or the bajillion other gimmicky diplomatic events, this one isn't independently notable.  Coverage is routine and retrospective coverage is basically non-existent.  AryKun ( talk ) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That article is already in an existing WP:SPLIT discussion, I dont deem it appropriate for the contents of this article to be merged as a singular match when they are contemplating seperating entire tours.  It did recieve decent coverage as well as some political fallout.  As stated above, I support keeping Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 07:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That split discussion has had no comments for a year and is not caused by the article being too long, so isn't relevant to whether this article should be merged into it or not.  There's also many choices for merge targets, including articles about Australia-India cricket and relations.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if that merge discussion hasnt had comments for a year, plumping this content there will make it worse.  As stated by @ SportingFlyer , and me; there was political coveage, I have tried to add a bit more.  It was more than a cricket match, and I have included all the valid information on the trip.  Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 11:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That split discussion centers on whether it was one or two distinct tours.  If it gets split, this can be merged to whichever tour the Test series was part of.  AryKun ( talk ) 14:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still does not mean this article cant exist, per my existing points Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 14:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Joseph2302 I beg to differ on your original point.  The event getting unique branding preparations and then the event actually getting carried out constitute an article here.  By that logic, I mighth have seen half a dozen good articles with less relevance than this; but thats the point - its all relevant, valid and cited information.  It has failed GAN's but the reasons were for the article to improve further (which it has), and not actually take it down.  Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 as this event was about diplomatic relations between two cricket playing countries when Australian team was in India 2023 for test matches against India.  This event is not notable for a separate page with such title but fits best on page  Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 where a segment can be created about this celebration.  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page is about a test series.  Having so much information about a single test is unconventional and inconvenient, not to mention unprecedented for a conventional wikipedia test series page.  That particular page in question is already cluttered as it is.  Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 06:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above; it doesn't help that the article is in extremely poor condition—essentially a badly-written, promotional political puff piece, which is unacceptable.  There are only a couple of reliable sources which provide SIGCOV of the events, and they all fall under WP:ROUTINE .  Every other non-sporting citation does not contribute to notability.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 14:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain this?  How exactly is it a promotional junk piece?  Each source is cited to the best citation available, and contains all the information about the event and all the unique things taking place Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 06:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""all of the unique things taking place"" can you really not hear yourself?  Now find sources which show notability: read what WP:GNG says, and explain why the sources fulfil those criteria.  Remember, you are arguing that the ""75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event"" is notable.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLUDGEONING Understanding the reason to merge - Topic relevant for standalone article I would like to thank editors @ AirshipJungleman29 @ RangersRus @ AryKun @ Joseph2302 for commenting here.  I would like to raise some points here.  This was not just a cricket match: It was a 75-year anniversary celebration of cricket relations between the two countries + of international bilateral relations + of the success of an educational agreement.  All of that information is included.  It would be unfair to deem it as just a cricket match article.  Notwithstanding the above fact: The description of the entire match has also been included as it was at the start of the match which was played.  So has the toss coin, the jersey exchange and the cap handing.  This event did have significant political coverage in India and Indian media; as well as some political fallout, and I as the editor of this page have done my best to add citations and backgrounds.  As stated before, the series article already has the required information of ten matches - it will be unconventional and inconvenient, not to mention unprecedented for a conventional wikipedia test series page to contain detailed information of this event.  On top of it, even though it was a year ago, its undergoing a split discussion (with majority voting in favour), furthering the argument of not plumping this content onto that page.  This page has failed a GAN not for lack of nobility, but simply lack of citations which has then since been changed as much as possible, and I as, one of the principal editors currently, will constantly keep looking to improve the article and take suggestions even after the conclusion of this discussion.  Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 12:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion Pharaoh496 ; your behaviour is becoming disruptive and your attitude towards this page is beginning to verge on WP:OWN .  I have hatted the above monologue which adds absolutely nothing new to the discussion.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if merged, would Australia–India relations#Cricket relations be a sensible/better target?  It's already mentioned there, and so a few more sentences there would suffice.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that might be a good alternative target.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 : the event itself is not notable enough to have a separate wiki page.  WP:1E ChunnuBhai ( talk ) 13:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I was getting ready to close this with a Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 until I saw on that article that there is a recommendation that this article should be split into more than one article.  So, I'm not sure that it's the ideal Merge target article and wanted to get a second opinion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the comment in the relist, this is a valid WP:SPLIT .  SportingFlyer T · C 09:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The split discussion is for a completely different issue- whether it was 2 separate series or not.  And the split discussion is stale, so shouldn't impact this possible merge.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, SportingFlyer needs to reread Liz's comment.  Regardless, I fail to see why a split discussion would mean that the article is not the right target.  If it is split, then the merged information will go to the Australian cricket team in India in 2023 article, which will incorporate most of the current page.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ~~ AirshipJungleman29 , well, I just wanted to bring this fact to this discussion in case it made any difference to participating editors' opinion.  Apparently, it doesn't.  L iz Read!  Talk!  23:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think there's anything wrong with this page as it stands, and the page we want to merge to is too large.  It's pretty simple.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"John Hoberman : Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR .  The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005.  GuardianH ( talk ) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Language , History , Sports ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning delete unless better sources can be found.  I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas.  Cnilep ( talk ) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!).  I won't weep for it if it's deleted.  But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR.  But what a mess.  There's the old saying ""AfD is not cleanup"" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues.  And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as NACADEMIC.  I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references.  His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar.  It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications.  Lamona ( talk ) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I counted 14 reviews of his books (not all the same one) on JSTOR.  I think he passes WP:AUTHOR .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Passes both NACADEMIC and NAUTHOR.  I stopped counting reviews of his books when I got to 20 for just the first two books I tried, and there is even published back-and-forth about them.  Few academics can equal that for two books.  Zero talk 10:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Violet Coco : Her subsequent trial is related to this event.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I am of the view the subject of this article firmly goes beyond BLP1E.  A quick Google search would have shown that Coco is continuing to feature in the media for her activism and clearly unrelated to the Harbour Bridge event, e.g. this Guardian Article featuring event in Western Australia .  The original incident has prompted a wide-ranging discussion (not just in New South Wales but a number of states) on the right to protest and whether state laws imprisoning someone for doing so are too harsh.  Deus et lex ( talk ) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (as article creator) She is notable for at least two events, and I've just updated the article to illustrate that.  Also, for WP:BLP1E to direct us towards making this an event article (which is what it does for people notable for one event) the subject would also need to be ""a low-profile individual (defined here ) and yet she is a "" high profile "" activist.  The multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage prove the subject meets WP:GNG and the coverage is sustained, ongoing, and international in nature, provoking commentary beyond just the event, but about the wider more complex issue of protesting, freedom of expression, public safety etc.  CT55555 ( talk ) 23:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  BLP1E only applies if all three conditions are met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.  - maybe met If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.  - probably not met; she appears to actively seek publicity If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.  - not met; she was central to the event, and the event is sufficiently significant that it's still being written about a year later.  pburka ( talk ) 19:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Although the Protest Law coverage involving Coco is a result of the Harbour Bridge protest, the Protest Law issue is significant in itself.  Therefore coverage goes beyond WP:BLP1E .  Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 05:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"County island : Sources that exist are seemingly isolated to a single state and primarily a single county in said state.  There is not substantial evidence of notability of the term in wide or official use outside of a small regional area.  If any amount is salvageable, perhaps it should be merged as a subsection of Unincorporated community .  In addition, the page attempts to be a list page, it is woefully incomplete, uncountable, and also includes places that show no indication that they are referred to by the term, making it rather ORy.  Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm not seeing sources that use and define this term.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's because phrase matching doesn't find it.   One has to know what sort of books to read.   This is known under the subject of ""island annexation"" in California law, with an extensive discussion in West's , and ""town islands"" in Wisconsin law, to name but two.   I found you a couple of California university professors, as well.   One of them is Dean McHenry .  Uncle G ( talk ) 14:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm.  Maybe the title is wrong then?  JMWt ( talk ) 17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but probably move to a more widely known term per nom and WP:COMMONNAME .  Here is an article that notes that ""Twenty-three states have specific unincorporated island provisions in their annexation laws.""  The problem of course is that the terminology in this area is as fragmented as the law, but from an initial search I'd suggest unincorporated island ( 218 hits on Google Scholar, used in statutory law of at least three states).  An alternative term would be municipal underbounding , but it's not quite the same thing.  As a last resort this could be merged to municipal annexation in the United States , but I don't think that would be especially helpful to readers or editors.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 19:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   This is a real and notable feature of municipal boundaries in the United States.   A move to unincorporated island is probably also a good idea.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this may be a case for WP:MERGE of any verifiable content into the Unincorporated areas article – Seems some sources do exist [1] [2] PD Slessor ( talk ) 00:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Lots of suggestions here, for an article move (with two different suggested new page titles) and also one for a Merge.  I think this discussion needs more time.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the purposes of AfD, with a possible/probable move to a better title.  Clearly notable, but also needs better sourcing.  SportingFlyer T · C 02:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Theatre Brook : Fails the general and band-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This group has had 13 (sic) albums on the national Oricon chart in Japan, three of which are listed here , and thus this easily passes WP:NBAND .  Their latest single went to #12 on the chart and stayed on the chart for over 3 months, as shown here .  They also pass several other criteria of WP:NBAND , including #5, #6, #10, and #11 (some of these were already reflected in the English article).  Please check Oricon when making these kinds of nominations.  Dekimasu よ!  01:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dekimasu .  Darling ( talk ) 15:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per clear sources provided by Dekimasu .  DCsansei ( talk ) 13:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Expressive Processing : Unsourced other than the book itself.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Education ,  and United States of America .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I was able to find a few significant independent reviews/commentaries: [31] , [32] .   That should be enough to cover WP:NBOOK .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources Reside, Doug (2010).  ""A review of Noah Wardrip-Fruin's Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies"" .  Digital Humanities Quarterly .  Vol.  4, no. 2.  Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 .  Retrieved 2023-07-31 .  The review notes: ""Although Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies is probably best known at present for the author’s attempt to provoke a radically open form of peer review by submitting portions of his manuscript to the blog Grand Text Auto in advance of the final submission to MIT Press, the most potentially transformative legacy of the book is in its compelling call for universal software literacy.""  Monroy, Carlos (December 2011).  ""Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. Noah Wardrip-Fruin"".  Literary & Linguistic Computing .  26 (4): 481–483.  doi : 10.1093/llc/fqr035 .  EBSCO host 66887564 .  The review notes: ""The central thesis of this book is key for advancing twenty-first century digital literacy, and thus relevant to the digital humanities community. This thesis can be derived from one of the definitions Wardrip-Fruin gives of expressive processing: ‘. . . the possibility of creating new simulated machines, of defining new computational behaviors, as the great authoring opportunity that digital media offers' (p. 7). Wardrip-Fruin systematically explains this main thesis throughout the book by leading readers on a historical journey that evokes personal memories for the author (as it did for me), making the reading more enjoyable. ... In the same way, I believe that the groundbreaking approach this book offers will help humanists and computer scientists alike discover the potential of computational processes and digital media for the advancement of digital humanities. An invitation to embark in this fascinating journey is what Wardrip-Fruin accomplishes with Expressive Processing .""  Koskimaa, Raine (May 2011). ""Reading Processes: Groundwork for Software Studies"" . Game Studies . Vol. 11, no. 2. ISSN 1604-7982 . Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The review notes: ""As such, this book is the perfect volume to begin the new publication series in the software studies. Rather than building the theory for software studies, it works as a model of how to do software studies. The wide variety of materials discussed, however, may be the Achilles’ Heel of the book. As we are all influenced by endless array of information technologies and their software processes, Expressive Processing is, in a way, including everybody in its audience. Still, restricting the target group by modestly limiting the topics covered might have made this book even better.""  Chen, A. (April 2010).  ""Wardrip-Fruin, Noah. Expressive processing: digital fictions, computer games, and software studies"" .  Choice .  Vol.  47, no. 8.  p. 1517.  Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 .  Retrieved 2023-07-31 – via Gale .  The review notes: ""Through insightful examinations of media ranging from simulations to computer games, the author presents an intriguing and cogent argument. The book is by no means exhaustive in its coverage, but it does set the stage for further discussion and exploration. Although most references are defined, some familiarity with the various computer games examined in this work would be beneficial to the reader.""  Nolan, Mark (2009-10-04).  ""Book Review: ""Expressive Processing"" for the Masses?"" .  The Arts Fuse .  Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 .  Retrieved 2023-07-31 .  The review notes: ""But Expressive Processing is aimed at those who already have secure understanding of the processes of software — the general public is still left out of the debate. Still, Expressive Processing stands as a welcome addition to the limited academic discussion about video games, because it delves deeper into complex issues that previously have only been lightly considered.""  Barlas, Irtaza (2010-03-16).  ""Expressive processing : digital fictions, computer games, and software studies"" .  ACM Computing Reviews .  Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 .  Retrieved 2023-07-31 .  The review notes: ""The book includes technical details on everything that can be included in the context of digital media. It is written in an easy-to-read style, with charming side notes that don’t interrupt reading. I highly recommend this book to digital media--games, movies, and fiction--creators, AI students, and engineers.""  Brown Jr., James J. (Summer 2011).  ""Open Process Software"" .  Criticism .  53 (3).  Wayne State University Press : 481–487.  doi : 10.1353/crt.2011.0019 .  ProQuest 912513115 .  Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 .  Retrieved 2023-07-31 .  The review notes: ""Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing provides some of those tools. Wardrip-Fruin’s notion of “expressive processing” evokes two ideas at once. ... Expressive Processing also works through some of the key questions posed by those of us interested in a bigger tent for computer programming. While scholars of new media will no doubt find Wardrip-Fruin’s discussion useful, one goal of the text is to reach beyond the relatively small conversations of software studies (an emerging strand of new media scholarship) and digital fictions.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard and WeirdNAnnoyed .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon : While this book is used in a couple of wikipedia articles as a source, there is nothing to distinguish it as more noteworthy than other sources on pit bull-related pages PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 16:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions .  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 16:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is well sourced from reliable sources or if that is not possible merge into Bronwen Dickey .  Dwanyewest ( talk ) 16:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You both created and extensively worked on Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon and the Bronwen Dickey Wikipedia pages.  Knowing you put together (greater than 50% of) both of these pages, and ignored pretty every other book included on the pit bull page is a bit odd.  What was the original reason for creation?  Sure, maybe we could merge into Bronwen_Dickey page?  It is currently not sourced from reliable sources.  About half of the sources I've read seem to actually support the claims they make.  e.g. the claim of ""7 years of research"" I was able to verify 2, but the third made no mention.  The reviews also need work.  As I mention, it appears they were copied directly from Amazon.com, but the citations were taken from different URLs.  One supported the claims.  One (from NPR) clearly did not.  Two were unverifiable due to paywalls.  I think this page may be ""notable"" by WP:BK standards which are notoriously relaxed when it comes to reviews.  But that depends entirely on unverified reviews at this point.  Perhaps if someone fixed those to point to real reviews we could reach that standard?  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG per cites like CSM, NYT and WaPo.  Which seems to satisfy WP:BKCRIT #1 as well, bonus.  I'd add WSJ to the argument for keep, but can't read it.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Replied elsewhere but I think this is the only argument for keeping this book.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 15:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another user DMed me some links.  I'll see if I can do some more verification of these sources to see which of these review citations are legitimate.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 17:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Made one more change to sources to add an archive link, and I believe we've completed verification of all our sources, and we now have a way to view them that isn't behind a paywall!  I finally removed the review from NPR.  It previously linked to an article where the review text existed nowhere in it, and I wasn't able to find another source for that quote, so it is likely made up.  The quote is included on the Amazon.com page for the book and attributed to NPR there, but NPR doesn't have any source for it.  Also we have enough good sources I don't think it will be an issue.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 17:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly.   Authored by a scholar, meets the criteria and required sourcing, and a Google search of  the title brings up about 8,370,000 results (0.53 seconds).  Atsme 💬 📧 19:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Scholar"" is stretching it a bit much.  The author has an MFA, a writing degree.  As far as I she doesn't have actual scientific background or expertise in dogs aside from buying two pit bulls during writing process.  Whether the process of adopting pit bulls qualifies the author as a ""dog scholar"" is questionable, and I haven't seen any evidence of scholarly background on this subject from this author.  As an aside, that is not one of the reason for notability.  Nor is ""number of results found on google"" The only reason this book might reach notability standards (by Wikipedia definitions) is that there are two book reviews, which is currently the biggest issue with this page.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly meets the criteria of WP:NBOOK and the WP:GNG due to the multiple reviews in reliable sources.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 20:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  ""reliable"" is stretching it (see my earlier notes), but it is possible that with some cleanup this topic could avoid deletion.  I think one of the hardest thing will be finding independent sources that are correct.  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 15:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep needs some work but clearly meets WP:NBOOK .  Archrogue ( talk ) 17:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just wanted to say thank you to everybody for your comments so far.  It's looking like this page will stay because it's had at least two book reviews per WP:BK .  Keep the comments rolling in though!  PartyParrot42 ( talk ) 17:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Drake–Kanye West feud : Concerns WP:TRIVIAL , WP:FANCRUFT , WP:GNG and WP:REFERENCE .  Darrion ""Beans"" Brown 🙂 ( my talk page / my sandbox ) 15:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ...Doesn't seem helpful to redirect to the broadest possible article on the matter.  Anyhow, keep , notable feud.  I see no problems with the article unsolvable by normal editing.  Mach61 ( talk ) 16:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also WP:TRIVIAL doesn't link anywhere relevant.  Mach61 ( talk ) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah at first I intended to add to the Drake article under the feuds part but the information I found would have over expanded the page and I thought it would just be better off as an individual article.  I was hesitant at first fearing it's irrelevant but later I saw there was numerous coverage on this and is actually notable for Wikipedia inclusion.  I'm of the opinion it should be kept but I would love to hear your output on it.  Best regards, Serrwinner ( talk ) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep This seems to meet WP:N .  Trivial to some of us, vital to others (including the authors of RS cited).  Llajwa ( talk ) 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Movieguide Epiphany Prize for Most Inspiring Movie : BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Non-notable.   I came up with no coverage beyond the cursory.  Weak keep per RunningTiger123 and a few column inches in the LA Times in 1996.  JSFarman ( talk ) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards .  SL93 ( talk ) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  SL93 ( talk ) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – the awards are covered in industry publications such as Variety , The Hollywood Reporter , and Deadline .  Based on practices for other awards, once the overall awards are established as notable and have run for a few years, individual category lists such as this are acceptable (especially since the listed films mostly have their own articles, fulfilling a navigational purpose as well).  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As others have noted, there's some press coverage, if not much.   But even if there weren't, notability isn't proportional to coverage.   The moral implications of the culture is a huge issue, and this award is the biggest thing I know of that deals with that.   It's true that it's partisan, and that's a reason to provide a counterpoint, but it isn't a reason to suppress information about it.   That would be far more partisan than the award is.  - Burner89751654 ( talk ) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a valid split from the main article and has reliable sources coverage such as Variety, Deadline, and Hollywood Reporter, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Lists of Nintendo characters : While at one time the list of, well, lists was far more expansive, things have gradually cut down over time.  Additionally we also have categories and an organized template that provide the exact same function.  It also ends up a weird outlier: we don't do this for any other franchise (for example there's not a Lists of Square Enix characters ) I don't see sunsetting this as a controversial take.  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Addendum: To better clarify, my argument is the list itself is so out of the way while at the same time specialized, that it doesn't work as either a navigation directory or disambiguation unlike other List of Lists articles, and instead add another layer of bookkeeping it has clearly failed at given how out of date it is at the time of this AfD. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The list does not serve a good navigational purpose or meet LISTN.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 12:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have realized that there is a navigational purpose for this list.  Keep .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems like a valid navigational list for characters from Nintendo franchises.  OTHERSTUFF(doesn't)EXIST is not an argument for the deletion of a page, and I feel like a list of lists for Square Enix characters wouldn't be a bad idea either.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Over the template that's on each of those pages though Zx?  I mean keep in mind I didn't notice this list even existed until I started working on character lists.  It's a bit out of sight, out of mind.  And not even up to date. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 14:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IMO, lists and templates can exist alongside each other.  One does not remove the need for the other.  You can't search for a template.  Lists of lists are a standard thing, nothing to see here.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per criterion 3: no accurate deletion rationale presented.  See WP:Lists of lists .  Jclemens ( talk ) 15:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Appears to be a pretty valid ""List of Lists"" for navigational purposes.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it's long enough that I feel it's useful for navigational purposes, coexisting with the template already on some of those pages - especially since some of the lists aren't on that template but are in the list of lists article (such as Characters of Fire Emblem Fates and the lists for Pokemon characters in every generation [instead of just in the series as a whole]).  Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Suntooooth : yeah I fixed it up after this clearly seemed to be snowballing.  I can't withdraw but I figured if it was going to stick around may as well. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 19:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Perfectly valid navigation list.  D r e a m Focus 20:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreeing with editors on this list of lists, but mainly with Jclemens in that the nom didn't provide proper rationale.  My guess is that it's WP:NLIST ?  Regardless, it provides useful navigation to the many lists of Nintendo-centric characters.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this appears to be a useful list of lists.  Utopes ( talk / cont ) 06:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Eriko Goya : 2 primary sources were added and it was moved back to mainspace.   Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage.   Fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 09:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Japan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We can keep it in draftspace until more sources show up - she also has caps in the highest league of Japan which helps towards her case.  User:RossEvans18 ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Young player with ongoing top flight pro career in league that gets coverage.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails BLP, GNG, BIO.  There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV.  Source eval: Interview, primary, not IS for notability >>  1.  ""【サンフレッチェ広島レジーナ全選手名鑑WEB版】呉屋絵理子選手／ケガからの復帰。コンディションをもっと、もっと。"".  targma.jp.  Database generated profile >>  2. ^ ""Eriko Goya Sanfreece Hiroshima Regina Profile"".  sanfreece.co.jp.  Database stats >>  3. ^ ""Tokyo Verdy Beleza vs Sanfreece Hiroshima Regina - 4th December 2022 - Soccerway"".  int.soccerway.com.  Name mentioned in list.  Fails SIGCOV >>  4. ^ ""呉屋絵理子／不屈の彼女。"".  targma.jp.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 05:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft Keep - played in major league and can be considered a keep but better if it is improved in the draft space.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxxyOswald ( talk • contribs ) 20:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) — MaxxyOswald ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV .  I was unable to find any significant coverage during a search.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball , we don't create articles on young athletes with an ongoing careers because there might be significant sources sometimes in the future, we create articles when there are already significant sources about the athlete.  And while she might play in a notable league, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED .  All things that certain editors know very well but routenly try to circumvent.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to footballer Hiroto Goya as an alternative to deletion, per WP:ATD .  Have added information about Eriko Goya to her brother's page, with citation.  She has one newspaper article to date counting toward notability – although the top part of the article is based on a Q&A interview, there is one dense paragraph of biographical content at the end (plus a few editor's notes throughout).  Once more coverage appears about her, the redirect can easily be converted back into a standalone article, because the edit history will still contain a copy of the article as it currently stands.  (The Japanese Wikipedia article about her seems to cite a lot of press releases, plus her own blog, in addition to the Sanfrecce magazine interview at targma.jp, which I agree is a primary source.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 13:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing ! vote to Weak keep in light of additional sources found per the IP editor below, which I've added to the article.  The Okinawa Times profile article (accessible for free if you register) is actually the strongest of the lot.  Combined with the Chūgoku Shimbun article, it's enough to establish notability per WP:BASIC , and it's a bonus that it's focused coverage in two regional newspapers in different parts of the country.  (It's a ""weak"" keep because it was a borderline case; it still feels a bit early in her career as she only recently made her top-flight league debut, and it would be nice if there were one more piece of coverage...but this often happens, also with young male footballers.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 22:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , see this above.  Young player with ongoing top flight pro career in league that gets coverage.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to note sources not in the article, including a paywalled Okinawa Times profile in 2021 , trivial match mentions in Hiroshima Sport magazine ( 2, noting her WE debut ), and a radio interview on Hiroshima FM .  Nothing that solves GNG; while the paywalled article looks significant and biographical, I can't bypass to confirm.  - 71.34.68.140 ( talk ) 21:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with articles provided by IP above.  Nfitz ( talk ) 05:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to Okinawa Times article and other supporting coverage.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Kalvan series : Effectively unreferenced (one footnote to an article by the books author) entry about a fictional universe - the book series gets a single sentence, 99% of the content is plot summary WP:FANCRUFT .  My WP:BEFORE failed to locate anything, pings on the talk page also failed at producing anything useful.  At best I can recommend redirecting this to Paratime series (although that page is no better and will likely end up here shortly, after I do my BEFORE for it), or safer, John F. Carr or H. Beam Piper .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Literature .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Might this be the occasion to split out an H. Beam Piper bibliography article?  It seems to take 2/3rds or more of the present author's article.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OPPOSE -- On Talk:Kalvan series , the deletion proposer has consistently refused to say what his plan is for closely-related articles which would be affected by the deletion of this one.   It seems that he doesn't want to bother to devote any thought to the matter, which as far as I'm concerned, indicates sufficiently that this deletion proposal was not done for the purpose of improving Wikipedia.  AnonMoos ( talk ) 17:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia, or deletion process.  Removing fancruft that fails WP:GNG improves the project.  The few articles that link here will get the link removed by a bot (some of them likely need to be deleted too as part of the same fancruft series).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You did not use the word ""fancruft"" on Talk:Kalvan series , and you refused to even consider the idea that content was split between closely-related articles, and that there might need to be some rebalancing if this article were to be deleted, with no reason given for this refusal.   I drew my conclusions accordingly.  AnonMoos ( talk ) 07:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If this were to be redirected, I would think that John F. Carr would be the appropriate target.  While the first book in the ""series"" was written by H. Beam Piper , there was no actual ""Kalvan series"" until Carr started writing the sequels twenty years later.  The actual list of books, which is pretty much the only part of this current article that would be worth keeping, is already present at Carr's article as well.  Nearly all of this current article is overly detailed plot information, and I am not finding any real coverage on the series as a whole (or even much on the individual books I did quick searches on).  But, as these are older books, I'll wait to see if anyone can dig up some paper sources discussing it before ""officially"" recommending a Redirect.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 00:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of it is actually background information on the world of the Kalvan timeline, largely taken from Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (though certain details were filled in and expanded in the later books), not plot information in the sense of a detailed recounting of events...  AnonMoos ( talk ) 03:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that is what I was referring to.  I did not mean it was entirely plot information as in ""its a summary of the events of the books in chronological order"", I meant ""its entirely in-universe descriptions of plot elements from the franchise"", which would be considered ""summary-only descriptions of work"" at WP:NOTPLOT .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So it's a fancruft fork too... lovely.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is NOT a fork, since the info was taken mainly from the 1965 published novel ""Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen"", and NOT from the Wikipedia article on ""Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen""!   Did you even bother to look at any of the closely-related and connected articles before proposing the deletion of the ""Kalvan series"" article??   All available evidence at this point indicates that you did not bother to look at them...  AnonMoos ( talk ) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop with your WP:AGF violations.  Also, please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG / WP:NOTPLOT / WP:ALLPLOT .  Wikipedia articles that are just plot summaries are, well, not encyclopedic and hence, need to be deleted.  This is pretty simple.  If you want to save this, please improve the article by adding reception and/or analysis based on reliable sources (magazines, scholarly works, etc.).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I consider the fact that you didn't even visit most of the closely-related articles and aren't willing to devote any mental effort to the closely-related articles to be tantamount to bad faith in the context of this deletion nomination.   Your nonsensical gibberish ""fork"" allegation certainly did nothing whatsoever to persuade me of your good faith, nor did the most recent tendentious biased comment you added to Talk:Kalvan series discussion page.  AnonMoos ( talk ) 06:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Major, Joseph T. (August 1993).  Lovisi, Gary (ed.).  ""Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen"" (PDF) .  Paperback Parade .  No. 35.  Gryphon Publications .  pp. 72–99.  Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-07-16 .  Retrieved 2023-07-16 .  The article notes on page 73: ""As his legacy to science fiction, he left a just completed novel, Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen . Fans were gratified to see Piper returning to his established ""Paratime"" series, his tales of the Paratime Police who protect their time-line from discovery of the means by which they exploit other time-lines for the resources necessary to sustain their exhausted resource-sparse home. This story of a policeman from Rambo country ... quickly became famous; then as contracts expired and the book fell out of print, a lost classic.""  The article notes on page 74: ""Control of the Piper estate fell into the hands of Jerry Pournelle, who, back when he was actually writing his own books, wrote very much in the style of Piper. It's not surprising, therefore, that Pournelle should want to continue the stories. ... The continuation of the Lord Kalvan story, however, was passed to Pournelle's associates John F. Carr and Roland Green.""  The article notes on page 78: ""We now fast-forward some twenty years, to the year of 1985. Heartening and joyful news came from Ace Books: they released Great Kings' War by John F. Carr and Roland Green, the long hoped-for sequel and continuation to Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen . There had been hints that the things to come to Kalvan after the events of the earlier book might not all be good, above and beyond the requirements of having enough conflict to make a worthwhile novel. Not only does Kalvan's introspection at the end (Chapter 19, Section 2) give some hints of problems to come, but in a letter he wrote to Campbell Piper himself said as much ... Great Kings' War begins with a nasty description of a nasty winter, but the nasties tossed Kalvan's way by Lytris the Weather Goddess are nothing as to the nasties tossed by Styphon the Gunpowder God. Or, anyway, his mundane followers."" ""Piper, H Beam"" .  The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction .  2023-01-16.  Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 .  Retrieved 2023-07-16 .  The entry notes: ""A second distinct sequence, the Paratime Police/Lord Kalvan tales, most of which were published originally in Astounding, are assembled as Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (November 1964, November 1965 Astounding as ""Gunpowder God"" and ""Down Styphon!""; fixup 1965; vt Gunpowder God 1978) and Paratime (coll 1981). The series was continued in Great Kings' War (1985) and Siege of Tarr-Hostigos (2003), both by Roland Green and John F Carr; the latter also edited The Worlds of H. Beam Piper (coll 1983) and presented his work in other contexts. As a series of Alternate-History variations linked by the eponymous Time Police, the sequence showed Piper in perhaps excessively argumentative vein, the alternate-world structure allowing him great latitude to express his political feelings. Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen remains the most successful and enjoyable of all these tales.""  Silver, Steven H (2004).  ""Kalvan Kingmaker"" .  SF Site .  Archived from the original on 2023-07-16 .  Retrieved 2023-07-16 .  The review notes: ""John F. Carr has set himself a difficult task with the novel Kalvan Kingmaker , and it is one at which he is only partly successful. The novel is a continuation of the Lord Kalvan stories written by H. Beam Piper. These tales, which grew out of Piper's Paratime Police stories, follow a Pennsylvania state trooper into a world in which North America was colonized from west to east and only bears a geographical resemblance to the North America of our own world. Carr does an excellent job of capturing Piper's style and stories in his world, but... ...but Kalvan Kingmaker is not just a sequel to Piper's widely-read stories. It is also the sequel to Carr's own continuation, Great King's War (written with Roland Green). Because Great King's War sets up the action for Kalvan Kingmaker and has been out of print for more than a decade, much of Kalvan Kingmaker is spent providing some of the information readers need in order to follow the labyrinthine plots in the novel.""  Hellekson, Karen (2001).  The Alternate History: Refiguring Historical Time .  Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press .  pp. 52 - 53 .  ISBN 0-87338-683-3 .  Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive .  The book notes: ""H. Beam Piper's Paratime sequence of stories is collected in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965) and Paratime (1981), both of which are made up of short stories or novelettes originally published in science fiction magazines from the late 1940s until 1965 (Piper killed himself in 1964). John F. Carr and Roland J. Green wrote several sequels to Piper's Lord Kalvan stories, including Great Kings' War (1985) and ""Kalvan Kingmaker"" (1989). I do not discuss these two texts. Paratime is simply Piper's term for parallel worlds. Lord Kalvan tells stories about Calvin Morrison, a police officer presumably from our world who accidentally gets caught in a Paratimer machine that dumps him into a parallel world, where his superior knowledge and abilities allow him to quickly become an important ruler. The Lord Kalvan stories are about an unsavory theocracy, Styphon's House, that controls the manufacture of gunpowder and thus rules a low-technology world; Piper tells how Kalvan beats the theocracy. The stories in Lord Kalvan and Paratime all take place in the same reality: one time line has discovered the secret of moving from one parallel world to the next, and these Paratimers exploit all the other time lines to support themselves.""  D'Ammassa, Don (June 2001).  ""Kalvan Kingmaker"" .  Science Fiction Chronicle .  Vol.  22, no. 6 #213.  ISSN 0195-5365 .  Retrieved 2023-07-16 .  The review notes: ""Considering the comparatively small amount of work that he produced during his lifetime, H. Beam Piper has an enviable following. Among his more popular creations was the Paratime series, and more specifically the adventures of Calvin Morrison, a one time police officer who becomes a ruler in an alternate reality. Now John Ford returns to that universe and that character for a new chronicle, a direct sequel to Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen . Although the armies of the theocracy have been defeated, the church remains a powerful force.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Kalvan series to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 11:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cunard Hmmm.  Interesting.  That said, at minimum, a merger with Paratime series would makes sense, unless you think the sources sugges those two series both have stand-alone notability?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am open to a merger of Kalvan series and Paratime series as there is a lot of overlap but am not familiar enough with the two topics to know whether there are good reasons to keep them separate.  Cunard ( talk ) 06:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cunard Since right now it looks plausible this article (Kalvan series) will be kept, could I trouble you to do a source review for the Paratime series and present the findings on the talkpage of that article, to inform us if merge is a good idea or if that other series has stand-alone notability separate from this one?  Right now I still feel that one page about those two series will be enough.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cunard -- Much thanks for adding solid facts in place of Piotrus's sometimes problematic and tendentious edits.   Unfortunately, my skills are simply not in the area of bibliography, but I can appreciate the work of those who do have such skills.   I'm not absolutely opposed to merging this with ""Paratime series"", but it should be kept in mind that the Kalvan timeline is just one world within the Paratime multiverse (though since the 1980s, I guess it could be said that the Kalvan tail has been wagging the Paratime dog).  AnonMoos ( talk ) 23:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Joseph T. Major in the linked PDF file really didn't like the Kalvan sequels, but he mentioned a ""Hostigos Con, held in Lord Kalvan Country at Penn State on June 10-12, 1988"" (which I never knew about), that might add to the series' notability...  AnonMoos ( talk ) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP as the Kalvan series is a clear and distinct series of books by several authors over several decades, but it is separate enough from the Paratime series , focusing specifically on one timeline in particular.   The page could certainly be improved (I took the liberty of merging a condensed version of Kalvan (Calvin Morrison) into a new ""Characters"" section of the page), but that doesn't justify deleting the page when the series exists and has been referenced in independent, reliable sources as listed above.  -- Imperator3733 ( talk ) 04:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources in the discussion and also the suggestion of Merge that was buried here in the comments.  It doesn't look like there is support for straight-out deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Responding to Piotrus ( talk · contribs )'s request above , the Paratime series has received significant coverage in reliable sources.  Both the Kalvan series and the Paratime series are notable.  I express no opinion about whether Paratime series and Kalvan series should be merged or kept separate under the ""editors should consider how best to help readers understand it"" standard from Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages .  The guideline notes: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it.  Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).  Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.  Here are sources about the Paratime series (which I am also copying to Talk:Paratime series ): Hellekson, Karen (2001).  The Alternate History: Refiguring Historical Time .  Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press .  pp. 52 - 61 .  ISBN 0-87338-683-3 .  Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive .  The book notes: ""H. Beam Piper's Paratime sequence of stories is collected in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965) and Paratime (1981), both of which are made up of short stories or novelettes originally published in science fiction magazines from the late 1940s until 1965 (Piper killed himself in 1964). ... In ""Time Crime,"" the Paratime Police investigate a cross-belt Paratime slave trade, fixing the home time line of the slaves by close hypnotic questioning of the captured slaves, ferreting out which slaves came from a world where a woman killed herself and which came from a world where she was captured alive. ... The stories in Paratime do not focus on any one alternate world but explore a number of them; my favorite is ""Last Enemy,"" which takes place in the Akor-Neb civilization, a Second Level civilization in which reincarnation is a fact. ... Piper's Paratime works, like Poul Anderson's Time Patrol works discussed in chapter 7, create worlds policed by a force charged with protecting its own identity and keeping that identity secret. The culture that created the Paratime Police exploits the alternate time lines it can reach, treating these other worlds as endless sources of raw materials and other resources while upholding strict codes that do not allow anyone to reveal the secret to others. ... Piper discusses the simultaneity of the people inhabiting the worlds only briefly; in ""Police Operation,"" a guard examines Verkan Vall's blood under a microscope to make sure he is the right Verkan Vall. ...""  Fletcher, Marilyn P. ; Thorson, James L., eds.  (1989).  Reader's Guide to Twentieth-century Science Fiction .  Chicago: American Library Association .  p. 461.  ISBN 0-8389-0504-8 .  Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive .  The book notes: ""The Paratime series has for its settings some parallel time-line to Earth in which a civilization is based on Mars. The Martians are descendants of terran colonists who have had to survive after a nuclear war destroys Earth. The survivors discover the ""Ghaldron-Hesthor Transposition Field"" which facilitates travel between parallel time lines (hence the name para-time, or paratime). This leaves a lot of room for playing ""what if"" history, in which Piper shows himself to be an expert, recombining historical events and coming up with new and fascinating variations of what might have happened if.... Whether a story is part of the Paratime or Future History series, Piper's plots rely on the self-sufficient human.""  Barron, Neil; Barton, Tom; Burst, Daniel S. ; Hudak, Melissa; Meredith, D. R. ; Ramsdell, Kristin; Schantz, Tom; Schantz, Enid (2002).  What Do I Read Next? , 2000: A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction, Volume 2 .  Detroit, Michigan: Gale .  p. 813.  ISBN 0-7876-3392-5 .  ISSN 1052-2212 .  Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive .  The book notes: ""Summary: All of the stories in Piper's Paratime series lare collected in this omnibus volume. The Paratime Police travel through time to prevent anyone from changing the course of history. Generally they find discrepancies and have to act to restore the original time track. The stories were originally published between 1948 and the 1960s.""  Rogers, Alva (1964).  A Requiem for Astounding .  Advent:Publishers .  pp. 163–164.  ISBN 0-911682-08-2 .  Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive .  The book notes on pages 163-164: ""H. Beam Piper, in the July issue, began his popular Paratime series with a novelette, ""Police Operation. "" ... ""Police Operation,"" and the other stories in the series had to do with a highly organized and complex police force operating in paratime, across probable time lines. The primary purpose of the paratime police is to police the multidinous probable time lines at all levels in an effort to keep them separated and unknowing of each other and if, as occasionally happens, something or someone from one time line appears in another the Paratime Police show up to take care of the problem as quietly as possible, and to take corrective action to restore reasonable normality and to provide an acceptable explanation of the event.""  The book notes on page 164: ""The Paratime Police stories were entertaining tales not intended to be taken too seriously which provided one possible answer to such Fortean mysteries as unexplained disappearances, strange visitations, apparent violations of natural physical laws, etc. Piper admittedly got his idea for the Paratime Police from Charles Fort: ""...there may be something in the nature of an occult police force, which operates to divert human suspicions, and to supply explanations that are good enough for whatever, somewhat in the nature of minds, human beings have-or that, if there be occult mischief makers and occult ravagers, they may be of a world also of other beings that are acting to check them, and to divert suspicions from themselves, because they, too, may be exploiting life upon this earth, but in ways more subtle, and in orderly, or organized fashion. "" (Charles Fort: Lo!)""  Espley, John L. (Summer 1980).  ""H. Beam Pipier: An Annotated Biography"" .  Extrapolation : 172, 175–177 .  Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive .  The article notes on page 172 : ""The majority of Piper's stories are represented in the Paratime Police series and one Future History series. The Paratime Police stories have the theme of parallel worlds. Piper used this theme to answer some of the unexplained phenomena described by Charles Fort. The Future History stories are the description of the rise, fall, and rise again of galactic civilization. Using this background, Piper wrote some of his most memorable stories and books.""  The book notes on pages 175 - 176 : """"Last Enemy.""  Astounding, August 1950, pp. 5-60.  The last enemy is death.  A Paratime Police story in which Verkan Vall has to rescue a scientist investigating reincarnation.  Since reincarnation is a proven fact, death holds no fears and assassination is an honorary profession.  ... ""Police Operation.""  Astounding, July 1948, pp. 8-35.  The first of the Paratime Police stories.  There is a large amount of explanation about the Paratime theory with a minor plot concerning Verkan Vall hunting for an extraterrestrial animal in an alternate world where it is unknown.  ... ""Temple Trouble.""  Astounding, April 1951, pp. 6-34.  A Paratime Police story in which the exploitation of the alternate world is controlled through the organized religions.  The plot is concerned with conflicts created by the decline of the Paratime-supported religion. "" The book notes on page 177 : """"Time Crime.""  Astounding, February and March 1955, pp. 8-49, 85-131.  A serial concerning the Paratime Police discovering the existence of a large criminal organization of their own First Probability Level people.  1053"" Foote, Bud (2003). ""Escape into Paratime: H. Beam Piper's Alternated Pennsylvanias"" . In Slusser, George; Barricelli, Jean-Pierre (eds.). Genre at the Crossroads: The Challenge of Fantasy . Riverside, California: Xenos Books . p. 172 . ISBN 1-879378-48-5 . Retrieved 2023-07-22 . The book notes: ""In the very next year, however, Piper began work on a concept of multiple presents which was totally to dwarf the modest trilineal system of ""Time and Time Again.""  Though he was to work at the paratime concept through four short stories and a novel fixed up out of three others' over a period of sixteen years, the scheme seems pretty thoroughly developed in 1948 in the first paratime story, ""Police Operation.""  Some 75,000 to 100,000 years ago, Piper's scenario has it, the Martians, having exhausted their planet with overpopulation and over-industrialization, colonized Earth, which was occupied by no life higher than ape-men.  All the possible results of this colonization have come to pass, on one level of probability or anther; and all these levels of probability, the number of which Piper fixes at 10 100,000 , are equally real. "" del Rey, Lester (1979). The World of Science Fiction, 1926-1976: The History of a Sub-Culture . New York: Ballantine Books . pp. 112 , 172 , 324 . ISBN 0-345-25452-X . Retrieved 2023-07-22 . The book notes on page 112 : ""In July, H. Beam Piper began a series of stories with ""Police Operation,"" based on an assumption that time not only goes forward and backward but also sidewise; beside our world are an infinity of other worlds in which events have not proceeded quite the same.  Those nearby are almost identical, but those farther away differ greatly.  One world has learned to traverse through this ""paratime"" and to exploit other worlds and cultures.  But in doing so, the rulers must police all the worlds and prevent any accidental discovery of the secret by others.  This permitted Piper to use almost any setting or culture for his background without step- ping out of his basic situation, and the stories were usually excellent. "" The book notes on page 172 : ""And in August, H. Beam Piper had a Paratime story, ""Last Enemy,"" in which a world gains positive proof that any man can be reincarnated.  It is one of Piper's best stories. "" The book notes on page 324 : ""Paratime: H. Beam Piper's universe in which time extends not only forward and backward, but crosswise, with many earths lying side by side, like pages in a book.  Each earth differs slightly from the others; thus a panorama of histories is available for exploiting by those who can travel through paratime. "" Thesing, William B. (1981). ""H.  Beam Piper"" . In Cowart, David; Wymer, Thomas L. (eds.). Dictionary of Literary Biography. Volume 8: Twentieth-century American Science-fiction Writers . Ann Arbor, Michigan: Gale . pp. 70–71. ISBN 0-8103-0918-1 . Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: ""In about half of these short stories Piper develops the ""paratime"" concept with special emphasis placed on the necessity of policing across alternate worlds.  Piper's paratime idea is based on the imaginative conception that there are at any given instant (not in the future or in the past) lateral time dimensions-worlds of alternate probability parallel to our own.  Although there could conceivably be an infinity of such worlds, in his stories Piper posits the existence of five, which he calls Time Levels.  Lateral time-travelers, then, make corresponding shifts in time.  ""Police Operation"" (1948) alternates between descriptions of an adventurous hunt for an elusive monster and explanations of the various levels of time-travel.  In ""Time Crime"" (1955) the paratime police search out criminals who attempt to meddle with the timetracks.  Alternate historical outcomes during the Napoleonic Wars are the focus of ""He Walked Around the Horses"" (1948).  The two stories ""Gunpowder God"" (1964) and ""Down Styphon!"" (1965) were expanded to form ' Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965).""  Cunard ( talk ) 23:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cunard Thank you. Looking at the first set of references and quotes you provided here few days ago, each and every singe one of them mentioning the Paratime series, I think merge and redirect to Paratime, which we could then expand with the sources you found, would make the most sense. @ Rorshacma , as you commented before most refs were posted here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have no objection with Paratime series being the target for the Redirect/Merge . But any actually Merging from this article would be pretty light though, as, again, almost the entire bulk of this article is just in-universe plot information. The information from the sources found by Cunard in this AFD can be integrated into that article, though, of course. Rorshacma ( talk ) 02:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cunard -- Thanks again.  However, the person who wrote the following sentences was rather confused, or didn't even bother to read the book, so that source should definitely not be used! -- ""The Paratime Police travel through time to prevent anyone from changing the course of history. Generally they find discrepancies and have to act to restore the original time track."" -- AnonMoos ( talk ) 11:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect as the evolving compromise. It's still unclear if WP:SIGCOV has been met, but are a few reliable mentions to WP:PRESERVE . We should strive for WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ATD . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (still holding previously-stated position of keep)  Regarding the similarities/differences between the Paratime series and the Kalvan series, I think it's fair to compare their relationship to the relationship between the Nantucket and Emberverse series – both are related series, with several overlapping elements, but each tells a distinct story with a different primary focus.  Similarly, the Paratime series focuses on the Paratime Police at large , while the Kalvan series focuses on one particular timeline.  Both the Nantucket and Emberverse series have their own pages, so there is precedent for related series to still have separate pages.  -- Imperator3733 ( talk ) 05:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am okay with keep or merge to Paratime series . It's clear that both series meet GNG, but also that Kalvan is heavily dependent on Paratime. It seems likely a merged article could serve readers better, but someone with more knowledge may know better. I'm willing to use Cunard's sources to add a proper ""reception"" or similar section near the top of each, perhaps followed by heavily editing down the in-universe description, or at the very least updating the tagging. — siro χ o 07:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo That would be great (improving articles). My reading of the sources found by Cunard suggests that they are primarily about the Paratime series, with only passing mentions of the Kalvan subseries, hence my preference for a merge. I don't mind being proven wrong, if one's (yours?) reading of the sources suggests both entities have stand-alone notability and it can be shown in their respective reception series. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors appear to be cohering around merge, but relisting as consensus could be clearer and there has been very recent discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep without merging . As Imperator3733 has noted, two series in the same semi-shared fictional universe can have their own articles. As someone who has read stories in both series, IMO they are sufficiently distinct enough to keep separate. The Lord Kalvan series is set in one specific alternate universe, while the Paratime series ranges all around. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Paratime series . The sources listed here establish the notability of Paratime and Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen , but the Kalvan series just seems to ride on their ""fame""; the in-universe differences are irrelevant here. Condense to provide WP:DUE weight, then it can certainly be covered on WP as part of a larger article. – sgeureka t • c 14:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Alfred Kaminski : Liga 's Stuttgarter Kickers in November 2015.  The article fails WP:GNG regardless of there being a lot of routine coverage online (interviews, match reports/previews, transactional coverage, club press releases and conferences) because no reliable, independent sources cover the subject directly and in-depth.  The generally unreliable tabloid Bild reported on his 2023 dismissal from semi-pros Kickers Offenbach for allegedly employing highly unusual motivational methods, and many national and local newspapers carried the Bild report (e.g., [8] ).  I don't believe otherwise reliable sources carrying a tabloid report gets around WP:RS concerns, and the coverage is not sustained (would run afoul of WP:BLP1E ).  Aside from that incident, the coverage is routine (some examples include [9] , [10] , [11] . PROD was declined months ago without any effort to address WP:SPORTCRIT . Hopefully, the large amount of routine coverage doesn't lead to a WP:REFBOMB .) Jogurney ( talk ) 17:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It seems as if he passes GNG very easily from just the German language page - the article needs expansion, but GNG seems easily met?  SportingFlyer T · C 19:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how that's possible.  The de:wiki article includes two club website articles (not independent), a Stuttgarter Zeitung piece (the best coverage I could find) which consists of half of a paragraph on his career ( 20 Jahre lang arbeitete er bei der Zollfahndung in Hamburg. Der gebürtige Möllner befasste sich als Ermittlungsbeamter mit organisierter Kriminalität. 2003 machte er sein Hobby Fußball zum Beruf. 2005 erwarb er die DFB-Fußball-Lehrer-Lizenz. 2006 holte ihn Michael Henke als Co-Trainer zum 1. FC Saarbrücken, später übernahm er selbst den Cheftrainerposten. 2008 ging’s als sportlicher Leiter zur SV Elversberg, 2010 zum FC Homburg – als sportlicher Leiter und Trainer. Erfahrungen als Chefanalytiker und Scout sammelte er 2012/13 unter Trainer Ralph Hasenhüttl beim VfR Aalen. Seine letzte Station vor den Blauen waren die Offenbacher Kickers. Nun kommt ihm bei den Kickers in Stuttgart in einer der schwierigsten Phasen der Vereinsgeschichte eine Schlüsselfunktion zu. ), 2 Osthessen News pieces (one that is routine transactional coverage of his hiring by Barockstadt - mostly in the form of reprinting the club's press release and quotes from the subject; and one that is routine transactional coverage of his sacking by Barockstadt mostly consisting of quotes from the club's press release and the subject's public statement to the media), and a Kicker article that has just 2 sentences about Kaminski in what is also routine transasctional coverage.  I'll accept that the Stuttgarter Zeitung piece is more than routine coverage, but that doesn't get us to a GNG pass.  Can you elaborate on what you're seeing that I cannot?  Jogurney ( talk ) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Stuttgarter Zeitung article and Ost Hessen articles clearly pass GNG to me - there was a press conference and the paper went there to cover it.  His firing was a reprint of a press release, but was covered significantly.  The Bild re-coverage seems fine as well.  All of the routine coverage articles are at least three paragraphs long and are directly on the subject.  He's not the most notable manager in history, but there's enough coverage there for an article.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the explanation.  I can't agree that primary coverage like reprinted club press releases and quotes from the subject help in any way to pass GNG, but I'll follow up on your note that Kaminiski's not the most notable manager in history.  The Osthessen News articles are about his (very brief) tenure with a Hessenliga club (which competes in a state competition at the amateur 5th tier of German club football); according to transfermarkt most of these matches had attendance ranging from 300-500.  The only professional management role Kaminski had was as an interim management for one match in the 3.  Liga (for which I can only find a match report; nothing about his role even in the Stuttgart newspapers).  So if we use WP:COMMONSENSE , we ought to reject an article about someone with such a minor role in German club football (if for some reason people actually think the GNG is met).  Jogurney ( talk ) 20:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SF.  Giant Snowman 19:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  I also found [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , among many many many more German sources from tons of newspapers.  Clearly significant figure in German Lowe league football with ongoing career.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Deanna Troi : Sources are almost exclusively tabloid character rankings by websites like Screenrant and the like.  Notability not shown F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 06:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Popular culture .  F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 06:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question @ F.Alexsandr : With regards to Notability not shown , Wikipedia's deletion process asks the nominator to look into the notability of a topic ( which is largely independent of the current status of an article ) before starting the AfD discussion.  Was this WP:BEFORE search done and what were the results?  Daranios ( talk ) 11:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Daranios ( talk ) 12:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I mirror Daranios ' question. What due diligence was performed in researching this article for deletion? Yes, this article needs improvement, but would you then move to delete all of the major characters from TNG ? The most serious change I would agree to is consolidating all the characters into one article, but looking at the length of some of them, this would be stupid. Star HOG ( Talk ) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The current ""Reception"" section of the article definitely needs to be rewritten to not be a series of ""times the character was mentioned in some top ten list"", but even just a very quick, cursory search brought up several different books and journal articles on gender depictions in Star Trek and TV in general that have non-trivial discussion of Troi as part of them, such as these three examples . Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 3, 5, 9 and 10 are fine for GNG. Rest is gravy. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Rorshacma's examples are excellent sources. Keep per WP:NEXIST . Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is enough already in the article and shown here to satisfy GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 ( talk ) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Oaktree b, sources are there. This is never going to fail GNG. There may be PAGEDECIDE questions for fictional characters, but I suspect this one will always be judged to merit a spinout. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notability is clearly established with the sources in the article plus those provided here. Daranios ( talk ) 16:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Sargam Koushal : Fixthetyp0 ( talk ) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I also wish to nominate the photo on Wikimedia Commons for deletion because I doubt this person who created a new account just to post this photo was truly submitting his ""own work"" (I suppose admin will have to look behind the scenes to see if this claim was convincing) but I do not know how to nominate photos for deletion.  Fixthetyp0 ( talk ) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Jammu and Kashmir .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article receives significant coverage according to the Wikipedia guideline on significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV .  It also includes citations for different events like she was judge in Mrs South Africa 2023 (a national event), so it doesn't fall under the guideline for bio notable for single event per WP:BLP1E .  However, the nominator claims that past winners lack Wikipedia articles.  While some winners might not have articles, the presence or absence of articles for past winners is not a validity criterion for this specific article.  Every article is evaluated on its own merits based on whether it meets the notability guidelines per WP:GNG and having WP: SIGCOV .  Regards GAGIWOR ( talk ) 07:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is a case of WP:BLP1E and so is notable.  There are SIGCOV and bearing the title for ""Miss world"" is heavy that it can be a stand-alone entry for Wikipedia!  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  01:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLP1E is generally an argument against notability, not for it.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"FC Echichens : A single source which is about one of the team's players.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Switzerland .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Local media seems to cover their matches in significant depth quite regularly: 1 , 2 , 3 .  Unfortunately, these paywalls are not bypassed by the Internet Archive, so I can't evaluate this coverage in detail right now.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does that suffice for WP:AUD ?  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [4] , [5] , and [6] , among many more French and German sources.  Gets consistent coverage from media as well.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per above, per sources provided.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources provided by Dad Osmenzz.  Carson Wentz ( talk ) 21:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Grossology (books) : Insufficient sourcing for 15 years, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability.  PROD removed due to talkpage message from anon who ""loved the books as a kid"".  Jdcooper ( talk ) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Video games , Biology , Medicine ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The anon was right.  Grossology was an incredibly popular book series that spawned a TV show and a traveling museum exhibit, and I can find tons of newspaper articles about it.  Here's a few: "" Teaching the oozy gooey science of grossness "" (Allentown Morning Call, Aug 2013), "" Museum exhibit uncovers all things gross "" (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept 2005), "" Totally Gross "" (Louisville Courier Journal, Feb 2007).  Keep the article per WP:NEXIST .  Toughpigs ( talk ) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep And move to Grossology as the primary topic per Toughpigs and the reliable sources he has found.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , these sources seem to refer to the exhibition, so I'm not sure they establish the books as the primary topic.  The article about the TV series is far longer (though with a large amount of unsourced excess trivia).  Maybe all the articles (+ info on the exhibition from the sources) should be merged into one.  Jdcooper ( talk ) 10:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll start one big page to see how a merge would work out at User:Jellyfish/Grossology and see how it looks all together.  Will edit when time allows.  Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk ) 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On second thought - Grossology (TV series) is absolutely massive , at least on my phone.  Unless there's a significant bit of fat to trim off the article, I think it'd be best left as a summary with the main article template thrown on top of the section.  Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk ) 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I removed the worst of the fancruft, but yeah it's still a large article in its own right, so I agree with you.  Jdcooper ( talk ) 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also just realized it has one incredibly nonspecific and presumably un-archived source.  Lovely!  Jellyfish (mobile) ( talk ) 04:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - traveling museum exhibit appears notable and has received nationwide coverage (albeit, from multiple local newspapers) from about 2007 to 2021.  I also tracked down this NYT article , though  it looks to just be a passing mention of the book.  jellyfish ✉ 19:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tatjana Đekanović : Atakhanli ( talk ) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Bosnia and Herzegovina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE .  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Has a Bosnian speaker conducted a BEFORE search for sources (I'm not seeing one on the talk page)?  If not this nomination is premature, you can't make a good faith declaration that it isn't notable unless BEFORE has been conducted.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : looking at the other language Wikis which cover her has suggested a couple more sources, which with the help of Google translate have allowed expansion of the article.  Pam D 17:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:GNG with expansion.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep following the work done by PamD and ForsythiaJo in expanding and sourcing this article, which has shown notability.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 18:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the coverage which has been added to the page is enough to get us over the GNG line.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Ditto what DaniloDaysOfOurLives stated.  -- Rosiestep ( talk ) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY / WP:BEFORE . The coverage already in the article at the time of nomination did not demonstrate notability, but that has never been the correct standard to apply. Now we have not only the same notability we had before (because notability is not a function of the current state of the article) but a clear demonstration of that notability within our article. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Obviously notable.-- Ipigott ( talk ) 07:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notability within the article is clearly stated.  Kaybeesquared ( talk ) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notability is demonstrated by existing sources.  Rublamb ( talk ) 19:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per all forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Reality Is What You Can Get Away With : There is a couple of comments on the talk page that says as much.  Fails notability criteria as not having been significantly discussed in independent reliable sources.  Fails GNG, EVENTCRIT, and BKCRIT.  I Prodded this at the end of May 2023 [1] – and it was declined.  -- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 18:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the two references in the article are one-line-passing-mentions.  Also, it is not likely that the first reference [2] would be considered a reliable source .  --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Reviewed in Danville Register and Bee , Austin American-Statesman and St. Louis Post-Dispatch .  Last one is a bit short, but three is sufficient for WP:NBOOK .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The Danville Register and Bee is passing mention, not significant coverage.  The Austin American Statement and the St. Louis paper do not discuss the topic in detail.  These are not sufficient for NBOOK.  These sources prove that this book exists.  Based on these I can recommend merge.   --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 00:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources Winnett, Scott (April 1992).  ""Reality Is What You Can Get Away With"".  Locus .  No. 375.  p. 53.  The review is listed here , here , and here .  ""Reality Is What You Can Get Away With"".  Science Fiction Chronicle .  May 1992.  p. 30.  The review is listed here and here .  Point, Michael (1992-05-31).  ""Two works take tours of alternate worlds, virtual and screenplay"" .  Austin American-Statesman .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-08 .  Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com .  The review provides 277 words of coverage about the subject.  The review notes: ""After a uniformly hilarious introduction, wherein a futuristic professor attempts to explain the culture of our time, Wilson uses illustrations that mix movie characters and scenes in new configurations to provide a challenging but consistently amusing story line that paints contemporary society with bold strokes of black humor. ... It's a quick read but one that holds up well with repeated readings as the different connections and relationships between the images unveil new meanings each time around.""  Bolhafner, J. Stephen (1992-06-14).  ""A Screenplay For The Mind"" .  St. Louis Post-Dispatch .  Archived from the original on 2024-04-08 .  Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com .  The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject.  The review notes: ""The cover calls Robert Anton Wilson's ""Reality Is What You Can Get Away With"" (130 pages, Dell, $13 paperback) an ""illustrated screenplay. "" Unlike most published screenplays, however, this one is intended not for the movie theater, but for the mind's own screen. Although there is nothing downright unproducible about Wilson's script, one imagines that it was never seriously intended to be filmed, but to be presented as published, with enough pictures — nearly one per page to let the viewer imagine the visuals. Indeed, imagination is one of its major themes. Many readers know Wilson from the ""Illuminatus!"" trilogy he wrote with Robert Shea in the early '70s. This work is just as outrageously funny, and if not quite as paranoid, at least as cynical. Yet, it is ultimately a polemical work, with a message that is quite simple yet apparently hard for most people to follow: ""Think for yourself!"""" Martin, D. R. (1992-08-09). ""Science Fiction"" . The Commercial Appeal . Scripps Howard News Service . Archived from the original on 2024-04-08 . Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com . The review provides 134 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: ""If you want a good jolt, go to the bookstore and grab a copy of Robert Anton Wilson's Reality Is What You Can Get Away With (Dell, paperback, $13).  It's a book that makes no sense at all, and more sense than anything you're likely to have read in years.  It zings you, zaps you, sticks it to you.  Wilson has concocted a ""screenplay"" written in the late 20th Century that has been rediscovered by scholars in a distant future.  The ""screenplay"" is an anarchic minstrel show; a cavalcade of the tragicomic absurdities of ""saying that which is not so.""  Wilson nails our society-in-denial right between the eyes.  Possibly, Reality Is What You Can Get Away With is not even science fiction.  But I treasure its hallucinatory, intoxicatingly nonlinear perspective on our dangerous times. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reality Is What You Can Get Away With to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 10:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Cunard's sources work for me.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Can we get more evaluations of the newly located sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Bengal, Minnesota : This was a wide spot between the tracks as far back as I can see, and there's no sign it was a settlement as well.  Mangoe ( talk ) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This one's easy.  BENGAL a station of the Great Northern Railway in section 1 of Goodland Township — Upham, Warren (2001).  ""Bengal"".  Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia .  Minnesota Historical Society Press.  p. 260.  ISBN 9780873513968 .  From the report submitted the Commission finds that Bengal is a station on the line of the Great Northern Railway Company situated between the stations of Kelly Lake and Swan River, Minnesota; — 51st Annual Report of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Minnesota .  1922.  p. 75.  Uncle G ( talk ) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two stops down on the timetable is Goodland, Minnesota .   Wikipedia once again lies that this is an ""unincorporated community"".  Upham 2001 , p. 263 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUpham2001 ( help ) tells us that it was initially a village called Gardner and became Goodland town of Goodland Township, Minnesota .   Just in case you were going there next.   ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 21:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing found except for the nearby lake.   Not a notable location, and the railroad isn't even there anymore, it looks like, from satellite views.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Bengal was a platted community founded in 1914.  While there was definitely a train station there, there was also a small community.  I found census records for 1920 and 1940.  I've added these details , along with the original 1914 plat map (there was also a later second addition to the community); luckily, that's all been preserved in county records and state and federal census filings.  I also found discussion of an influenza outbreak which hit Bengal hard in 1919.  Even though all sources indicate Bengal ended up being a bit of a dud, there are reliable sources showing this was a community/town.  I'll add more sources tomorrow, but it's late here tonight.  Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article has been very well WP:HEYed for such a small community.  Passes GNG.  SportingFlyer T · C 02:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per expansion.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Itasca County article.  The site is unincorporated, and therefore lacking a government.  QED it's not legally recognized and as such cannot not be presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND.  The material that has been presented in support of keeping it doesn't meet the standard of sustained coverage or verifiable evidence which is that ""evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest,"".  So the article is not compliant with WP:NRV or WP:Sustained.  No article is irrevocably and permanently notable, and merger is easily reversed if the place ever becomes notable.  We can't just keep hanging onto these perma stubs because someday they may be the ""GOAT"".  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uh, it's pretty easily verified with the coverage already in the article and WP:SUSTAINED applies to events, not towns, especially considering the sources in the article span decades.  It's also no longer a stub.  SportingFlyer T · C 01:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep per SportingFlyer and others above.  A place need not be presently incorporated to have historical geographic significance.  BD2412 T 14:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Autostrad (band) : Sources largely do not contain significant coverage of the band.  * Pppery * it has begun... 23:45, 10 April 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 April 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Jordan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (and rename to Autostrad ).  The prior AfD in 2012 was for an article that was apparently entirely unreferenced.  Today's article is not, and since 2012, Autostrad has played internationally and received the following significant coverage: Garratt, Rob (2017-04-05).  ""How Autostrad became the indie ambassadors of Jordanian culture and music"" .  The National .  Retrieved 2024-04-11 .  ""Autostrad indie band members express 'their humanity' through music"" .  Jordan Times .  2015-03-03 .  Retrieved 2024-04-11 .  Saeed, Saeed (2018-02-01).  ""Wasla music festival: Autostrad explain the Jordanian music ethos"" .  The National .  Retrieved 2024-04-11 .  Nabawi, Maha El (2018-05-17).  ""How Jordanian musicians are finding success with new genres made in the Middle East"" .  The National .  Retrieved 2024-04-11 .  There are presumably additional sources available in Arabic -- in fact the article cites some.  Jfire ( talk ) 01:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Obvious keep due to new sources since 12 years ago.  Not sure why a speedy deletion tag was added in addition to this discussion.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Articles about this band were deleted or speedy deleted several times from 2009 to 2015 because less-experienced editors did not find reliable sources and did little more than announce that the band existed.  However, the article's history since 2015 shows that it has been developed by several more experienced editors.  The current version needs some cleanup (several sources are dead) and expansion of the band's history.  Note that the band's Arabic WP article [46] has some more sources, and those located by the previous voter will also help.  My vote is ""weak keep"" because they haven't gotten too far beyond tour announcements in the media, but there may be enough for a stub article.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Bivesh Gurung : Sources are mostly local papers and match reports.  Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Mostly the references were about match reports which doesn't indicate notability.  But with this reference , I would prefer to redirect to Maidstone.  Fade258 ( talk ) 08:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. Nowhere useful to redirect to, the 'current club' will be out of date in due course.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ GiantSnowman : , Till now I have found only one reliable and independent sources to the subject which I already mentioned in my above comment.  On the basis of that reference I would like to go for redirect.  Best Regards !  Fade258 ( talk ) 03:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per @ User:GiantSnowman .  As he is a professional player in England, if more sources are located, I will change the vote.  The problem seems to be about WP:SIGCOV .  Svartner ( talk ) 22:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , @ Svartner : , @ Fade258 : , I found [12] (""Gurung’s parents settled in Kent after his father’s time as Gurkha in the British army... Gurung has international ambitions and has been in contact with the Nepali football authorities but is yet to commit... has A-levels in maths and economics"", [13] (""Bivesh is the youngest child of Bhupal Gurung and Sanu Gurung who are from the Khotang Hills of Eastern Nepal. Bivesh, the youngest son of his parents who have been doing business for a long time in the UK, grew up there. While growing up there, studying at Maidstone School, Bivesh joined age group club of the same school and started playing football... While in Trysil, he also scored 4 important goals in the league for the team in 13 matches as a central midfielder... gave a trial at the prestigious English Premiership club Chelsea. In the middle of March 2021, he was in Chelsea's U-23 setup against Brentford B. In that match, Chelsea lost 2-1... relegated to the English 6th division National League South... It can definitely cause problems to represent the Nepali national football team. He will have to give up that visa to get Nepalese citizenship which is not a good move for him. ""), [14] (""Bivesh Gurung has taken to a new defensive role at Maidstone United. Gurung played centre-back for the first time in senior football... local lad Gurung has been a fixture in Elokobi’s side this season.... it’s turning into a breakthrough campaign for the former Maidstone Grammar School pupil"") , [15] , (""Gurung is a product of the club’s youth set-up where he was spotted and offered a scholarship by Crystal Palace in 2017.
 He has since headed back to Maidstone via spells playing in Scandinavia and nailed down a regular spot despite the club’s arduous end to last season in the National League.  His fitting finish set social media alight but while he has enjoyed being the centre of attention, Gurung is quick to share the plaudits. "") among many more sources.  Young player witn ongoing career and clearly siginficnt figure in Nepali football.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per sources presented by @ Das osmnezz .  Svartner ( talk ) 03:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Das osmnezz : , Thank you for the references but only 1st and 3rd references were reliable and independent to the subject i.e The Guardian and Kentonline respectively.  Sajha Khel isn't a reliable source.  Fade258 ( talk ) 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sajha Khel is reliable, its a Nepali football news webiste and the author has worked as a sports journalist.  The Non League Football Paper is also independent.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 07:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the Guardian and Sajha Khel are two sources showing WP:SIGCOV , which is enough.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Mewing (facial restructuring technique) : There is also only one source has any type of reputability.  The article is clearly not on a notable subject.  Polargrizbear ( talk ) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Popular culture .  Polargrizbear ( talk ) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per recent coverage (or, if all else fails, merge into List of Generation Z slang or John Mew : "" What is the ‘mewing’ trend? Why teachers are hitting back at classroom craze "" from The Independent "" What to know about mewing: Netflix doc 'Open Wide' rekindles interest in beauty trend ( archived version without paywall ) from USA Today , given this is covering a documentary on the subject "" A24 Sets Documentary ‘Open Wide,’ About Controversial Orthodontists Behind Viral TikTok Trend, at Netflix "" from Variety , although given this is a WP:FRINGE topic, not sure how relevant this would be I think the article sits in a weird spot between fringe medical theory-thing & popular culture. Orthodontic medical sources would be appreciated and likely necessary for the article, though I'm not sure where to find those. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Forgive my quick Google and Google Scholar search (I can't access the Wikipedia Library on my phone): https://www.esquire.com/uk/style/grooming/a46200555/tik-tok-defined-jawline/ - Esquire article, found on semi-related article Looksmaxxing https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/3280/ - a senior thesis, citations inside may be of use (I'm generally unfamiliar with WP:MEDRS and rarely touch the subject on principle) https://www.joms.org/article/S0278-2391(19)30349-0/fulltext - appears to be written by dentists, will verify publication when on desktop and available https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0043-1767647?device=mobile&innerWidth=980&offsetWidth=980 - mewing as a potential cause for salivary gland cysts Just speculation - I wouldn't be shocked in the next few years some more scholarly research comes out about the negative effects of mewing. I stand by my earlier statement that mewing sits at a strange crossroads of fringe medical topic and fad. I hope more scholarly research comes out, since this article is probably prone to fringe POV hijacking. Phönedinger's jellyfish II ( talk ) 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I give up on correcting that. If some more scholarly research comes out. Phönedinger's jellyfish II ( talk ) 17:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , ""mewing"" is mentioned in this medical journal and The New York Times back in 2020.  Obviously a fringe hypothesis, however.  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 04:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Absolutely keep, clearly passes strong WP:GNG .  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 10:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I am the creator of this article.  It might be worthy to note that this was originally a redirect to John Mew .  Per the above keep votes.  There is an entire documentary about mewing coming out (cool to know), so I believe this is WP:SUSTAINED .  Another thing to note is that a redirect/merge back to John Mew would certainly not make sense as this topic is known far beyond the person who coined it, and I don't think a redirect to List of Generation Z slang would make much sense as it's not exactly a slang dictionary word.  TLA tlak 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It sits at a strange intersection.  I'm not sure which would be more appropriate, but it'd likely be Mew.  Striking out my prior comment about adding it to the list of Generation Z slang.  Phönedinger's jellyfish II ( talk ) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know that pageviews should not contribute to notability, however, it's clear that wherever this Mewing title leads to gets the views.  I personally think it would be irresponsible for us to redirect it to a lesser known person with limited information about the technique.  Gen Z slang is so complicated and strange 😞 TLA tlak 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  We may lament its notability but it is notable albeit in a fairly minor way.  It joins the long list of notable pseudo medical fads that encrust the sordid history of quackery.  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 12:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mewing is not “generation Z slang”, though.  It’s a facial technique, and it should be treated as so.  I feel there is too much information about it to be placed in a sub-article.  GP22248 ( talk ) 13:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above Mach61 19:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep This technique is probably nonsense, but unfortunately it is still present in numerous sources.  However, it should be made clear that it is not scientific but an internet phenomenon.  Killarnee ( talk ) 08:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it is attested in recent sources; per Schrödinger's jellyfish ( Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!! ) 15:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Mike Boon : BD2412 T 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand .  BD2412 T 00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Comment : This NZ Herald article gives him one tick for significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, I'd say, although it's odd that it didn't come up in the Google News search results.  It's the only source I've found on an initial search of NZ databases, and on its own wouldn't be enough to meet WP:GNG .  I'll have another look later and see if I can find anything else substantive.  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 02:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Updated to keep.  He (just) meets WP:GNG .  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 22:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This comes up in . nz sources [41] , I think that's good for notability.  There are a few NZ Herald articles about this individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : thanks for finding that Timaru Courier article.  Could you link any other NZ Herald articles?  Aside from the one I mentioned, the only other article I could find was ""Comedy for kids proves a Boon"" , but that reads as an advert to me.  Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 03:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was the same one you linked above and the ""comedy"" one you referenced here, that's all I had.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , United Kingdom ,  and Scotland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've tracked down a few NZ reviews of Boon - theatreview: Ageless storytelling ; Silly fun for kids; dry humour for adults ; and in Threadnz.com: MR BOON SAVES CHRISTMAS .  Resonant Dis tor tion 07:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep With two feature articles in newspapers (which are twelve years apart), and a number of secondary reviews of his shows, there should be sufficient to presume notability.   I have added the above references to the article.  Resonant Dis tor tion 22:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Myōjinyama : Boleyn ( talk ) 08:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and perhaps move.  It's a 1290m mountain; based on the bluelinks at List of mountains and hills of Japan by height , it appears that the general consensus is that such mountains are notable.  The real name is ""Teppogi-no-atama"" or ""Teppoginoatama"" (the Japanese Wikipedia page is at that name), and the current English title could be mistaken for Mount Myōjin although the Japanese names are different (-yama vs -dake, but both could be translated as ""Mount"").  English sources using ""Teppogi-no-atama"" and discussing the place in some detail include this from Japan Today and this from Timeout .  Searching for the Japanese name 鉄砲木ノ頭 yields lots of hits on both Google Books and Google News, e.g. several pages of coverage in both this book and this book which are more detailed and less associated with paid tours.  Dekimasu よ!  01:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources listed by Dekimasu .  DCsansei ( talk ) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Bu (instrument) : Heyandwhoa ( talk ) 22:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Korea .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have found and added a source, and suspect that there are more to be found.  BD2412 T 02:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose [10] in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture , [11] , [12] , [13] toobigtokale ( talk ) 11:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toobigtokale : Can these sources perhaps be added to the article, with the points of information that they present?  BD2412 T 21:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I generally try to prioritize time by prominence as there's so many under-reported Korea topics, and I think this instrument is obscure.  I can add a bit from one source if that helps toobigtokale ( talk ) 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Done toobigtokale ( talk ) 23:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per improvements to the article and sources identified by toobigtokale .  BD2412 T 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Traditional Korean musical instruments#Clay instruments (properly sourced content) where it has an existing entry.  If the subject grows into an stand alone article the history will be preserved, but there is not enough properly sourced content to merit a stand alone article.  If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.  // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm still looking through Korean-language sources, but if it were to be merged, wouldn't Fou (instrument) be a better candidate to be merged to?  ~ F4U ( talk • they/it ) 13:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It could also merge with Onggi , since that's the pot that is being repurposed here as an instrument.  ~ F4U ( talk • they/it ) 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why merge, if there are sources to support a separate article on the instrument as an instrument?  BD2412 T 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think merging to Fou is the most plausible, although I think a merge isn't needed because it has separate notability in its usage in specifically Korean Confucian rituals, as well as its notability in Korean-lang sources.  toobigtokale ( talk ) 01:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's clear from the sources above (one being an encyclopedia article) that the topic is notable and could merit a standalone article.  Debates about where to merge the content (if desired) could continue after the AfD.  (Personally, I think Traditional Korean musical instruments would be the best place, but I'm not opposed to maintaining this stub.) -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, continuing the discussion on whether this should be a standalone article or merged with a target article (and there are several suggestions here) Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's a bit more here than there is for most isntruments in the article on Korean musical instruments.  Cortador ( talk ) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"David Kramer (singer) : Elttaruuu ( talk ) 06:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG .  CastJared ( talk ) 07:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Theatre ,  and South Africa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep well-known singer and playwright, [15] meets WP:GNG .  He is notable enough for Britannica article.  [16] “One of South Africa’s most famous voices” [17] .  Also WP:NOTCLEANUP .  WP:BEFORE should be done before nomination, and it is extremely unlikely to have happened here.  Park3r ( talk ) 06:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The bias is strong with this one.  The references are notable and a lot of digging finds coverage in non South African sources Gbawden ( talk ) 15:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , definitely.  A major figure in South African music, whose shows have toured internationally, and a cultural icon in South Africa.  There are sources in the article and plenty more online.  At best this should be a request to improve the article references, not to an AfD.  Zaian ( talk ) 11:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep SIGCOV found online.  Nom did not do any research on the web, i.e. failing to to a WP:BEFORE.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 13:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Ukrainian Soviet Republic : Panam2014 ( talk ) 09:50, 11 June 2023 (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/2023 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a hoax.  The Bolsheviks formed governments in Ukraine three times.  Paul Robert Magocsi (1996), A History of Ukraine , 1st ed.  p 495: . . . November 1917.  Soon after, [the Bolsheviks] formed a Soviet Ukrainian government and, with Bolshevik Russian help, drove their erstwhile Rada ally out of Kiev.  Their control of the city lasted for only three weeks in February 1918, until the German Army forced them out of Kiev and, shortly after, out of Dnieper Ukraine entirely.  . . . p 497: They regrouped in Taganrog, on the shores of the Sea of Azov, where on 18 April they dissolved their own Soviet Ukrainian government and replaced it with a coordinating committee that was to direct the struggle against the German occupier.  . . . On 19–20 April 1918, the distinct Communist party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine – (CP(b)U) was established, although it was to become increasingly subordinate to the Russian Communist party.  p 497–98: They were in fact already close to the Ukrainian border at Kursk, where on 28 November 1918 they secretly formed a ‘provisional’ Soviet Ukrainian government (Tymchasovyi Robitnychno-Seliansʹkyi Uriad Ukraïny) with the intention of marching into Dnieper Ukraine.  . . . The Ukrainian Soviet Republic was Ukrainian in the territorial, not the national sense . . . I believe this article represents the first part of Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets .  This article could be merged into that one, but these were two separate governments, so there is a case for  articles about them.  Ultimately, maybe there should be an overview article about the history of Bolshevism in Ukraine, and separate ones for each of the three governments.   — Michael Z .  05:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mzajac : so the name Ukrainian Soviet Republic for the fist government is false.  We could have one or two articles about the Bolshevik Republics in Ukraine but we need one article by government.  The articles should be rewrited and/or renamed.  Panam2014 ( talk ) 11:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t know if the name is wrong.  Magocsi uses it in the context of the second government, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t used for the first.  It seems logical that the first Soviet Ukrainian government was also intended to be a government of Soviet Ukraine, a republic.  Will try to do a bit more research.   — Michael Z .  15:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Orest Subtelny (2015), Ukraine: A History , 4th ed. , refers to the SUR at the start, and three Ukrainian Soviet governments: p 350: Furious [after the Kyiv congress of December 17, 1917], the small Bolshevik faction abandoned the congress, moved to Kharkiv, denounced the Central Rada as the “enemy of the people,” and proclaimed the creation of the Soviet Ukrainian Republic .  At the same time, Bolshevik troops from Russia began the invasion of Ukraine.  p 364: After much wavering, Moscow sanctioned the formation of another Ukrainian Soviet government on 20 November 1918.  p 365: The second Ukrainian Soviet government lasted about seven months.  p 376: Therefore, the formation, on 21 December 1919, of the third Ukrainian Soviet government was accompanied with patriotic rhetoric such as “the free and independent Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic again arises from the dead.” — Michael Z .  00:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Serhii Plokhy (2015), The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine doesn’t cover the history of the Bolshevik régime in detail for this period, but does mention its start.  p 208: The Bolshevik organizers left Kyiv for Kharkiv, where a congress of soviets from the industrial east of the country met in late December.  It declared the creation of a new sate, the Ukrainian People’s Republic of Soviets , on December 24, 1917.  At the beginning of January 1918, Bolshevik troops from Russia entered Ukraine and moved on Kyiv under the banner of the virtual state proclaimed in Kharkiv, which would eventually become the capital of Soviet Ukraine.  p 219: Of all the regimes and armies that fought in Ukraine in 1919, the Bolsheviks left the largest footprint and kept Kyiv in their hands longest—from February to August, and then again in December.  p 220: After the defeat of Denikin and the recapture of Kyiv in December 1919, the Bolsheviks decided to learn from their mistakes of the previous year.  ¶ Vladimir Lenin himself spelled out the “lesson of 1919” for his followers.  According to Lenin, the Bolsheviks had neglected the nationality question.  Consequently, the Bolshevik army returned to Ukrain bin late 1919 and early 1920 under the banner of the formally independent Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic and tried to address the Ukrainians in their native language.  — Michael Z .  01:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep without prejudice to moving or merging.  Srnec ( talk ) 22:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Theresa Onuorah : BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Dance ,  and Nigeria .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Known for her influence to another person?  I can only find stories about her (?) husband that passed, nothing about a musical career.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I wrote this article in a novice way since I am having mental health challenges.  Obviously passes WP: GNG .  Has featured with notable Nigerian musicians and even WP: CREATIVE , Since she is widely known for promoting the Igbo dance, Egedege .  Otuọcha ( talk ) 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is significant coverage in Opara, Ruth (2018).  ""We Can Sing It Without Doing It: Gender Contestation Among Nigerian and South African Women in Music"" (PDF) .  American Music Research Center Journal .  27 : 77–120.  Queen Theresa Onuorah was born in the 1940s, and is a traditional female musician from Umuorji village in Anambra state, South-Eastern Nigerian, West Africa, where she is well known for her self-created Egedege dance.  ...  As one of the oldest of her siblings, and recognized for her creativity, she became the leader of the group and taught her younger siblings.  In 1974, she led her family members who later joined the group to the recording studio where they recorded most of their songs including Ijele Elubego.  After the recording, the accompanying video became popular and was much appreciated in Igbo land, being one of the few indigenous music videos in the 1970s.  ...  Onuorah used her music to revitalize the traditional folk and dance music of the Umuorji and Anambra.  She gained a reasonable number of fans due to her performances of Igbo folk and traditional dance in South-Eastern Nigeria.  Other sources include: ""Ndi Otiegwu Igbo kpọtụrụ akpọtụ na 90s rue afọ 2000"" .  BBC News Ìgbò (in Igbo).  2020-09-11 .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  ""Igbo Traditional Music: Ikperikpe ọgụ, Atịlọgwụ, Egedege na egwu ọdịnala ndị ọzọ e ji mara ndị Igbo"" .  BBC News Ìgbò (in Igbo).  2022-08-27 .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  Alake, Motolani (2021-10-29).  ""Here is why Larry Gaaga's 'Egedege' is trending [Pulse Editor's Explainer]"" .  Pulse Nigeria .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  For an African musician most active in the 1970s, there is a strong WP:SYSTEMICBIAS against the availability of online sources, so the fact that we have these is a strong indication of notability.  Jfire ( talk ) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : BEFORE suggests WP:GNG .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 16:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't commend the lack of BEFORE done by the nominator.  There are books and analysis concerning Theresa Onuorah and her works.  Best, Reading Beans 09:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Chaos communications : A single reference that doesn't have an inline doesn't indicate that this concept is called by this name.  Fails WP:GNG , though a merge to synchronization of chaos would be a find WP:ATD .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A WP:BEFORE -style search shows multiple secondary reliable sources for the topic: the review articles Applications of Chaos in Communications , Chaos communications-principles, schemes, and system analysis , and A brief survey and some discussions on chaos-based communication schemes , and chapter 27 ""Principles of Chaos Communication"" in the book Signal Processing for Mobile Communications Handbook .  And more with a bit more searching.  These sources establish notability of the topic per WP:GNG .  The article needs improvement, but with good sourcing available, there are no insurmountable problems.  Hence keep.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mark viking's argument, basically.  The article isn't in great shape by any stretch of the imagination, but there's a topic here.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mark viking.  More sources include: Privacy in Two-Laser and Three-Laser Chaos Communications , IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, July 2015 — Digital Communications with Chaos by W.M. Tam ( table of contents here).  The topic is notable.  HenryMP02 ( talk ) 19:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Dosage Index : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - article needs clean up but subject appears to be notable: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2824166126/506A75FF7EB44502PQ/4 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/435747286/506A75FF7EB44502PQ/5 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/278484622/506A75FF7EB44502PQ/11 , etc.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Admittedly, the article needs work including simplifying, presentation and referencing, but there's significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable, independent sources in newspapers and books on horseracing via a Google Books search plus the web, so clearly passes the GNG.  Rupples ( talk ) 00:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Further sources for consideration: [34] , a critique [35] , [36] Google Book search results [37] Rupples ( talk ) 04:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Siege of Barwara (1757) : Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military ,  and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline.  It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen.  Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work.  Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable.  Source still needs to be reviewed and verified.  RangersRus ( talk ) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too.  Mnbnjghiryurr ( talk ) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock.  RangersRus ( talk ) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here.  Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage.  RangersRus ( talk ) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just found it at RSN.  Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar.  Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete , it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS .  Mnbnjghiryurr ( talk ) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock.  RangersRus ( talk ) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification.  Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege.  The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?).  Page passes general notability guidelines.  RangersRus ( talk ) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ,  as per Nom & it  fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector ( talk ) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There was indeed a siege of Barwara in 1757, and there are multiple good sources.  I see no reason to delete an article about a verified historical event.  My impression is that we don't have enough coverage of the global south, not an overabundance that requires aggressive pruning.  With that said, the article should probably be renamed, per @ RangersRus , unless there are other sources that say ""Barwara"".  Pecopteris ( talk ) 05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"KBGN : Current sources are the FCC, radio-locator.com, and Broadcasting Yearbook.  These do not demonstrate ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"" (Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability) AusLondonder ( talk ) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm not sure why there is suddenly a crusade to delete radio station articles.  Sources have been added.  ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun!  23:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I really wish we could have an AfD in this topic area without aspersions being cast on editors.  Some of your edit summaries in response to my notifications have just been abusive .  Unfortunately none of the sources you added, such as a listing at the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, seem to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI Scott Fybush is pretty well known in the radio world.  He writes a column called northeast radio watch, among other things.  He's a journalist.  He has toured hundreds of tower sites across the country, visiting studios and gathering historical information on these stations.  To say he's un-notable, or a poor source, is a slap in the face.  The editor at the bottom of this discussion below me, Sammi Brie, brings up an excellent point.  I feel like due diligence isn't given to these articles, and instead its a knee-jerk decision to post an afd.  I second her post about WP:BEFORE .  If you want to talk about ""abusive"", maybe start with your nomination process for these articles.  You give them no chance for improvement, you just click AfD and move onto the next one.  As someone who has edited this site since mid-2000s, this isn't the first time someone had a mission to delete articles in relation to WP:WPRS .  Instead of the knee-jerk, how about being constructive seeing where the articles can be improved and letting editors know that way?  Accord to WP:BEFORE , that's what you're supposed to do.  You too can add sources to articles if you find them.  If I had the power to post AfD templates, I wouldn't abuse it per that policy.  I'm glad I found that WP:BEFORE exists, because it should give articles like these a chance to survive.  And no, I know you're probably not doing it in bad faith, but you're definitely not doing it right per WP:BEFORE .  I'd gladly add sources if that's necessary, and I'll continue to do so.  All you have to do is tell me.  An AfD should be the last resort.  If you can't find any third party sources for the station, fine.  I don't own these articles, I just want them to be improved.  As far as abusive edit summaries, you link directly to my talk page, somewhere I'm free to express my opinions and concern that these articles are just put on the chopping block withoutdue process.  I also don't like clutter on my talk page, and move it frequently to archives.  I poured many hours into editing this site over the past two decades, and it's just amazing it can all be taken away because of one person's opinion of what qualifies for notability.  And yes, I get that things have changed since 2008, but the Idaho Statesman references (thank you Sammi) should put the nail in the coffin for this one.  That's as third-party as you can get.  The same with Scott Fybush's posts.  One would think a journalist is a reliable third party source, but here we are.  -Edit splice- added two more sources that are pretty notable.  ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun!  04:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies , United States of America ,  and Idaho .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe you are mistaken on what a source is and how it connects to notability.   The Idaho State Broadcasters Association is a secondary source, as is Broadcasting Yearbook (a periodical of it's time) and Scott Fybush's website, who is known and trusted within the industry for his news coverage (and he is a radio journalist by trade), is highly reliable.   These are all reliable sources and demonstrate notability.  Oh and let's forego the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching, along with calling people ""abusive"", when someone disagrees with you.   It's getting old and verging into NPA territory.  - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So it's a personal attack to call out abusive edit summaries but it's not a personal attack to write abusive edit summaries?  You know full well its got nothing to do with legitimate disagreement.  I can see why you've been subject to such significant restrictions given your behaviour here and at other AfDs.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per work done by Milonica.  - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on sourcing A directory listing on the website of the Idaho State Broadcasters Association is clearly a primary source.  It's also obviously not independent of the subject .  The Scott Fybush source is a very poor source for demonstrating notability.  It is about his trip looking at radio towers and specifically ""The AM Towers of Boise, Idaho"" - KBGN is only mentioned very briefly and only in the context of its transmission tower.  Nothing to do with discussion of the station or its history, operations or broadcasts.  The radio yearbook is again a very simple directory listing.  That's the exact opposite of what significant coverage is.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of radio stations in Idaho : I say this with at least some degree of reluctance, but the GNG requires significant coverage , not brief mentions, directories, or non- independent sourcing .  I wouldn't be surprised if GNG-appropriate sourcing is lurking out there somewhere, but our inclusion standards are far stricter now than they were in 2008, and retaining anything more than an {{ R to list entry }} without the needed SIGCOV is, if anything, only becoming less -policy-based over time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course if GNG-level sourcing is located then I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination or see the article re-created.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seriously—did someone even bother doing WP:BEFORE where they should have done it, like The Idaho Statesman ?  I found four refs easily.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One of them is quite good, but I would say the ones about the radio tower are not significant coverage of the station, especially this .  Whether one decent article in a newspaper in the 1970s and nothing substantial since is sufficient for meeting WP:GNG I'm not sure as GNG says ""There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"" AusLondonder ( talk ) 02:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That short one is at least noteworthy for dating purposes, but I would say the others are SIGCOV; we have a feature article on the station, an article entirely on the new station starting broadcasting, and an article about the radio station's transmitter causing site issues with the new airport.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to get more feedback on additions to this article since the nomination.  I don't see more support for Deletion here so it looks like the realistic options are Keep or Redirect.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think the general consensus is that the article has been improved enough.  I don't know how more reliable a source the Idaho Statesman is.  That one should end this tirade.  There are several third-party sources in this article now that prove that the station exists, and it has a history.  This includes the United States Senate for pete sake.  I'm not sure why there is a hang up on this one.  Scott Fybush is a reliable source.  He has been in radio for decades, and publishes a weekly column, on top of touring tower sites and gathering history.  He's a journalist.  There are several third-party sources in this article, including big ones that offer significant coverage.  This should have been resolved by now.  ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun!  03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) (I'm striking your duplicate vote but your comment remains.  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Keep : I am not someone who is generally in favour of keeping unsourced radio ephemera around on Wikipedia, but there is clearly enough sourcing in this article to prove notability - principally articles specifically about the station in multiple newspapers.  Sammi Brie is a subject matter expert and has found good sources here, this article should be kept.  Flip Format ( talk ) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article provides clear and plentiful references, which support its claims about notability.  There's no reason to delete it.  Gedaali ( talk ) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : First of up, per WP:BEFORE , and second per everyone else (Sammi, Flip Format, Milonica, NeutralHomer, and others).  ○ Auslonderder, before putting an AfD to stations note that there was work involved and check the sources.  They are reliable sources; also a little note, the Broadcasting Yearnook and Scott Fybush's website is notable.  So yea, check WP:BEFORE .  mer764 KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions ) 09:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Rugby League Conference North West Division : Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have repaired this nomination so that it is not an outright duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby League Conference North West Premier .  (As best I can tell the nominator is legitimately nominating both articles for deletion with the same rationale, it is just that this nomination was not pointing to the correct article at all.)  No opinion or further comment at this time.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Rugby league ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Merge and Redirect to North West Men's League as successor competition.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 : I haven't checked all 99 sources, but at a glance none of them talk about a week-long ""tornado outbreak sequence"".   Because these events aren't part of a single outbreak sequence.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You...nominate an article for deletion with 99 RS sources, including one of the strongest tornadoes in history , with full RS sources published within the last 48 hours?  Really?  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 exists separately from this article, which appears to be about individual tornadoes on these dates which no source appears to claim were a single ""outbreak sequence"".  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 03:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A tornado outbreak sequence is just multiple back-to-back tornado outbreaks .  That definition is scientifically published and sourced.  Tornado outbreak#Tornado outbreak sequence .  You should not have AfDed this, but rather gone to the talk page for split attempts.  I absolutely highly oppose a deletion of this article, given it is absolutely notable for Wikipedia and no one can question that.  You have an issue with the article name and should have used WP:SPLIT and WP:RM ...not AfD.  You did not look at what to do before nominations for deletion , which would have mentioned that.  Just to note, you are directly saying (through a deletion nomination) the article should not exist...despite having 99 RS sources, including a high WP:LASTING impact with clear LASTING coverage.  So no, you will not gain any support for this AFD as this is a very botched AFD.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy oppose and recommend a fast-paced WP:SNOW -close for the above reasons by WeatherWriter.  MarioProtIV ( talk / contribs ) 03:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not intend to withdraw this; this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article.  List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 is suitable, and Draft:2024 Greenfield tornado probably would be as well; this is not.   The concept of a ""tornado outbreak sequence"" that conflates every weather event across 2000 miles for 8 days is not supported by the sources.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 03:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your ! vote has been noted.  You believe the article's content should not exist, meaning you are challenging the notability of it, more or less over the idea that it is a ""tornado outbreak sequence"" name, which could easily be fixed with splits and requested moved.  I do appreciate you clarifying that your deletion reason isn't strictly the name ""tornado outbreak sequence"" but rather "" this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article. "" The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Walsh90210 : If I may ask, why do you oppose the idea of splitting this into multiple tornado outbreak articles?  The idea of ""tornado outbreaks"" are supported by the sources ( ""A deadly tornado outbreak..."" [48] Also, it is very obvious that there were several tornadoes across the United States during that timeframe.  Why are you opposed to something like ""May 19-27 severe storms"" or even splitting it up into individual events like the sources do (i.e. Tornado outbreak of May 19, 2024 , Tornado outbreak of May 20, 2024 , ect..) or renaming it to ""severe storms"" when sources use it more.  For example, ""The May 19, 2024 Severe Weather Event"" as named by the U.S. government.  I am asking the question, because your arguing that none of the information should be on Wikipedia, yet also saying there are 99 RS sources for it.  I just provided a couple of RS sources, helping prove why the content is notable.  That is more what I am asking.  Are you challenging the exact term ""tornado outbreak sequence"" or the content in general?  That is actually unclear here.  Specifying that would be helpful.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Primarily the term ""tornado outbreak sequence"" ( which I hopefully have criticized enough already ); I am not claiming that none of this content should be on Wikipedia in any form.   Some of the content might be reasonable for a stand-alone article (though the various WP:MILL weather bulletins don't count for GNG), other content might be reasonable at the existing article List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 .   A blank-and-redirect to List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 would still require an AFD discussion.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 04:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Walsh90210 : I promise, my last reply to you/in this AfD.  To note, no a ""blanking"" does not require an AfD.  See Wikipedia:Merging .  The only instances for AfD are when it directly meets the deletion policy , specifically one or more of the ""reasons for deletion"" .  AfD should be used when the nominator feels the content should not be on Wikipedia at all.  Based on what you have described so far, you really should not have used AfD (as I and other editors in here now) have stated.  Merge discussions, split discussions, renaming discussions, or just a general talk page discussion were all very much valid options.  For a simple term, such as ""tornado outbreak sequence"", that doesn't meet any of the deletion reasons.  The only real actual valid deletion reason you partially mentioned was that it may not meet the notability guidelines.  In short, for this specific AfD, that is the only thing really being looked at by editors, whether it passes those deletion reasons.  Now that 3 other editors have also someone stated a similar thing (i.e. keep the content, discussion for ""tornado outbreak sequence"" should occur elsewhere), I would honestly recommend withdrawing the AfD and then starting either a merge discussion ( WP:MERGE ), a renaming discussion ( WP:MOVE ), a split discussion ( WP:SPLIT ) or just a general talk page discussion to see what other editors think should occur next ( Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 ).  Wikipedia isn't a vote and discussions are based on the merits of comments and reasonings, but hopefully you can also see what others are saying.  Very short summary: Your concern is valid and should be addressed, just you happen to pick the one process that isn't for addressing that type of concern.  Any of the things I mentioned above are absolutely perfect for discussing that issue.  But not a full-on deletion discussion.  I won't comment in this again, and you are welcome to keep the AfD open, but as an editor, I would highly recommend withdrawing the AfD and starting one of the four processes above.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rather obviously keep , as a noteworthy event or sequence of events.   There might be grounds to consider splitting the article if the sources don't support treating the events together based either on causal relationship or proximity in time and location, or some combination of the two; but that would not be grounds for deletion.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per P Aculeius.  If RS doesn't support tying all this RS material together, split or remove parts that don't fit with an RS-based theme.  This should have been an editing exercise discussed on the article's talk page rather than coming here.  Stefen Tower s among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 04:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment , Canada , Alabama , Arkansas , Colorado , Georgia (U.S. state) , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Minnesota , Missouri , Nebraska , North Carolina , Ohio , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , Tennessee , Texas , Virginia , West Virginia ,  and Wisconsin .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Article is well research with almost a hundred sources, and details a pretty significant event, thus WP:N .  — Mjks28 ( talk ) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think it is far preferred to group a handful of back to back tornado outbreaks together in this manner for ease of access and because while there are multiple outbreaks covered sometimes drawing the line of when one outbreak ends and the next begins can be difficult, would constitute original research, and doing so lies outside the purposes of Wikipedia.  DJ Cane (he/him) ( Talk ) 13:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  This article seems to be a well-researched, well-sourced, and significant event which definitely does deserve to be an article, let alone content on here at all.  /srs Thanks, NorthStarMI .  ( Talk in the galaxy ) 13:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – That's literally how these types of articles are stringed together.  They always have been that way and always will be (probably).  Poodle23 ( talk ) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Auto keep I'm not going to even grace this with an answer.  Chess Eric 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the continued contempt and refusal by ""weather"" editors to acknowledge that the concept of a ""tornado outbreak sequence"" appears to be something they made up is the reason I continue to refuse to withdraw this AFD.   If some uninvolved admin wants to close this in lieu of a discussion at some other forum (and starts that discussion procedurally), they can.   But I stand by the claim that this (and, other similar) titles should be expunged from Wikipedia.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 16:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I gotta break my promise of not replying again for this new comment.  “Contempt and refusal” to acknowledge that “we” made it up?  Yeah…this is very much a time you should back away from the discussion , since we didn’t make it up ( [49] ).  Now, if I may have a moment for a joke comment (seeing how it is obvious which way this WP:1AM AfD is going.  If “we” made it up , then that would mean the Wikimedia Foundation controls the Storm Prediction Center and National Severe Storms Laboratory .  But wait!  Since those are U.S. government agencies…that would mean…Wikipedia controls the U.S. government!  :O!  Conspiracy Theory Time!  (Now my fun time is over…I’m actually done here since this is a very much one-against-many AfD).  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 16:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There was one paper 21 years ago that nobody followed up on because the idea that tornadoes 1000 miles apart and 8 days apart are the same ""event"" is stupid.   That's it for external usage of the term.   The Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, Wikipedia-content books, and ""fiction"" wikis.   The Google Scholar results have 23 total hits for ""tornado outbreak sequence"" (many of which refer to Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence , which is a ""tornado outbreak"" from a single storm).   This.  Is.  Not.  A. Single.  Event.  and you continue to insist (erroneously) that it is.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, I would be sympathetic to this line of argument if it were re-structured as a discussion (RFC, etc.) about splitting events like this instead of a Hail Mary AFD.  Penitentes ( talk ) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if this was made up by wikieditors then why does the nws uses the titles for other sequences?  67.58.252.227 ( talk ) 02:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep AfD is clearly not the first step here.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 19:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per the reasons noted by WeatherWriter, Mjks28, DJ Cane, and other editors above.  Chris Wx 🌀 ( talk - contribs ) 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - This article is certainly is notable and certainly qualifies for its own article.  The only thing that would even be remotely necessary if the nominator’s rationale is correct would be to split the article.  But even then, deleting it is not the way to do it.  West Virginia WXeditor ( talk ) 19:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - The event is notable, and looking at both Google Scholar and Google Books, the term ""Tornado Outbreak Sequence"" is used in scientific settings.  Most recently, it appears in ""An Introduction to Severe Storms and Hazardous Weather"" by Dr. Jeffrey B. Halverson, a climate and storm scientist, which was published in 2024 by Routledge.  He did write that they are ""sometimes called simply an outbreak"".  The ISBN for anyone who wants to investigate is 978-1032384245.  Since the issue does seem to be regarding the term ""Tornado Outbreak Sequence"", there are more appropriate venues than AFD to handle this as other users have noted.  CatharticHistorian ( talk ) 21:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep – Many have fleshed out the reasons to keep above, but to keep it short: It's well researched, cites good sources, this should not be the first step to write your grievances, and if you wanna get rid of this one then you should nominate every single other article that uses the term ""Tornado Outbreak Sequence,"" most notably Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011 , one of the worst sequences in modern history that was 6 days long.  Nobody's getting rid of that one, and thus this one is staying too.  SouthernDude297 ( talk ) 00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention the fact that getting rid of everything that contains this blanket term would also imply getting rid of other infamous outbreak sequences such as the May 2019 tornado outbreak sequence which saw hundreds of twisters touch down.  West Virginia WXeditor ( talk ) 01:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"1450 Internet army : Amigao ( talk ) 21:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions .  Amigao ( talk ) 21:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has a bunch of references on the Chinese article which someone probably needs to go through, and probably more out there as well.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is still a significant issue though Sharontse121 ( talk ) 01:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the all sources used in the article are reliable Chinese sources.  You can't say that it is not reliable by saying that it has no WP:RS English sources, this is discrimination Sharontse121 ( talk ) 01:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody above had said or implied that sources in languages other than English can't be reliable.  Please avoid straw men and other kinds of misleading claims, see also below.  Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No justification as to why the sources used are not reliable.  Sources are not required to be in English.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and because alongside other dubious or outright false claims by the article's author, at least some of the references they offered do not support the claims they were cited for.  I spot-checked two of citations in this revision : [4] did not support the claim in the article as written.  [2] actually said pretty much the opposite of what Sharontse121 claimed (Weibo denied that its traffic had dropped, also, the source does not even mention the Wikipedia article's subject).  As for the other sources cited, the burden is on the author to explain why they should be considered WP:REPUTABLE (i.e. having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ).  Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 15:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per HaeB's reasoning.  Dubious sources and notability.  GuardianH ( talk ) 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Zhu, Hao 诸皓; Ai, Liang 艾凉 (2022-09-01).  ""民进党当局的红人，新冠阳性"" [The popular man of the DPP authorities, positive for COVID-19].  Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese).  Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 .  Retrieved 2023-08-14 .  The article notes: ""众所周知，绿营与网军有着千丝万缕的联系。被称作“数位政务委员”的唐凤，则被公认为“1450”网军头目。 ... “1450”系台湾民众对民进党网军的戏称。2019年，有媒体爆料，民进党当局编列1450万元招募人员在社交平台进行“信息实时澄清”工作。长期以来台当局官方豢养网军的谣言被证实。“1450”网军的名号自此不胫而走。近年，这支“编外部队”在搅动台海局势、制造两岸隔阂、抹黑“甩锅”大陆等方面极尽能事。而这一切都离不开“头目”唐凤的“努力”。"" From Google Translate: ""As we all know, the green battalion and the cyber army are inextricably linked. Tang Feng, known as the ""digital political committee member"", is recognized as the leader of the ""1450"" cyber army. ... ""1450"" is a nickname used by Taiwanese people for the DPP cyber army. In 2019, the media broke the news that the DPP authorities allocated 14.5 million yuan to recruit personnel to carry out ""information clarification in real time"" on social platforms. For a long time, the rumor that the Taiwan government officially supports the cyber army has been confirmed. The name ""1450"" cyber army has spread like wildfire since then. In recent years, this ""non-staff force"" has done its best to stir up the situation in the Taiwan Strait, create barriers between the two sides of the Strait, and discredit the ""dumping pot"" of the mainland. And all of this is inseparable from the ""effort"" of the ""leader"" Tang Feng.""  Ren, Chengqi 任成琦 (2022-04-25).  Liu, 劉潔妍; Yan, 燕勐 (eds.).  ""造謠抹黑離間兩岸 網暴霸凌打壓異己 民進黨豢養""1450""作惡多端"" [Spreading rumors to smear the two sides of the strait, cyberbullying and bullying to suppress dissidents. The DPP feeds ""1450"" to do all kinds of evil].  People's Daily (in Chinese).  Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 .  Retrieved 2023-08-14 .  The article notes: ""“1450”是外界對民進黨網軍的戲稱。2019年3月，民進黨當局農業主管部門有一項“加強農業訊息因應對策計劃”，... “1450=民進黨網軍”的說法由此而生。 “1450”肩負雙重“使命”。一是與民進黨當局呼應配合，給綠營出台的政策背書，瘋狂打壓國民黨、民眾黨等競爭對手﹔二是抹黑大陸的社會經濟、惠台政策，就港澳和新疆事務造謠生事。在香港“修例風波”中，處處都有“1450”的幕后黑影。"" From Google Translate: """"1450"" is the outside world's nickname for the DPP cyber army.  In March 2019, the DPP authority's agricultural department had a ""Strengthen Agricultural Information Response Plan"", and the saying ""1450=DPP cyber army"" was born from this.  ""1450"" shoulders a double ""mission"".  The first is to cooperate with the DPP authorities, endorse the policies issued by the green camp, and frantically suppress competitors such as the Kuomintang and the People's Party; In Hong Kong's ""revision storm"", there are shadows behind the scenes of ""1450"" everywhere. "" Yang, Jiaying 楊佳穎; Zhang, Lixun 張立勳 (2019-05-11). ""1450…網軍新代名詞"" [1450... A new synonym for cyber army]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""今年「加強農業訊息因應對策計畫」編1450萬元對外招標，聘請人員做政策行銷、輿情處理，遭質疑「養網軍」，引發議論。 儘管農委會主委陳吉仲上火線澄清，如今「1450」仍儼然成網友口中「網軍」新代名詞。 ... 不過，此案掀波後，也讓「1450」成「網軍」代名詞。 藍委林奕華日前在農產品產銷失衡記者會直言，農委會最紅代名詞變「1450」，...""  From Google Translate: ""This year's ""Strengthening the Agricultural Information Response Plan"" compiled 14.5 million yuan for external bidding, and hired personnel to do policy marketing and public opinion handling.  It was questioned about ""raising the Internet Army"" and sparked discussion.  Although Chen Jizhong, chairman of the Council of Agriculture, went to the fire line to clarify, ""1450"" still seems to have become a new synonym for ""net army"" among netizens.  ...  However, after the case broke out, ""1450"" became synonymous with ""net army"".  Lin Yihua, the Blue Committee, said bluntly at the press conference on the imbalance between agricultural production and sales a few days ago that the most popular pronoun of the Council of Agriculture has changed to ""1450"". "" Chen, Yiwen 陳怡文 (2023-03-16). ""誕網軍稱號！ 農委會遇問題只解釋不解決　陳吉仲：若有1450怎連解釋都沒做好"" [Birthday net army title! The Council of Agriculture only explains but does not solve problems. Chen Jizhong: If there is 1450, why didn’t they even explain it well?]. Nextapple News [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""農委會主委陳吉仲今接受媒體專訪，被問題農產行銷中與1450(網軍)界線，及網友留言稱農委會光是解釋沒有解決農業問題，他坦言是他的問題，因做100件事也沒想對外說1件，只想去解決問題，而解釋是他最該改善的地方，畢竟外界認為有1450，可是有1450怎麼會變成連解釋都沒有做好。 "" From Google Translate: ""Chen Jizhong, the chairman of the Council of Agriculture, accepted an exclusive interview with the media.  He was questioned about the boundary between the marketing of agricultural products and 1450 (net army), and netizens left messages saying that the Council of Agriculture’s mere explanation did not solve agricultural problems.  He admitted frankly It's his problem, because he did 100 things and didn't want to say 1 to the outside world, he just wanted to solve the problem, and the explanation is what he should improve the most.  After all, the outside world thinks that there are 1450, but how can there be 1450?  Not done well. "" Guo, Qiongli 郭瓊俐 (2020-09-03). ""【春露專訪】1450網軍始祖現身：我就是風，何必帶風向？ "" [[Chunlu Interview] The ancestor of the 1450 Internet Army appeared: I am the wind, why should I bring the direction of the wind?]. Business Today [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""國民黨前立委陳宜民去年爆料，農委會「108年度加強農業訊息因應對策計畫」，編列1450萬元養網軍，而先前得標廠商「春露」、「樂齊」兩家公司是同一批人，春露公司因此被冠上「1450網軍始祖」的封號。 今年8月，媒體再踢爆，春露公司淡出農委會，「轉進」台鐵，兩度得標台鐵局標案，春露公司的神祕色彩，再度引發各界好奇。 "" From Google Translate: ""Chen Yimin, a former legislator of the Kuomintang, broke the news last year that the Council of Agriculture's ""108 Year Strengthening Agricultural Information Response Plan"" compiled 14.5 million yuan to support the Internet army, and the two companies ""Chunlu"" and ""Leqi"" that had previously won the bid were the same Because of this batch of people, Chunlu Company was given the title of ""the ancestor of the 1450 cyber army"".  In August of this year, the media broke out again.  Chunlu Company faded out of the Council of Agriculture and ""transferred"" to Taiwan Railways. "" Zhao, Youning 趙宥寧 (2019-05-06). ""1450的網軍暗黑兵團？ 羅智強再揭「假韓粉」網軍的3大特點"" [1450's dark corps of cyber army? Luo Zhiqiang reveals the 3 major characteristics of the ""fake Han fan"" online army]. The Storm Media [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""羅智強今再分析，這群「賴清德認證的1450網軍」現已兵分兩路，其中「大野狼軍團」正面直攻韓國瑜、郭台銘；而另一邊「小癟三軍團」則偽裝韓粉，全面分化藍營，猛攻趙少康、唐湘龍、李艷秋等意見領袖，為韓國瑜樹敵。 "" From Google Translate: ""According to Luo Zhiqiang's further analysis, this group of ""1450 Internet Army certified by Lai Qingde"" has been divided into two groups.  Among them, the ""Big Wild Wolf Army"" directly attacked Han Guoyu and Guo Taiming; Fully divide the blue camp, attack Zhao Shaokang, Tang Xianglong, Li Yanqiu and other opinion leaders, and make enemies for Han Guoyu. "" Fu, Shihan 傅詩涵 (2020-03-16). ""農委會又養網軍？　 1450標案公司再度得標"" [The Council of Agriculture raises an Internet army again? The 1450 bidding company won the bid again] (in Chinese). TVBS . Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""去年大選期間，國民黨立委質疑農委會養網軍，因此產生網軍叫1450的說法，當時得標的公司，今年一月底再度標下農委會828萬元網路行銷的標案，再度引發話題。 "" From Google Translate: ""During last year’s general election, the KMT’s legislators questioned the COA’s support for the Internet Army, which led to the idea that the Internet Army was called 1450.  The company that won the bid at the time bid again at the end of January this year for the COA’s 8.28 million yuan network marketing bid, which once again triggered topic. "" Zhang, Yajing 张亚静 (2022-05-09). ""华视被爆卷入""1450网军""风波？ 民进党操纵媒体绿出新高度！ "" [China TV was involved in the ""1450 Internet Army"" storm? The DPP manipulates the media to reach new heights!]. taiwan.cn [ zh ] (in Chinese). Taiwan Affairs Office . Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""民进党当局拿着台湾民众的纳税钱豢养网军早已成为“公开的秘密”，而台农业主管部门正是“1450网军”代名词的始作俑者。 2019年，该部门编列1450万元新台币预算，拟在岛内网络论坛等社交平台发布信息，被民代质疑是在招募网络水军。 “1450=民进党网军”的说法由此而生。 "" From Google Translate: ""It has long been an ""open secret"" for the DPP authorities to use the tax money of the Taiwanese people to feed the cyber army, and Taiwan's agricultural authorities are the initiators of the term ""1450 Internet Army"".  In 2019, the department prepared a budget of 14.5 million NT dollars and planned to release information on social platforms such as online forums on the island.  It was questioned by the Democratic Party that it was recruiting cyber trolls.  The saying ""1450=DPP Cyber Army"" was born from this. "" Less significant coverage: ""Taiwan Election: One Day Out"" . Stanford Internet Observatory . 2020-01-20. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""Most recently, the New Party (politically close to the KMT) live-streamed a KMT press conference discussing Wang Liqiang on YouTube and Facebook.  During the livestream, live chat was deactivated, but before it was, several commentators decried the “1450” (alleged DPP cyber army, which Han Kuo-yu supporter call “1450”) for “being at work”.  Many comments were written in simplified characters, which are used in the PRC Mainland but not in Taiwan. "" Yun, Chen; Chung, Jake (2021-03-06). ""Jaw vows to train Internet celebrities"" . Taipei Times . Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""Jaw, a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) member, said that the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) fears regarding China’s influence via the Internet has been exaggerated, and the DPP has proven itself adept at using the Internet to influence others, citing the “1450” controversy.  The term “1450” — derived from a situation in 2019 in which the Council of Agriculture budgeted NT$14.5 million (US$512,802 at the current exchange rate) to hire four online content curators — has been used to sarcastically describe netizens allegedly paid by the DPP to criticize its opponents online.  ...  Training content creators would provide them with a source of income, although the proposal is not aimed at “1450” influencers, he said. "" Wang, Meiqin (Fall 2022). ""Mass Burial: A Case of Artivism in Taiwan"" . Field (22). ISSN 2694-0094 . Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""As a matter of fact, citizens voicing critiques toward government policies tend to be verbally attacked by the DPP government-supported “internet navy” or “online army,” known as “1450,” who have been employed to misinform the public by smearing the reputations of social, cultural, and environmental activists who raised their concerns publicly. [5] ...  The “1450” army has been waging intensive media attacks on individuals who expressed doubt or critique in public about the government’s control over the interpretation of the pandemic or policies implemented to prevent its spread. [7]"" Lin, Yuting 林郁庭 (2020-04-22). ""敦睦艦隊防疫出包！ 馬英九cue蔡英文道歉 網曝1450想法"" [Dunmu Fleet's pandemic prevention package! Ma Ying-jeou cue Tsai Ing-wen apologizes, net exposure 1450 thoughts]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14 . Retrieved 2023-08-14 . The article notes: ""馬英九此話一出，引起網友們熱議，許多留言中可一窺1450又要如何護航。 "" From Google Translate: ""As soon as Ma Ying-jeou's words came out, netizens heatedly discussed, and many comments gave a glimpse of how 1450 will escort. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 1450 Internet army ( traditional Chinese : 1450網軍 ; simplified Chinese : 1450网军 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 07:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Could we get a review of at least some of the sources recently discovered?  Even better if a few could find their way into the article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Cunard's Chinese sources, according to the translated excerpts he posted, seem to be SIRS .  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Checking a few of Cunard's sources confirms this definitely meets WP:GNG .  I also believe it meets WP:ORG , however I don't think that would be strictly required for a perceived organization.  — siro χ o 02:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Kathleen Buhle : We jsut went through this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnegan Biden .  WP:NOTINHERITED .  Zaathras ( talk ) 00:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Solidly passes WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 for writing a notable book ( If We Break ) CT55555 ( talk ) 01:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Er, no, a single political memoir does not meet the ""a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"" criteria.  Also, fix your line-breaking sig, please.  Zaathras ( talk ) 01:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Primarily because I couldn't find a good reason to delete.  She isn't hard-disqualified based on WP:AUTHOR - her memoir was ""the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"" [30] [31] [32] .  The only way she wouldn't pass is if one doesn't consider her memoir ""significant"", which is subjective.  She also isn't hard-disqualified by WP:INVALIDBIO - despite being the spouse of a notable person, there has been at least some significant coverage by RS where she is the primary topic (like these sources from the article [33] [34] ) PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 02:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even in WP:NOTINHERITED , there's this bit: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship , but only if they pass WP:GNG.  PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 13:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mentioned this deletion discussion at WT:WIR CT55555 ( talk ) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - We don't even have her birthdate or birthplace.  GoodDay ( talk ) 01:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article states that she was born in Chicago (which is from her memoir).  We can deduce that she was born in 1968 or 1969 as she met Hunter Biden in July 1992 when she was aged 23.  Her age and date of meeting are cited in the article about her and the article about her book, but paywalls prevents me from fact checking it and so I've not added it.  CT55555 ( talk ) 03:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep – Fully sourced and passes notability standards.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 07:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CT55555 ( talk ) 12:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We've had several deletion discussions about the authors of notable memoirs.  I find it baffling that we might judge a memoir to be notable, but its author and subject to be non-notable.  We should have a page about Buhle or her memoir, as her life story is clearly notable.  pburka ( talk ) 14:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - passes as a notable WP:AUTHOR of a notable memoir, and is clearly a public figure worthy of an article.  Netherzone ( talk ) 14:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree... nothing wrong with this article 216.16.165.206 ( talk ) 19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to If We Break , a notable WP:NBOOK /partial memoir; there are at least three reputable reviews (including a less-than-positive review from The Washington Post .  But there does not appear to be any substantial indication that this is a ""significant or well-known work"", so WP:AUTHOR notability is not supported.  This article also appears to be an WP:INVALIDBIO without WP:GNG / WP:BASIC support for notability from e.g. coverage of Hunter Biden, Naomi Biden's wedding, Finnegan and Jill Biden's Coronation attendance, Buhle and Hunter Biden's divorce, and other trivial coverage or coverage dependent on what Buhle says.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on this, I was just about to change my position to 'Merge' content into If We Break - however, I don't think that's the best answer here.  As books go, memoirs aren't typically significant or notable, unless the person who wrote them was already somehow notable.  An author of a really good novel can be catapulted to fame if their book is a success; however, authors of a successful memoir are typically people who are already well-known.  Kathleen was known before the publishing of the book - starting from around 2017 .  And around that time, there was coverage of her as a person .  I think the coverage surrounding her divorce COULD be worked into the article on If We Break - as 'Background' or something - but that it would probably be better just to keep this article, and incorporate it here.  PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 15:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those results include WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:PAGESIX coverage, as well as People magazine churnalism of Page Six coverage about the divorce.  The USA Today (churnalism of WP:NYPOST ) and AP coverage focused on sensationalized details of the divorce filings about Hunter Biden  (churnalism of WP:NYPOST ) (as well as later attempts to protect privacy ) seem to help show how this article should be deleted according to WP:BLP policy and the lack of support for notability from independent and reliable sources.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as Buhle passes WP:AUTHOR and has received significant coverage, albeit some of it due to her being Biden’s ex-wife, she still received that coverage and wrote a notable memoir.  — Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 17:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Illinois .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Politics .  Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notability is not inherited, but once a person begins to have non-trivial coverage they can meet GNG.  Buhle has clearly met this threshold.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A search found wide and extensive coverage, both international and national, of the subject and her memoir.  Clearly and easily passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC as well as WP:AUTHOR .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 23:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly notable, worthy of her own bio, per WP:AUTHOR , WP:BASIC and WP:GNG rationale explanations listed above.  Both the subject and her memoir have received significant news coverage.  - 47thPennVols ( talk ) 17:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"A. F. Blakemore : There needs to be significant, independent coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources for this subject to meet the notability threshold.  Sure, it has lots of coverage in The Grocer but the grocer is a trade press.  I think it should be redirected to Spar (retailer) or erased for it's intrinsic lack of notability.  Signal Crayfish ( talk ) 19:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SPAR retailer is one division within the AF Blakemore estate this page covers the group of companies.   SPAR is operated by more than one wholesaler within the UK so a redirect to SPAR would be incorrect and misleading.  Bling73 ( talk ) 18:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Satisfies GNG.  There is significant coverage in English national newspapers such as the The Times, The Financial Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian; in Scottish national newspapers such as The Scotsman and The Herald; in Irish national newspapers such as The Irish Times; by international news agencies such as Reuters; and by the Wall Street Journal.  The coverage goes back for a number of decades.  It should be obvious that none of these are trade press.  In any event, ORG does not actually prohibit the use of trade publications to establish notability; it merely says there is a presumption against it.  Presumptions on Wikipedia are rebuttable.  Massive coverage in the leading trade publications will rebutt that presumption; and, in this case, the coverage is massive.  There is also significant coverage in many books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, the Internet Archive and the British Newspaper Archive.  There is also an enormous amount of coverage in many local newspapers.  The company is very large by British standards.  For example, at one point, it was the 580th largest industrial company in the UK ( The Times 1000: 1990-1991 ).  It is the largest operator of SPAR shops in the UK.  It is more than a hundred years old.  It is obviously very important.  James500 ( talk ) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if the multiple reliable sources are added to the page, I will vote Keep.  Right now, my own search shows many sources and I think the company is notable and has the good sources.  -- NiLok223 ( talk ) 09:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the comment by James500 , they've been mentioned by the Financial Times [1] [2] [3] The Times [4] [5] [6] [7] The Telegraph [8] [9] and the Independent [10] (this is the point where I stopped looking) Not all of them are exclusively about Blakemore, but it is clear and consistent coverage from reputable secondary sources and to me meets WP:GNG .  I would also say that the sheer volume of coverage from The Grocer is also an indiction, yes it's a trade magazine, but it's clearly notable from the amount of coverage Blakemore recives in it, especially when backed up with the reporting in mainstream newspapers.  Shaws username .  talk .  00:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the sources raised by Shaws username.  Password (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the many sources identified in this AfD.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 05:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Cowin Capital : The firm's notability might be considered insufficient if it doesn't meet these guidelines.  NortonAngo ( talk ) 15:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and China .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Please check WP:BEFORE before nominating again, none of these references are published by Cowin Capital.  I'm not seeing any reliability issues with the references that are used, either.  Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 17:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete Only one source could qualify as a reliable source - the London Business School.  The rest are not reliable at all.  The page should be deleted as it does not fulfill the NCORP criteria.  -- 159.118.233.94 ( talk ) 13:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  ""Case Study: Yin and Yang"" (PDF) .  No. 7.  Coller Institute of Private Equity.  London Business School .  Winter 2012.  pp. 16–17.  Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-04 .  Retrieved 2023-06-04 .  The article notes: ""Against this background, the Shenzhen Cowin Venture Capital fund represents a perfect opportunity for a case study by the London Business School’s Coller Institute of Private Equity. ... The result is Cowin Capital: The Evolution of the Chinese PE & VC Industry , produced by Professor Talmor, together with MBA students Wei Cao, Masaki Takeda and Carolyn Tiet. Founded during the dot-com bubble in 2000, Cowin survived the ensuing crash that saw many nascent Chinese VC funds fold. Not only that, but it went on to achieve impressive success following the regulatory changes of the mid- 2000s. ""The key questions are: how Cowin has managed to transform itself and what it is doing to perpetuate its success,"" says Talmor. Cowin grew from cautious beginnings to become one of Shenzhen's leading PE lights. Having launched six funds in total, the firm currently manages RMB 5.5bn of capital and assets valued at more than RMB 7.5bn. As of June 2012, 31 of its investments had resulted in distributions to Cowin's investors, including 23 IPOs and eight buybacks or trade sales. Its success has earned Cowin founder Weihe Zheng the moniker ""Star Shooter"".""  Liu, Pingsheng 刘平生; He, Jie 何杰, eds.  (2022).  深圳经济特区金融40年 [ 40 years of finance in Shenzhen Special Economic Zone ] (in Chinese).  Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press .  ISBN 978-7-52-019390-0 .  Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Google Books .  The book has an entire subsection about the company.  The book notes: ""2000年6月26日,同创伟业成。 2004年,随中小的开,同创伟业资的达基实现IPO,随后在2005年轴研科技也顺利实现了IPO,同创伟业在中小开前50 中占据两。达基是同创伟业首个IPO项目,也是本土创首个上例。 2007年6月26日,同创伟业先发起成中国一有合伙制"" From Google Translate: ""On June 26, 2000, Cowin Capital was established. In 2004, with the opening of small and medium-sized enterprises, Daji, which was funded by Cowin Capital, realized its IPO, and then in 2005, Axis Technology also successfully realized its IPO, and Cowin Capital occupied two of the top 50 small and medium-sized enterprises. Daji is the first IPO project of Cowin Capital, and it is also the first domestic case. On June 26, 2007, Cowin Capital was the first to initiate into China's one-owned partnership system.""  He, Shasha 何莎莎 (2010).  ""同创伟业 顺势而为"" [Cowin Capital seizes opportunities].  投资与合作 [ Investment and Cooperation ] (in Chinese).  No. 9.  ISSN 1004-387X .  Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [ zh ] .  The abstract notes: ""用硕果累累来形容深圳市同创伟业创业投资有限公司（以下简称为同创伟业）最近的投资表现一点都不为过。 2010年8月12日乐视网在深圳交易所创业板挂牌、8月3日深圳欧菲光科技正式在深交所上市、7月8日湛江国联水产开发股份有限公司登陆深交所创业板、5月26日康芝药业于深交所创业板实现上市"" From Google Translate: ""It is not an exaggeration to describe the recent investment performance of Shenzhen Cowin Capital, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Cowin Capital) with fruitful results. On August 12, 2010, LeTV was listed on the GEM of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. On August 3, Shenzhen OFILM Technology was officially listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. On July 8, Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Development Co., Ltd. landed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange’s GEM. On May 26 Kangzhi Pharmaceutical was listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of Shenzhen Stock Exchange.""  Zheng, Weihe 郑伟鹤 (2011).  ""同创伟业 健康成长"" [Cowin Capital: healthy growth].  投資与合作 [ Investment and Cooperation Magazine ] (in Chinese).  No. 2.  ISSN 1004-387X .  Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [ zh ] .  The abstract notes: ""2010年，同创伟业共投资了30个项目，并且有8个项目IPO，平均回报率达到10倍。"" From Google Translate: ""In 2010, Cowin Capital invested in a total of 30 projects, and had 8 IPO projects, with an average rate of return of 10 times.""  Zhao, Di 赵迪 (2009).  ""郑伟鹤:做创业者的同行者"" [Zheng Weihe: being a fellow entrepreneur].  股市动态分析 [ Stock Market Dynamic Analysis ] (in Chinese).  No. 12.  ISSN 1001-0432 .  Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [ zh ] .  The abstract notes: ""2000年,郑伟鹤创建了深圳市同创伟业投资有限公司,从一名律师转型为一名私募股权投资基金经理人。截至2009年6月,在同创伟业投资的项目中,已经有四个项目在中小企业板上市。如今,已经跨入不惑之年的郑伟鹤依旧在执着于他的PE理想。正如他公司的名称———同创伟业所诠释的那样,做创业者的同行者。"" From Google Translate: ""In 2000, Zheng Weihe founded Shenzhen Cowin Capital, transforming from a lawyer to a private equity investment fund manager. As of June 2009, among the projects invested by Cowin Capital, four projects have been listed on the SME board. Today, Zheng Weihe, who has entered his forties, is still obsessed with his PE ideal. As the name of his company --- Cowin Capital explained, he is a fellow entrepreneur.""  Yu, Yong 于勇 (2011).  ""同创伟业2010年参投上市项目半数变脸"" [In 2010, Cowin Capital ( simplified Chinese : 同创伟业 ; traditional Chinese : 同創偉業 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent participated in half of the listed projects and changed its face]. 股市动态分析 [ Stock Market Dynamic Analysis ] (in Chinese). No. 26. ISSN 1001-0432 . Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [ zh ] . The abstract notes: ""如果说一家医药企业不以患者安全为最高准则,那么即使它倒下,也将是社会的一大收获。 而一家资金显赫的创投企业,投资资金入股一家这样的医药企业,作为如今盛行的创业投资资金Pre-IPO项目,PE盛宴之后。 "" From Google Translate: ""Abstract: If a pharmaceutical company does not regard patient safety as the highest criterion, even if it falls, it will be a great harvest for the society.  And a well-funded venture capital company invests funds in such a pharmaceutical company, as a pre-IPO project of venture capital funds that is prevalent today, after the PE feast. "" Deng, Shuanglin 邓双琳 (2020). ""同创伟业 捕捉科创板""隐形冠军"" "" [Cowin Capital captures the ""hidden champion"" of the Science and Technology Innovation Board]. 创业邦 [ Entrepreneur ] (in Chinese). No. 7. ISSN 1674-3601 . Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via CQVIP [ zh ] . There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cowin Capital ( simplified Chinese : 同创伟业 ; traditional Chinese : 同創偉業 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 08:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 03:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 15:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The first two references listed by Cunard above meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 19:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Princess Marie Alix of Schaumburg-Lippe : Celia Homeford ( talk ) 11:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility ,  and Germany .  Celia Homeford ( talk ) 11:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose .  No reason given as to why this article should be deleted as opposed to a previous one which may have been quite different in content.  Bermicourt ( talk ) 12:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there are now two referenced German newspaper obituaries (I did not use a third that seemed to be derivative on one of those used) and a third reference, a comprehensive magazine obituary in French.  Our access to German newspaper archives (and expertise to utilize them) is particularly bad, but I'm confident that there's been more reporting on her over her long life.  Jahaza ( talk ) 14:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Updated Jahaza ( talk ) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  There appear to be two previous deletion discussions related to this biography: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Alix, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein (August 2020) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein (October 2020) Note that her husband Peter's biography has also been recreated since the previous discussions.  pburka ( talk ) 16:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If the page is kept, then Marie Alix, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein should probably be made a redirect to this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:9301:D570:F008:CA5B:C628:CD1F ( talk ) 21:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable per previous deletion discussion.  Notability is not determined by marriage, it doesn't appear her husband is that notable anyway.  W C M email 07:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is also not determined by previous notability discussions.  She's died in the interim, which led to the creation of additional RS. I would support redirecting her husband's article.  Jahaza ( talk ) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A couple of obituaries doesn't establish notability, merely having a title doesn't establish notability, I see nothing in the article to establish notability.   Hence, my comment is based upon WP:GNG and not the previous discussion, I don't think her husband was notable either.   The only reason for mentioning it, given there is nothing per WP:GNG , was the previous discussion reached precisely the same conclusion.  W C M email 10:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, having journalistic obituaries does establish notability.  Notability is presumptively established under WP:BASIC when an individual has ""received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"" and multiple journalistic obituaries (as opposed to purchased obituaries) will establish that.  Jahaza ( talk ) 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to satisfy WP:GNG with the obituaries.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  If newspapers chose to print (unpaid) obituaries, then she must be notable per WP:GNG .  pburka ( talk ) 22:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Gharqad : In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.  Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic "" Gharqad "" is insignificant and antisemitic.  I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia.  On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.  This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant.  Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references.  Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points.  Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.  If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers.  This article provides no specific details on the plant.  Instead, it says Nitraria retusa , Nitraria schoberi , Lycium shawii , Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree.  But there is no reference to that.  Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.  It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam .  In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.  This is my opinion.  I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews .  This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies.  On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic .  What do you think about this article?  Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?  Thank you.  Your valid opinion is needed.  - Sajid ( talk ) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible , Christianity , Islam , Judaism , Middle East , Israel ,  and Palestine .  Sajid ( talk ) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  https://ar-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%AF? _x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp The corresponding article in the Arabic Wikipedia treats Gharqad as a synonym for the genus Nitraria , and includes some references that could be added to the English article.  The Hebrew Wikipedia article he:ר'רקד also has some references that might be helpful.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am against deletion, here is why Why is this article nominated for deletion?  That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.  About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above: I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia This plant is by no means biblical, it's hadithic.  I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.  Have you found any references at all in these books?  There aren't.  Again, it's hadific and hadith is a major literature in Islam.  This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant.  Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references.  Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points.  Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.  So what?  These are major hadith collections and there are more than two references for this plant in these hadiths; in fact these hadiths are from the broader hadith group of The stones and trees hadiths.  If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers.  This article provides no specific details on the plant.  Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree.  But there is no reference to that.  Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.  The first versions of the article didn't have this mess; it mentioned only the genuses Nitraria and Lycium.  It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam.  In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.  Why?  What is your problem that there would be a single unified article about this, easily maintained in one place by the community?  This is my opinion.  I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews.  This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies.  On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.  I don't know why you thought about Christian extremists and Zionist extremists because they don't accept this text as sacred but anyway, why would the truth about this concept mislead anyone if that person doesn't believe in a invading version of Islam?  What do you think about this article?  Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?  How can you make something which is inherantly antisemitic (anti Jewish to be precise) as not antisemetic?  I don't think Sunni Muslims will take you seriously if you'll tell them that their books are different than what they evidently are.  No need in deleting anything besides maybe the pictures, and summerize the opener passage a bit.  Thanks.  2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 ( talk ) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear fellow contributor , Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia.  Your input is greatly appreciated.  Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter.  Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.  Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion: Regarding the term ""Biblical plant,"" it's important to note that the term ""Bible"" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity.  It's analogous to the Quran in Islam.  My apologies if this caused any confusion.  As for the term ""Hadithic,"" I understand your concern.  Perhaps ""from Hadith tradition"" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation.  Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?  In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts.  While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.  The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation.  While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation.  I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough.  I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference.  You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist ( Al-Masih ad-Dajjal ), who will be pretending as Jesus , and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic.  Its like saying all Jews are bad.  We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust .  As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles.  Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.  Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia , it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another.  We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia.  Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.  Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance.  Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.  Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia.  It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech.  Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.  I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue.  Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.  Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.  ""Warm regards, Sajid ( talk ) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sajid, hello. It's hadithic, not biblical or quranic and not anything else and yes ""appears in the hadith"" is a good phrasing and it's important that there will be an article about it because it's both notable and concerns the life of people and taken seriously by some muslims of the invading version of Islam. I didn't claim anything by myself; it's all there in these hadiths plain and simple and quoted by the letter. I believe the article has strong notability and the community can decide further. Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 ( talk ) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, @ Oaktree b , Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons: Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews. Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this. Regards, Sajid ( talk ) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not one of these is a deletion criterion. These are criteria for editing, which is what you ought to be doing with this article if you don't approve of it. Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb ( talk ) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Gidonb . Thank you for your valuable opinion. Any advice on improving this article to make it better? Sajid ( talk ) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! Since you asked, I would recommend not making any changes. gidonb ( talk ) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Ridiculous nomination.  Not only do the sources already in the article meet the GNG, but there are plenty more from GScholar which could be included. Nominator should fix the article if they don't approve, but the subject is very, very clearly notable. Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep So, per the explanation above, all can be fixed by editing the article. The sources used all seem to be RS and we have extensive coverage. We don't delete things for simply not being neutral in tone, that can easily be rewritten. Easy !Keep Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; nom has yet to provide a convincing explanation as to why the article ought to be deleted. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ T / C ] 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. LizardJr8 ( talk ) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- The ""hadith of the Gharqad tree"" is semi-notorious in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was kind of the emotional centerpiece of the 1988 Hamas charter (it mysteriously went missing in the 2017 version of the charter, after repeated quoting of that passage from the 1988 charter made them sound like crazed Jew-hating loons). AnonMoos ( talk ) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Since no valid rationale for deletion was brought forward and no one ever thought that this should be deleted, I believe this is eligible for quick closure. I have expressed my opinion so will refrain from closing but would appreciate it if the next person could close. There are already so many other open AfDs! gidonb ( talk ) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Significant concept. ---Lilach5 ( לילך5 ) discuss 04:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - To expand upon what AnonMoos mentioned, the 2017 version was an update but didn't disavow the original, founding document. Also agree with commentary of Special IP editor 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 . See here... "".  . .  if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism, in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take.  The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree , (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."" (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem). "" via Hamas Charter of 1988, Article 7 , emphasis mine. -- FeralOink ( talk ) 13:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:SNOW .  No clear rationale for deletion.  There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources, which are not difficult to find.  Aintabli ( talk ) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article would benefit from some copyediting, but the sources are present to demonstrate notability.  Alansohn ( talk ) 20:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Roger Clinton Sr. : For example, all of the sources in the article right now are either presidential-focused or are Bill's autobiography.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Nominator is right in that notability is not inherited , GNG says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.  The article cites numerous reliable secondary sources in  its content.  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 02:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Estar8806 : The argument is that the secondary sources provided don't include significant coverage of the subject.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, but WP:Notability (people) says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability , which I believe is the case here.  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 15:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Presidential families tend to be exceptions to the rules of notability.   i.e. grocer and gas station owner Francis A. Nixon , father of Richard Nixon.  Gerald Ford's father Leslie Lynch King Sr.  , Ronald Reagan's traveling salesman father Jack Reagan , etc. etc.  — Maile ( talk ) 04:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Maile66 , it's been awhile—I hope you're well.  :-) I'd be remiss if I didn't point point out that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered an argument to avoid in deletion conversations.  Perhaps those other articles should also be examined.  Are there any significant secondary sources available that discuss Roger Clinton Sr. in depth and his own right?  Wasn't Reagan's father also a politician?  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ed17 It's not a matter of Other Stuff Exists, but more that Presidential families as a whole are handled differently.  Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford for instance, has no accomplishments by Wikipedia standards.   She was just Gerald Ford's mother.  Got married a couple of times.  Nancy Lincoln has no claim to accomplishment except to give birth to Abraham Lincoln.  And so it goes.  — Maile ( talk ) 12:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I don't think it is as simple as you are making out to be, that presidential families tend to be exceptions to the rules of notability.  For instance, Finnegan Biden just had her article deleted not too long ago.  Even if that was the case, it would still go against the concept that notability is not inherited.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above comments, a major figure in the life of an American president.  The nominator is making many of these type of good faith edits, and I just had to resurrect Ike's older brother after his page had been made into a redirect.  The ed17 , please do not plow through American president's families as you seem to be doing with deletions and tags, thanks.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 04:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Randy Kryn : please feel free to visit my talk page if you have concerns about other edits I've made!  Do you know of any significant secondary sources available that discuss Roger Clinton Sr. in depth and his own right?  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now I've returned Warren G. Harding's daughters page that you've deleted without discussion, one which was kept in a 2017 AfD .  Please stop doing these deletions to presidential relative articles, thanks.  Your talk page not neccessary, just Afd pages you don't like or, better yet, rehab the articles.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 02:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Clinton family .  I don't think his relationship with a young Bill should exempt him from standard notability standards, but even if that would contribute to his inclusion here, I'd suggest this should be covered in the main article per WP:NOPAGE .  The same goes for Jeff Dwire , if not more strongly.  Reywas92 Talk 16:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  It may be true that this article doesn't show the notability that we expect from other biographies.  But I also don't see any support for deleting this article except from the nominator so I'm relisting this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe notability is clearly established.  As an aside, I am glad to see this article come up temporarily reinstated to allow  for a proper discussion as to whether or not it is deleted.  The very fact that the nominee, an administrator, Ed17 deleted it without even allowing a discussion was the very reason why I made the decision in June to retire from Wikipedia.  So at least my faith has been restored by Estar8806 who called it out.  I hope the article is kept but for me, I am out of here after 15+ years over because of this.  Coldupnorth ( talk ) 12:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coldupnorth , jeez, you really did mean that you retired because of this The ed17 deletion [see CuN's user page). Hopefully you only take a break and come back as strong as ever. The nominator deleted a number of articles of notable presidential relatives which were rescued (thank heaven and Sanger for watchlists and contribution history pages). The admin should, of course, voluntarily refrain from taking it upon themselves to unilaterally remove any further articles (mainly because it has been shown in a number of recent RfD's that their judgement about these pages may be incorrect) but your presence on Wikipedia, and on this RfD, shows your value to the project. Stay warm, up north, Coldupnorth, and please come back now and then. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Coldupnorth : I'm sorry to hear that my actions affected you in that way.  But as you have to know, you could have opened a discussion on my talk page, asked for a third opinion, or taken any number of other actions should you have so chosen...  Wikipedia's fundamental ethos is in discussions between editors who disagree and come to a consensus decision.  @ Randy Kryn : Give it a rest.  I've nominated a few articles for deletion, and as it turns out consensus on them is at best divided ( example 1 , example 2 ).  Moreover, you haven't helped these discussions with frequent posts that are rarely based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ed17 , I didn't know about either of those nominations.  What I was talking about was your removal of articles without discussion, just gone.  There your recent record isn't so good.  If I knew about Andrew Johnson's dad maybe I would have commented, I don't look at the list of deletion attempts, there are so many daily.  It's a dark corner of Wikipedia, and often only ventured into when something pops up on my watchlist.  Maybe just leave presidential relatives alone?  By the way, Adali Stevenson wasn't a U.S. president, so his grandson wasn't in that realm and I know nothing about him.  Met his dad though, the IIIrd, and knew several people who worked closely with him on a project.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] People leave wikipedia for all sorts of reasons, I was reading the retirement comment on Coldupnorth's page and concluded ""The ed17"" must be 17 years old, and then remembered I've worked with/around Ed on stuff like 10 years ago, and slashed a decade off my own age due to this exciting discovery of reverse aging.   No matter what we do with these presidential relations articles, please no one burst that bubble for me.-- Milowent • has spoken 19:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :  Essentially I agree with the points Maile makes, its a very common carryover for an American president to generate enough coverage to support articles on key family members.  Thus, we've had this article for 16 years.-- Milowent • has spoken 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Quigley (musician) : Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Certainly fails NSINGER, but I think the article does meet the general notability guidelines – there have been plenty of articles about her since her time on American Idol.  Most of the articles are about her status as an influencer, not as a singer.  Whatever we think of that as an occupation, RS seem to consider her notable enough to report on her now and then.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Tserton.  pburka ( talk ) 21:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Meets WP:GNG based on cited sources.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 21:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A few years ago, fans like me were trying to create articles for the runners up (""the best of the rest""), but the consensus has changed to include only the winners, or at most the 2nd or 3rd place, of major reality shows.  See the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Sgambelluri .  In this case, there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources to keep a BLP under even general notability guidelines , much less for a singer .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : unless I'm missing something, we've already got enough sources in the article to pass GNG.  I understand the AfD consensus linked by User:Bearian to mean that a person is not notable solely for being a runner-up on a major show: that's separate from whether they've received WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources to pass GNG.  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 17:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"List of children of vice presidents of the United States : Interstellarity ( talk ) 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Politics ,  and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Well-crafted encyclopedic list.  Carrite ( talk ) 09:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While the article does require some work, it is inherently useful to have some additional information about the family of some of America's most notable politicians.  Alexcs114 ( talk ) 07:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I replied to the wrong person, sorry Alexcs114 ( talk ) 07:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are many children of vice-presidents notable in their own right: for example, George W. Bush , Liz Cheney , and Jeb Bush .  Godtres ( talk ) 11:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I question when this would be useful.  The overwhelming majority of Vice President’s children aren’t terribly important or are known for other things.  TheRealJT1743 ( talk ) 22:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Discussion about whether WP:NLIST is met might be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 05:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per  Carrite.  I don't see any reason to delete this.  WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply here because this is a list rather than a specific child.  JML1148 ( talk &#124 contribs ) 06:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , There are children of the vice presidents of the United States who have had their own successful careers.  Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 00:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While this is a list of non-entities of only regional or ancestral interest, I agree that this kind of odd list does no harm and has enough links on it that a user unfortunate enough to land on this article might use it to get to an article is actually useful to humankind.  Rick Jelliffe ( talk ) 01:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Rae the Doe : I can't find any mention of the comic, other than proof of publication.  Not meeting GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.totallicensing.com/king-features-launches-first-lgbtq-focused-digital-series/ https://www.comicsbeat.com/interview-olive-brinker-on-her-webcomic-rae-the-doe-comedy-and-plushes/ https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45156794 https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2020/06/07/olive-brinkers-rae-the-doe-joins-comics-kingdom/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9494676/ But it's a syndicated comic strip that's been running for over three years.  Does that not, in itself, make it notable?  Tiggum ( talk ) 10:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L Faraone 22:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Query : Picked up for syndication, but has it actually been published in newspapers?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 08:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep published for a month so far in USA Today [36] which definitely suggests notability.   First feature was May 26, 2023 .  We don't seem to have a guideline for syndicated comics, but as one of the largest middle-market newspapers in the US, USA Today is about as big of a boost as syndicated comics can get.  This provides us with sufficient verifiability to keep a stub.  — siro χ o 09:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to USA Today , in a Comic Book Resources article , it is implied that it is in the same league as established strips: ""Participating strips [in No Pants Day] included Dennis the Menace , Dick Tracy , Rhymes with Orange and Zippy . Some made a direct appeal to readers, like Rae the Doe and Arctic Circle "".  It also shows up (in some capacity) in the May 19, 2022, Editor & Publisher .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  agree with this per nom Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 03:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Singleton field : The lead is supposed to be understandable with the tough stuff in the body of the article.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's discussed in several papers in Gscholar, but I'm not sure of what it is exactly.  Needs a rewrite, perhaps review by a subject-matter expers.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I do not believe that the nomination presents a valid deletion rationale.  An article about advanced mathematical physics is going to be incomprehensible to readers who aren't mathematicians or physicists, and there's just not much we can do about that.  A stub lacking an introduction that holds the reader's hand is not a reason to delete it.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep First, speedy keep criterion 1 applies: being too technical isn't a reason for deletion.  It isn't even a problem, necessarily: we're talking about a niche subject that a physics student wouldn't even encounter until a couple years into graduate school at the earliest, not the opening paragraphs of the Albert Einstein biography page.  Second, sources exist with which the article could be expanded.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 02:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Browsing the Google Scholar entries, (and being outside my scientific field), it does seem like there's enough coverage to warrant a stub, but it definitely needs to be encyclopedia-ified given how technical the subject is. I wonder if there may be a better home to nest this subject under for more context, but that would take someone well-versed in quantum mechanic subjects to assess.  Until then, keep but definitely leave the tag from 2009.  KoA ( talk ) 04:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been advanced.  PianoDan ( talk ) 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Simon Says (band) : Tryin to make a change :-/ 21:03, 19 November 2023 (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/2023 November 19 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Allmusic is a WP:RS , not UGC, and the band had three hits at rock radio over two major-label albums.  Flies over WP:MUSIC .  Chubbles ( talk ) 04:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems that WP:ALLMUSIC shows no consensus as to whether it is a WP:RS .  I thought it was UGC, looks like it isn't, though.  Still don't think it's notable enough for an article though.  Tryin to make a change :-/ 05:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, that's actually news to me - because of Allmusic's comprehensiveness, editors have been trying for years to casually prove it unreliable, and somehow they succeeded.  I consider that a tragedy for this site, because Allmusic is really the backbone of its musical knowledge, and it has proven to me to be reliable time and again.  Allmusic published multiple edited books of its biographical information; they have editorial control over their content, and I disagree that there is general cause to suspect the site's prose writeups.  The biographical information and capsule reviews of the two albums on AMG have in-text attribution, so they meet the most stringent standards that the consensus asks for in considering reliability.  In any case, meeting several other bullets of WP:MUSIC makes AMG alone unnecessary for the article to be retained.  Chubbles ( talk ) 14:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Bylined bios on Allmusic are not UGC.  And more coverage is available on newspapers.com accessible through the Wikipedia library.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as AllMusic biographies are considered reliable sources per WP:MUSICRS .  Darling ( talk ) 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Pavan Sadineni : -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , India ,  and Kerala .  Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - per nom; I was shocked for few mnts, when I saw this nomination, This article is in here and author of this article they creates this article is on article mainspace, and I don't see any Notability for this subject, so article can be deleted ,This article is original article already exist in Draft Namespace .  ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 03:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aviram7 , this subject meets WP:NDIRECTOR SNG, not WP:GNG .  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 16:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly meets WP:NDIRECTOR as he has directed five notable films.  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 16:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:FILMMAKER .  The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.  In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work.  He has directed 3 movies and 5 web series'.  There are problems with the article's tone and wording.  But AFD is not cleanup .  For this reason, while I was reviewing it, I marked it with tone concerns.  Some Telugu-language (పవన్ సాదినేని) sources were also found using a Google search.  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 16:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please let me know the corrections needed.  I am new to Wikipedia.  Help me please.  Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk ) 13:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I changed the content as required.  Please check and approve.  Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk ) 08:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don't know about him that's your problem.  He is well known in states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.  Aaseeshpreetam6 ( talk ) 13:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with both ! votes above that he meets WP:NDIRECTOR.  The award he won is a  clear confirmation of that. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : OTT is a minor award.  David notMD ( talk ) 16:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NFILMMAKER 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NDIRECTOR .  Seems to have been tidied up since nomination.  Zenomonoz ( talk ) 09:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",keep
"Batboat: Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire.  It has no independent reliable sources.  There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc.  Jontesta ( talk ) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Jontesta ( talk ) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant Redirect to Batman#Technology as suggested below.  Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS .  -- Softlavender ( talk ) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC) ; edited 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , Video games ,  and Comics and animation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances.  I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace , where it can be further researched-on and improved.  It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is.  Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace.  MK at your service.  12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is"" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects.  Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc.  Softlavender ( talk ) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile , this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources.  If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology -I had already stated in my previous comment that I was fine with Redirecting if someone identified a good target, but just to help make it clearer, I'm striking my Delete suggestion to an explicit Redirect recommendation instead.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft.  Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve...  Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Revising stance.  I still don't believe its a notable subject, but it is a plausible search term, and can easily be mentioned at Batman#Technology .  I don't see any ""size"" issues because much of the contents of this article should not be mentioned there.  Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal , Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight , Slashfilm (?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture.  Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE , refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me.  Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information.  The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever .  None of these show any independent coverage from the source.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being ""unauthorized"" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki.  DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley , a known encyclopedia publisher.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books.  I could've sworn at one point that ""unauthorized"" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second.  Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary.  The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE , but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work.  Hence, ""weak keep"" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article.  If the sources you're using as an example of ""the BEFORE not being done"" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here.  I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @ Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a ""sources must exist"" argument.  I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How have your sources in any way proven notability?  Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies.  There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article.  I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat.  Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series , a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology , where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile.  There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted.  Softlavender ( talk ) 22:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know that ""technology of..."" articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a Technology of Batman article.  It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang , Batsuit , Batmobile , Bat-Signal , and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides the book, I found an article here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a ""powerless"" superhero who mostly relies on tech.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing.  Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion.  Creating Technology of Batman as a WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology as an alternative to deletion.  If Technology of Batman is ever created with a mention of Batboat, it can be then redirected there.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology for now, then merge the contents of the article to Technology of Batman when it is created.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 04:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No consensus yet.  Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to Batman#Technology .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology .  This term can be mentioned there, but stand-alone GNG is too weak for an article.  WP:FANCRUFT .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Batman#Technology .  The article isn't about a coherent topic, and doesn't have enough evidence of notability.  There is a logical redirect target that covers Batman's gadgets in a more encyclopedic way.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Evernew Pictures: All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth.  On a related note, this  film production company produced some films that do not even meet WP's standards of notability.  Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul .  I agree with Saqib's assessment.  This is a company so it has to meet WP:NCORP criteria.  Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial and mostly related to Evernew Studios which is a notable topic.  I still think there might be some offline coverage which we are missing in a simple before so please redirect it to Agha G. A. Gul for now.  2400:ADCC:144:8200:8483:7158:CABA:36A ( talk ) 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Evernew Studios or Agha G. A. Gul , both of them are notable topics and already have reliable references.  I agree both with Saqib's above nomination and the other above Wikipedia editor's suggestion of a Redirect...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul as per WP:ATD - this company does not appear to meet our notability criteria so a redirect is the best option.  HighKing ++ 20:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"WDWW-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.  : Looks like this has only carried full-time national services in its nearly 20 years, even before DTV America/HC2/Innovate took over.  I doubt this station has had any significant coverage at any point.  A remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2009, and yet another nominal survivor of a 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Ebirah: I can't seem to find much on it, barring two book sources I stumbled on (One of which is already cited in the article.) While these are solid, there just isn't much more than that, and thus I don't see enough justifying a split here.  I'd personally recommend a redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, its debut film, given that seems to be its biggest role.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Film ,  and Japan .  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - Several other languages have a separate page for Ebirah, most notably Japaneses, which has a lengthy page with numerous citations.  Moreover, a Google book search turns up numerous references to Eibrah in credible sources, including additional information that is not currently found in our article.  Ebirah has also appeared in other comic books and media beyond what is listed in our article.  Eibrah is having a bit of a moment of late, and if anything is only going to appear even more often going forward.  I think rather than deleting this article should actually be updated and expanded -- Ash-Gaar ( talk ) 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because an article has versions in alternate languages does not mean that it is inherently notable.  A recent merge, Charmander, was in more than thirty languages and yet had a unanimous merge consensus.  All bar the Japanese article as well are in similar if not worse states than ours.  It has some decent dev info in the Japanese article that is certainly better than ours, but I don't think it's enough to justify the article either way given both a complete lack of Reception and the fact the development was not so incredibly well documented that it justifies a separate article on its own, though I am willing to debate that point.  In any case, numerous appearances and numerous hits do not contribute to notability either.  Most of the book hits I saw were just mentions of the Ebirah movie and associated plot recaps.  There's very little in the way of actual commentary on Ebirah in most of those sources.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re-direct to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep .  As the article stands, its strictly in-universe content with no real world reference.  It can show up a billion times on several google hits mean nothing as the character needs real world relevance outside of the Godzilla series.  The characters appearance outside of the film seems to be limited to just showing up in video games, other films, comics etc.  Without context, all this can be covered in a paragraph within the film article in a Legacy or influence section after.  Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep , the first film the kaiju appeared in, and the only one in which it had a significant role.  Much like in the similar AFD for Manda , simply citing the number of references in the Japanese article is not sufficient when actually looking in-depth at those sources show them to  be comprised of a number of official Toho publications, the same book being cited as different sources multiple times, and even a piece or two of fiction.  Additionally, the sources are not really being used to support any claim of notability for the creature, but simply providing verification for the plot and production details for the movies that it appeared in.  Searching for English sources turns up much of the same kind of sources - reviews, plot summaries, and production details for the films, but nothing showing that Ebirah could be considered notable on its own merits, and not simply covered as part of the articles for the handful of films it appeared in.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep , largely unsourced original research page.  Even if it is notable, it would require a full rewrite.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep per above.  There are no in-depth coverage except usual reviews and plot summary listings.  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 11:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Tap (gaming): There is Glossary of video game terms for this.  Does not seem independently notable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm not overly familiar with the topic, but is the term ""tap"" only officially used with Magic, with other card games that use the same style of gameplay using their own terms for it?   That is the impression I am getting from the current article, at least.  If that is the case, then a redirect to Magic: The Gathering rules#Tapping and untapping might be the best bet.  The suggested Glossary of video game terms would not really be appropriate in this case, as this is a Collectible card game term, not a video game term.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to collectible card game .  Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY and the best way to cover this is in the context of the style of game where it comes up.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect Actually, with the related patent and coverage of it maybe there is enough to get an article?   Or maybe we could get a ""standard mechanics of CCGs"" article?    But for now, I think Shooterwalker is correct even if that merge target isn't ideal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit ( talk • contribs ) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the entry on Wiktionary [8] .  It has an entry there already, refs might be merged but I don't think the details in the article are appappropriate for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk 04:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to collectible card game .  Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY I believe Shooterwalker has the best suggestion.  Equine-man ( talk ) 10:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect for now, GNG does not appear to be met.  I wonder if we need a glossary of board game terms ?  PS.  To be clear, I think this term may be used in board games (card games) other than CCGs too.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"SMC 018136: Either delete the page or redirect it to list of largest stars .  SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 08:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of largest stars .  User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of largest stars .  Non-notable topic by itself, but suitable for a list article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praemonitus ( talk • contribs ) 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of largest stars as {{ R to list entry }} : not notable but mentioned in the appropriate list.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 12:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Abdulmenam Al-Ghaithi: I was unable to find any reliable sources that are directly about him, only passing mentions in news articles about the floods.  He certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  FatCat96 ( talk ) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  FatCat96 ( talk ) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He is the mayor of a state capital city in Libya.  Has anyone WP:BEFORE D Libyan sources to see if there's anything there?  If all we have is international flooding coverage he probably fails WP:GNG .  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better.  As always, mayors (even mayors of capital cities) are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and pass NPOL #2 only if they're the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to enable us to write a substantial article about the mayor's political impact : specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.  But that's not what's on offer here: ""got quoted in media during floods"" is not sufficient in and of itself, and the sources aren't about him in any non-trivial way.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : as the mayor of the city worst affected by one of the deadliest typhoons in recent history I thought that notable.  I started the page because I thought it would be beneficial because Libya is so underrepresented on Wikipedia.  I've also noticed that most ""notable mayors"" are from western countries because media coverage is more prevalent.  Instead of deletion it should redirect back to Derna, Libya .  - Moondragon21 ( talk ) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Vought HVM: Sources are extremely weak, and most references online have come from advertising brochures from the company that created it, making them non-independent.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No possible way this will be AfDed: Lots of articles on the wiki are about weapons that never left the prototype stage, and some of them have reached FA .  So that's a non-argument for AfD.  Neither original source is ""advertising brochures"" and neither is in any way related to the company or product.  The source that remains clearly specifies it's from Jane's.  A quick google turned up an article in Interavia, smaller mentions in Flight and AW&ST, and a lengthy article on GlobalSecurity and the original one from Jane's.  Using the program name instead, ""Advanced Antitank Weapon System Heavy"", turns up many relivant hits and several in-depth articles on both the -H and -M versions.  This article is an excellent target for improvement, not deletion.  Maury Markowitz ( talk ) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Advertising brochures aren't independent of the subject and so don't qualify as a legitimate source.  If it were so simple to improve the article (adding a single source) why hasn't it been done in the last 15 years?  All those places you mention are routine, insignificant coverage.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 15:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Advertising brochures Which advertizing brochures are you referring to?  why hasn't it been done in the last 15 years I don't know, why haven't you updated it in the last 15 years?  All those places you mention are routine, insignificant coverage Janes meets NOTE, and is already included via Andreas.  If you care to look for it in Google books, you'll find that Janes has many articles on the topic, including one that details the program in some depth (which appears in multiple publications, as was the case for most of Jane's materials).  The article on GlobalSecurity also demonstrates NOTE.  One finds many mentions of the program's status in both official and trade magazines, and any number of non-insignificant dicussions in places like Flight and any number of books.  As you note, this article is many years old.  Based on your edit history, I'm sure you're aware that articles written in that time frame were subject to far less stringent requirements than they are today.  We're here to curate the world's knowledge, not delete it because it doesn't meet requirements that were introduced after that knowledge was collected.  As I stated earlier, if your concern is that there aren't enough good cites, by all means, tag the article as requiring more cites.  Maury Markowitz ( talk ) 15:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 12:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:GLOBALSECURITY is a generally unreliable source.  Jane's is usually pretty good though.  Schierbecker ( talk ) 21:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Maury Markowitz.  Schierbecker ( talk ) 21:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or, at best, redirect to Vought .  Wikipedia standards have moved on since this article was written in 2007.  We need evidence of notability, not just existence.  The only source we have here is a 2003 website.  Sionk ( talk ) 23:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as per Sionk.  A single self-published source from 20 years ago isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability.  Cortador ( talk ) 23:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Maury, and the fact that supposedly WP:BEFORE is a requirement for a deletion nomination.  This article should be tagged for improvement.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as per Sionk.  I don't see evidence of notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 21:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I find a redirect to be acceptable as well.  The article has not improved since the AFD was created and what sources have been said to exist that haven't been added, I still see as nothing more than non-independent advertising, and/or routine coverage in military magazines, neither of which give notability.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 11:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Shahriar Afshar: No faculty position, Web of Science gives 56 citations total.  The main claim for fame is Afshar experiment which has historically had a disproportionately large impact in Wikipedia.  But based on the low citation number, it has had no significant impact on the field and thus does not confer notability to the subject.  Here is the version of the article before my edits and deletions.  It has few more references (to minor awards and such).  Those New Scientist refs can be read in Wikipedia library.  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 22:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science .  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 22:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Afshar experiment .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Keep Redirect I'm not a fan of Bio pages generally nor of self-promoters, but Wikipedia seems to have a low bar for both.  I agree that the experiment is the sole source of notability, so a small scale merge would also be ok.  The failure of Wikipedia to limit the scope of his experiment should not, in my opinion, weigh against his notability; that's our failing.  Nor should our (low) opinion of the single experiment weigh against notability; we are not peer reviewers.   I think he is notable because of the self-promotion and failing experiment.  I don't think the article makes this clear, and the academic pushback should at least be referenceable.   I don't think we should adjust the bar up for people whose work we don't agree with.  Johnjbarton ( talk ) 23:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As @ Ldm1954 notes the ""Institute"" does not show up on Google maps.  The site is mostly dead.  The startup site is just a picture.  The Kor-FX was a Kickstarter project in 2014 when the Facebook account goes silent.  They have a web site with product but it's unclear if the really still exist.  If all of this info is removed as unreliable we are left with the Afshar exp already covered.  Johnjbarton ( talk ) 01:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The article is also lacking reliable sources for biographical information.  There are multiple interviews and articles, but the reporter has likely obtained the information from the subject himself.  Due to the tendency for self-promotion, they are not very reliable.  For example, 2004 New Scientist article tells that Afshar worked on Boston-based Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies (IRIMS).  I am not convinced such institute exists, except as a webpage .  And in the APS article he is said to hold a faculty position in Rowan, although in reality he was a visiting professor.  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 00:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Redirect I see no demonstration of notability.  At a minimum the bar for a scientist should be that they would receive a tenured position at a major university, a national lab or a high profile position in industry.  I see no evidence for this.  His experiment can remain, but I see no rationale to defend this page.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 00:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding, WP:NACADEMIC is perhaps higher than what I mentioned, although it is also not specific so has loopholes.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 00:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Afshar experiment .  The experiment is (barely) notable, the person is not.  He needed to have done something else to warrant an article, and apparently he didn't.  See WP:BLP1E .  Tercer ( talk ) 08:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This seems to be the most pertinent policy in this case.  I agree with the redirect .  Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 11:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Afshar experiment : unremarkable case of a person known for only one thing which itself is barely remembered.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above, and add short biographical section.   It's starting to WP:SNOW .  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : per WP:BLP we have to be extra careful.-- ReyHahn ( talk ) 14:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Afshar experiment .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above, with above WP:BLP admonitions well taken.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"2019 Mesterfinalen: Geschichte ( talk ) 21:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Norway .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Mesterfinalen#Editions#2019 .  It's a possible valid WP:STUB , place holder page with information, but I don't see much point off whats on the main article, so I suggest a redirect as it's covered what happened on the main page.  Govvy ( talk ) 09:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Joanie Taylor: Happy for a merge into The_Catherine_Tate_Show but even that character entry has a citation needed tag.  Qcne (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Qcne (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to The_Catherine_Tate_Show .  Nothing to merge since there are no sources.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect as WP:ATD .  No apparent sources, and safe to say there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Veterans Against Terrorism: The only source that mentions it in detail is the express.co.uk article.  Vice mentions it in passing.  Most of the sources lead to the dead website.  Qcne (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2023 (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) 20:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] REDIRECT So I originally created this article just as a redirect to go along with this edit but when that edit was deleted in this diff the redirect no longer linked to anything about Veterans Against Terrorism.  If the article is to be deleted then I would request that the material in it be reinstated as a redirect to the history section of UK Independence Party to avoid WP:NOTCENSORED being breached.  The Vintage Feminist ( talk ) 02:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ The Vintage Feminist I think that's a good idea.  A subsection of the UKIP article makes sense.  Qcne (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"155142 Tenagra: ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf ) 23:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bri and MB : pinging contributors since last redirect.  ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf ) 23:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable (or redirect to List of named minor planets: 150000–199999 ).  Shaka, when the walls fell.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 02:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no sense in redirecting to a list which should probably be deleted as well.  Fram ( talk ) 08:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Owen× ☎ 12:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to a list (either List of named minor planets: 150000-199999 or List of minor planets: 155001-156000#155101–155200 ) as is customary for minor planets which do not pass WP:NASTRO .  16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) I think",redirect
"Amal Neerad Productions: No inherent notability.  Passing mentions and routine coverage won't count.  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with nom in principle.  Redirect to Amal Neerad hopefully leading readers to the information they seek over there thereby discouraging creating such an article again, no merge necessary.  — siro χ o 21:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG.  116.68.98.76 ( talk ) 12:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ The Doom Patrol , WP:ROUTINE is a section within the Notability (events) guideline .  Amal Neerad Productions are not an event.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Announcements, filming, related functions, promotional tours, screening etc are events. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 12:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Doom Patrol , the applicable guidelines are: Notability (films) guideline Notability (organizations and companies) guideline Those are the ones the closing admin will refer to, not the Notability (events) guideline . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know that.  I think you are not following.  Coverage for film related events won't count as notability for a company.  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 10:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Amal Neerad Graywalls ( talk ) 09:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Amal Neerad .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Hongsawatoi Kingdom: Page also has multiple issues and potential copyvio.  Hongsawatoi is an alternative name for the WP:COMMON name and main article at Hanthawaddy Kingdom EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 14:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions .  EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 14:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 14:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:15E1:6E30:FBF1:377F ( talk ) 14:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"David Rushmere: Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT .  Looks like he is the son of Mark Rushmere ( 1 ), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Just be WP:BOLD and redirect, these AfD's are tedious and improper where there will be no contention.  AA ( talk ) 22:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG .  Suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Tamasha season 2: The only coverage I found are ROTM - all from same publication - like this , this , and this one .  Not enough because Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.  and provided coverage is without bylines.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tamasha (TV series) - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  09:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Kathleen Marie Sweet: A redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems reasonable.  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Law ,  and New York .  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  You will find several Google hits when you search for ""Kathleen M Sweet"" rather than the full name.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies per nom (thanks for unbundling this from the rest , makes things a lot easier).  There is a noticeable lack of sources on this person (no matter what version of the name is entered) outside of the WP:BLP1E failed judicial nomination.  Take the paragraph on that nomination out of the article, and all we're left with is a WP:RESUME .  The target article retains the basic info just fine.  Stony Brook babble 03:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Are you just going to keep nominating each judicial article individually until you get you desired result?  Because that's how it's starting to come off.  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 03:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these people appear notable.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the sources in the article don't demonstrate she passes WP:GNG .  No problem with an AtD.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies per nom and StonyBrook.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Marián Skupek: I only found SME while the rest are brief mentions and profile database sources, both types of which are not independent.  He was not even in the top three (?) luge winners of mentioned tournament.  This might be WP:TOOSOON situation.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Slovakia .  Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 10:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Also incoming links from multiple EUropean Championships and multiple World Championships.  Geschichte ( talk ) 14:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  My last comment was made quite quickly, and now I had the chance to elaborate more.  He participated in the following European Championships: 2021, 2022, 2023 and the following World Championships: 2021, 2023, 2024.  In addition, he won a gold medal at the 2022 FIL Junior European Luge Championships which gained some attention for being Slovakia's first gold medal in that championship.  None of these achievements would hold enough weight on their own, but together I think they just might do.  Then there are the sources.  [7] [8] [9] [10] (less) [11] (more passing) [12] .  These were some of them, partly from a news agency (and I don't understand Slovak by any means), but at least they give some biographical overview.  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source #1 can't be accessed at the moment; Source #2 and #3 are duplicated from the SME one I mentioned; Source #6 looks like a blogspot.  I also was wondering if you actually use a translator or try to avoid it.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   The sources provided above don't seem to be enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines.   A few more sources would do it, but I am not seeing it here.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 20:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Slovakia at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge : Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG .  Redirect per the nom as a WP:ATD .  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested above.  This protects the BLP subject, maintains page history and allows any editor with better information to improve this article when this athlete makes news.  WP:SPORTSPERSON instructs that at least one reliable source must significantly cover the subject.  We're not there so far.  BusterD ( talk ) 16:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , per arguments above.  I'm not satisfied with the level of coverage identified so far.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"2024 Sindh Premier League: The tournament doesn't have official status with no lasting effect.  Robo Cric Let's chat 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Cricket ,  and Pakistan .  Robo Cric Let's chat 05:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  Robo Cric Let's chat 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage for separate season article.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage on its own.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Vaping: The subject article is quite old, it's extremely long and detailed, and it has 197 (one hundred and ninety-seven) inline citations to reliable sources.   It's an article about a blatantly, obviously, hugely notable subject.  But the article also has huge problems that would be laborious to repair, and I propose to redirect it to Electronic cigarette .   I could have done that without using the AfD process, but I'm choosing to use AfD, because this is a highly-developed article that's relatively underwatched, and I don't want to do an end-run around the community consensus processes.  I'm particularly concerned about this because in this case we're missing one of our key checks and balances against deletion-by-redirection.   I think it would be unfair of me to discuss the redirection with its creator QuackGuru.   He's topic-banned from everything related to medicine, broadly construed, since remedy #6 of this Arbcom case .   He isn't allowed to participate in discussions like this so it would be quite unfair of me to tell him of this AfD.    Note that this article wasn't created in violation of his topic ban -- QuackGuru started it in June 2019 and he wasn't topic banned for nearly a year afterwards.  The problems with this article are as follows: (1) WP:SYNTH , and arguably, borderline WP:POVFORK .   Prior to his topic ban, QuackGuru's method for building medical articles was to search for sources that scrupulously meet WP:RS, then scour them for a phrase or sentence that supported his view of the subject, and then copy/paste that phrase or sentence, citing it very carefully and precisely.   The practical effect of this has been to create an article that's more hostile to electronic cigarette usage than the sources warrant.  (2) It's redundant and out of date.   We have a more balanced article at electronic cigarette which is maintained, which more accurately reflects the worldwide scientific consensus, and which already contains all the encyclopaedic information from vaping .  (3) WP:NOTTEXTBOOK .   This article is easily understood by an accomplished reader, but it's not accessible to a substantial part of our target audience.   It would need to be fully re-written in plain, clear English, in which each paragraph introduces, explains, and summarizes what the reliable sources say about one thing.   And if we did that, it would look so much like the content we already have at Electronic cigarette#Use that it's a pointless exercise.  So I do hope that the community will authorise me to redirect this content. — S Marshall T / C 12:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  — S Marshall T / C 12:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm pondering whether it should qualify for its own article or have it be redirected.  I'm currently leaning towards it being redirected.  I don't there is anything that should be covered by the Vaping article that the Electronic cigarette article shouldn't cover, but I am open to changing my mind.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 00:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect It's a shame that all the hard work has gone into this vaping article, but I'm inclined to agree with the nomination to BLAR.  Regarding content that could be salvaged, I think File:Various types of e-cigarettes.jpg has more encyclopedic value than File:All e-cigarettes vs. Juul.jpg , but I suppose that is a discussion to be made on that page.  For the prose, I can see a full attempt at merging as a total nightmare with not much benefit, since the redirect target is already well written and perhaps WP:TOOBIG at 11617 words.  Earwig broke when trying to run it on this article... interesting.  Another remark, the e-cigarettes article says vaping 120 times compared to this articles' 84.  Obviously not a good idea to use WP:A10 here but that is what it seems to me in essence- vaping is the act of using an e-cigarette, and both articles have a ""use"" section.  It does seem a bit like a POVFORK.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 05:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say that File:Various types of e-cigarettes.jpg is very much like File:CDC_electronic_cigarettes_October_2015_(cropped). png , which the target article already uses. — S Marshall T / C 10:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : One is an article about the ""thing"", other is about ""using the thing"", but there does seem to be some overlap.  I'd expect the vaping article to be more about the social aspects of the use of e-cigarettes, rather than about the physical object.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested seems ok, largely duplicates the e-cig article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as a duplication of electronic cigarette ; subjects such as this (and e.g. telephone v.s. telephoning ) where the object is only notable in its use should not have separate articles.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above, although I do not support a permanent prohibition on any article covering this topic to exist.  Parenthetically, I will note that both this article and the redirect target seem to devote a lot of time to explaining ""motivations"" and ""causes"" et cetera, seemingly unaware that sometimes adults do things because they enjoy them.  Smoking is one of a few leisure activities where most of the people who write about it in academic sources dislike it and hate the people who do it (wouldn't it be jarring if rock climbing listed ten motivations, including lack of moral constitution etc, and then made a brief aside to say that some people enjoyed it before immediately returning to a long explanation of how the equipment was expensive?) jp × g 🗯️ 08:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"1896 Indiana State Sycamores football team: A one game season against a local high school, with the game result unknown, does not scream notability, despite it being the first football game for the school, due to the seeming lack of GNG coverage.  Open to a WP:ATD but not sure what would make sense here.  Let'srun ( talk ) 12:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football ,  and Indiana .  Let'srun ( talk ) 12:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  A single game against the local high school boys is neither ""college football"", nor is it a ""season"".   A ""merger"" with the 1897 and 1898 seasons isn't viable at this time, because those articles are unsourced messes as well (with no results even reported in the 1897 article).  If and when someone cares enough to research and properly source a combined article, that may make sense, but as things stand, ""delete"" is the only viable solution.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898 a la similar action for Delaware State Hornets football, 1924–1929 , Temple Owls football, 1894–1899 , and Henry Kendall Orange and Black football, 1895–1899 .  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 23:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose merge as things stand.  All three years have articles that are essentially unsourced.  WP:NSEASONS does not mean that three unsourced articles can be ""grouped"" and suddenly be acceptable.  Also, merger isn't something the closer can do without the target existing.  Accordingly, merger isn't viable here unless someone creates that target article and includes enough sourcing to get it over the WP:GNG .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cbl62 , I've created Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898 .  The Sycamores fight name doesn't appear to have been introduced until the 1920s.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 01:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per WP:NSEASONS to Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898 as an appropriate redirect target has now been created with adequate sourcing.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I support a redirect to the target article now as well.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that I have redirected 1897 Indiana State Sycamores football team and 1898 Indiana State Sycamores football team to Indiana State Normal football, 1896–1898 .  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 18:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Yuper Khine: The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT .  All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2 .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 09:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Myanmar .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 09:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 19:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, no evident of WP:SIGCOV found.  Suggest a Redirect instead to Myanmar women's national football team#Players which might be more narrowly relevant than the suggested redirect.  EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 19:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Shalka Doctor: I took a look, and while some potential sources exist, they don't seem to be enough to establish this incarnation as a separate article.  Thus, this article currently does not meet the GNG or SIGCOV.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Television .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Scream of the Shalka - The sources in the article, and ones I found upon searches, are really discussing the Scream of the Shalka web series in general.  There is nothing really demonstrating that the particular version of the Doctor that appeared in it is notable in his own right so that a spinout article is needed, and pretty much all of the information regarding the development and the question of canonicity of the character is already covered in the main article of the series.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above Dronebogus ( talk ) 22:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Rorshacma.  The subject isn't significantly covered in sources, failing the WP:GNG .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Alexandra Trofimov: I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG .  All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Moldova .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I support listification.  This is probably the way forward for several minor football nations.  Geschichte ( talk ) 12:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Swimming pool cover: The only sources that came up on Google were pool cover company websites and advert-laden listicles.  NW1223 < Howl at me • My hunts > 01:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Subject doesn't meet the GNG, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY also seems to apply here.  User:Let'srun 01:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Swimming pool § Covers may be a valid alternative to deletion here.  Apparently this was split from",redirect
"Raymond J. Bowman: WP:BIO1E , known only for being the subject of the notable photograph The Picture of the Last Man to Die , and insofar as I can tell not substantially covered in reliable secondary sources for other reasons.  Some of the content could be merged to the article about the image, but not the overly elaborate infobox, etc.  Sandstein 18:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America .  Sandstein 18:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the article about the photo.  I mean, other than being the subject of the photo, it's pretty routine soldier stuff, the photo and him are basically notable for the same thing.  I'm wondering if the photo is even notable, but that's another issue.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per WP:BIO1E .  Mztourist ( talk ) 04:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above.  AryKun ( talk ) 04:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per WP:BIO1E .  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested.  Reasonable.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above.  I started the article & am willing to make the redirect edit & migrate/merge useful content myself.  = paul2520 💬 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Second superpower: It's a term that some people and sources have used, but it has no sustained coverage or coherent meaning.  The lead describes it as an anti-Iraq War protest movement (with sourcing from the early 2000s), but then the main body also just uses it to refer to states such as China and Russia.  There is no reason why this merits a standalone article.  It's so confusing that it probably fails WP:DUE for inclusion in Superpower or Great power .  Thenightaway ( talk ) 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : The article is confusing, horribly unfocused, under-cited, and seems to conflate a few unrelated social movements as nom points out.   But the Moore essay had responses in RS, at least, and there does seem to have been enough media attention to support an article (I don't know if reference 1 counts as RS or not because it's ""analysis"", but the Nation piece seems legit and I suppose the Greenpeace article might make the cut).   An awful lot of work and trimming is needed, though.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll admit to being completely unfamiliar with this concept.  That said, doesn't the sourcing suggests that this a rather contained media debate in 2003–2004 which did not have any sustained attention or importance?  Do scholars of social movements, protests and NGOs still use this concept in any meaningful way?  A Google Search and Google Scholar search does not show significant coverage in the last five years.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 00:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:SYN concerns here - a grab bag of different uses can't be cobbled together into a unified article.  I would also be OK with a redirect to Polarity (international relations) , which discusses bipolarity.  Neutrality talk 17:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is WP:SYN and WP:FORK of Polarity (international relations) .  My very best wishes ( talk ) 22:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Hati Yang Terpilih: Sources in article are promo about the artist and do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the compilation album & soundtrack album) directly and indepth .  BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV.  There is no sourced content that would improve a target, but no objection to a consensus REDIRECT.  // Timothy :: talk 10:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rossa (singer) .  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Chorr Police: The article lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources.  It does not offer in-depth analysis or substantial coverage in reputable publications.  The references cited do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability.  M S Hassan ( talk ) 14:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television : No time to check possible existing sources but this ATD seems at least warranted.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television .  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Bhilwara Kings: Couldn't find independent coverage about the team, to pass wider requirements of WP:NORG and WP:GNG .  The highest to SIGCOV are the sources which says about the announcement of the teams, launch of jersey by the team owners- with all of these belonging to WP:ROUTINE .  Robo Cric Let's chat 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Cricket ,  and India .  Robo Cric Let's chat 07:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Too many of these trivial nonsensical articles appearing of late!  AA ( talk ) 09:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Poor sources and many are just announcements and hold no significant  notability to warrant a page.  Fails WP:NORG .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament No way near enough coverage of GNG quality to warrant an individual team article, but can be redirected to the league page, which just about has enough coverage.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament as a sensible WP:ATD .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Redirect, or simply delete?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect: Per above arguments, redirect article to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament .  — Mjks28 ( talk ) 08:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Vicious Engine: IgelRM ( talk ) 01:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Delete - fails the WP:GNG .  I'm open to reconsidering if some are found, but it looks like this was largely used for games that fell somewhere between ""low budget"" and "" shovelware "", so it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would garner much coverage...  Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Revising to redirect, as it is a plausible search term.  No need to merge, as the bulk of the info is already present at the target as is.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Redirect to Vicious Cycle Software#Technology - Best sources I found: Game Developer Magazine (fairly short piece of a larger article), Edge Spain (interviewing engine and game developers), FiringSquad (very promotional feeling interview), The Escapist (another interview, doesn't talk about the engine much).  I don't consider GDM piece significant coverage and the rest aren't independent of the subject.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested by Mika1h.  The only real source, the Gamasutra article, mentions the engine once and doesn't really talk about it.  I found one piece from Game Developer , but it's short and I can't vouch for the quality of the website.  At best, these sources are good enough for mentioning the engine in the Vicious Cycle Software article.  Cortador ( talk ) 16:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Alibina Belalova: JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Uzbekistan .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 23:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - can't find anything decent at all Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Laurentia (bioregion): I can find no significant coverage of a ""bioregion"" called ""Laurentia"" outside of some organization calling itself the "" Cascadia Department of Bioregion "".  The definition of ""Laurentia"" there (equivalent to the Great Lakes Basin ) does not even correspond to the more expansive definition given in this article, which isn't supported by any reliable source.  The map in this article that purports to depict ""Laurentia"" and other ""bioregions"" was made by the same banned user that created this article in the first place.  Cobblet ( talk ) 15:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bioregionalism I only found this source as a reliable, scientific, definition of a ""Laurentia bioregion.""  Google shows some Cascadia-related hits from non-reliable sources, so a redirect seems plausible.  Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for finding that book, but all it says in the preface is, ""We have divided the continental United States into six bioregions. They are based on a simplified combination of schemes developed by the World Wildlife Fund, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Forest Service.""  In other words, their definition of ""Laurentia"" is entirely the result of original research – there's no sign this is an established concept.  If the ""Laurentia"" concept has any genuine notability in North American environmentalist philosophy, we should be able to find better evidence for it than a book about home gardening projects.  Cobblet ( talk ) 22:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, but redirects are cheap so it makes more sense to me to convert this into a redirect given there are indeed people looking for it.  (The article currently gets about 20 views a day on average).  Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possible Redirect option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with the proposed redirect to bioregionalism as WP:ATD-R .  — siro χ o 04:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"C.G.S. colony: GSS 💬 15:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or, merge and redirect to Antop Hill the larger neighbourhood in which this central govt.  residential enclave is located, as an AtD in the absence of sufficient sourcing to establish notability under the GNG.  It could do with a separate heading within that article — at present CGS colony is noted therein.  Thought this may be notable and a keep based on it being an early example, if not the earliest, and largest 1950s India central govt.  housing complexes but haven't as yet found sourcing to determine this.  Rupples ( talk ) 21:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support redirect .  Ben Azura ( talk ) 01:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Antop Hill , agreeing with Rupples.  sourcing online is not good enough to be its own article.  Password (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Forbairt Naíonraí Teoranta: Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education ,  and Ireland .  UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Gaeloideachas .  As an ATD , I wonder if it would be best to summarise some of the relevant/cited/supported content to Gaeloideachas (the organisation into which the subject was seemingly ""subsumed"" in 2014 ).  And redirect the title there.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 01:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Languages-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Gaeloideachas , with merge of any material not already there.  Cnilep ( talk ) 07:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Newcleo: In future company may be notable, but right now it's just well written WP:CRUFT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The relevant notability guideline is WP:NCORP , and Newcleo meets the criteria of ""A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject . The article itself cites several news media sources with significant coverage of Newcleo published in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Here is a small selection of these independent reliable secondary sources (with quotes to illustrate depth of coverage): The Times (UK), British mini nuclear reactor firm plans €1bn fundraise "": ""Stefano Buono, chief executive, said Newcleo , which raised €300 million last year, did not need the money just yet... Newcleo 's reactors will output about 200MW — many times smaller than regular nuclear power stations such as Sizewell. The reactors at the new Hinkley Point C can output 1.6GW. But Newcleo 's reactors would be much cheaper to make, at about €1 billion each, and manufactured in a factory to enable rapid deployment.""  The Times (UK), "" Stefano Buono's Newcleo wins backing for AMR nuclear reactor "": ""He has invested $10 million in Newcleo and retains a 10 per cent stake after the founding capital raise, which has attracted external investors including Exor, the holding company controlled by the Agnelli family, and Ian Lundin, chairman of Lundin Energy... While Hinkley’s reactor will be cooled by pressurised water, Newcleo will use lead.""  Il Foglio (Italy), "" Il ceo di Newcleo ci spiega perché il nucleare del futuro è made in Italy "": ""c’era anche Newcleo , la pepita made in Italy del settore nucleare, che ha annunciato un investimento da 3 miliardi di euro nel periodo 2023-2030 per lo sviluppo del primo reattore modulare di quarta generazione da 30MWe e di un impianto per la produzione di combustibili nucleari innovativi. Con sede a Londra, la start-up è stata fondata nel 2021 dal fisico Stefano Buono, dall’ingegnere nucleare Luciano Cinotti, e da Élisabeth Rizzotti, fisica con un passato nella finanza. A Lione, nel giugno 2022, Newcleo ha aperto la sua filiale francese, dove impiega già 70 ingegneri e altro personale qualificato.""  Bloomberg (United States), "" Nuclear Power Startup Newcleo Raises $315 Million for UK, France Expansion : "" Newcleo uses what’s known as a lead-cooled fast reactor, a next-generation technology that operates at atmospheric pressure, making it safer than commonly used high-pressure water reactors...  In the UK and France, Newcleo is seeking government approval of building sites and operating permts. "" OP's statement is not true even if we consider only English-language sources. However, notability is not only dependent on English-language sources and this company has received significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, in multiple countries (at least 3 countries shown above). VantBellypo ( talk ) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Newcleo has been subject to reliable sources (The Times, Bloomberg, Il Foglio) that show significant coverage (and not just passing mentions), as already described by User:VantBellypo . The Times even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor (i.e., Hinkley's). The above-mentioned sources are generally accepted sources on Wikipedia, they don't contain fan-based content and I thus doubt that the article is WP:CRUFT. The sources put a certain emphasis on, for example, the money that Newcleo has raised, which is not a prediction but a simple fact. This is also portrayed in FAZ , also a source generally accepted on Wikipedia. In addition to that, FAZ highlights Newcleo's technology, i.e., the use of nuclear waste as reactor fuel. [1] -- 81.110.177.209 ( talk ) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : While I appreciate the effort you've taken to provide quotes VantBellypo , it's not really clear from the quotes you provided that those sources meet there requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH , which excludes routine coverage such as funding announcements. Additionally, it is not completely clear that those sources meet WP:ORGIND , Il Foglio , for example , appears to be an interview. I'll try and do a search myself of course, but NCORP is supposed to be fairly strict. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lead-cooled fast reactor#United Kingdom where it is currently mentioned. At this point, I haven't found any coverage that addresses the company directly to the level of detail required by WP:CORPDEPTH . Most of the coverage falls under examples of routine coverage , though there are enough mentions in coverage of broader topics that this would be a redirect with possibilities of spinning back out in the future, or perhaps at least covering in a bit more detail in an article about the history of development, or other such broader article. Of course, the existence of any future coverage would be speculation on my part. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 10:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I spent the weekend looking up good supporting material and I suppose there's sufficient coverage in secondary reliable sources to warrant an independent Newcleo article on Wikipedia. Please do me a favour and give some time to improve the article using this source material: Le Monde : The article describes that Newcleo is becoming Europe's best-funded startup, which is somewhat remarkable, and it also describes that a protoype is already being built. In addition to that, it puts significant emphasis on the backgrounds and it describes Newcleo in reasonably good detail. I reckon that this Le Monde article alone is already indicative of why Wikipedia could have an article on Newcleo despite them not having produced any functional products yet. [2] Börsen-Zeitung : A German-language source that is similar in content to the Le Monde source. It also describes the funding as unusually fast and remarkable, and it also describes Newcleo's technology. In addition to Le Monde, Börsen-Zeitung mentions that Newcleo plans to build an MOX fuel facility. Due to the nature of that source (Börsen-Zeitung translates into English as ""stock exchange newspaper""), Börsen-Zeitung also explains where Newcleo has obtained its capital from. [3] Ship Technology: The source announces that Newcleo has signed an agreement with Fincantieri and RINA to fund a feasibility study for nuclear use in the shipping industry. [4] There's also been recent coverage in The Telegraph [5] and fDi Intelligence , [6] but those are at least to a certain degree interview-based articles, and I'm not sure whether they can be used to demonstrate Newcleo's notability. They should work as sources though as they're both reliable and secondary. -- 81.110.177.209 ( talk ) 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of recently found sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 06:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Le Monde seems like a good source, the German one I'm unsure of. I find this discussion [15] in the Telegraph helps put the company in context. I think we're ok for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Funding announcements are not SIGCOV? Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Plickert, Philip (2022-06-23). ""Start-up Newcleo sammelt 300 Millionen für neue Atom-Entwicklungen"" . FAZ.NET (in German) . Retrieved 2023-10-02 . ^ Escande, Philippe (2023-03-21). ""Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe »"" . Le Monde.fr (in French) . Retrieved 2023-10-09 . ^ Rothbart, Karolin (2023-03-21): Atomenergie-Start-up hofft auf Milliardenfinanzierung – Newcleo wirbt mit sauberer und günstiger Kernkraft , Börsen-Zeitung, No. 56, p. 11 ^ Vitale, Cat (2023-07-26). ""Newcleo signs major agreement for nuclear naval propulsion study"" . Ship Technology . Retrieved 2023-10-09 . ^ Mustoe, Howard (2023-09-17). ""France is more supportive of us than Britain, says UK nuclear startup"" . The Telegraph . Retrieved 2023-10-09 . ^ ""Newcleo's atomic push: safer, cleaner, cheaper"" . fDiIntelligence.com . 2023-09-25 . Retrieved 2023-10-09 . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist but right now, this is looking like a Keep or No consensus closure. I don't see support for Deleting this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - subject has plenty of coverage to meet requirements: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2862814766/DA60BD8716CA4128PQ/4 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2841415603/DA60BD8716CA4128PQ/8 , etc. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above as per WP:ATD although Deletion is also a valid option. This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .  ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . Let's look at the sources and invite the editors above who feel these sources meet the criteria to comment: VantBellypo has looked at four sources through the lens of NCORP and says they meet the criteria. Unfortunately I cannot fathom how VantBellypo can say they meet NCOEP since none of those articles contain ""Independent Content"" - that is ""original and independent opinion"", etc, and they all clearly fail WP:ORGIND . The first Times article is PR, relying entirely on quotes from the CEO and information provided by the company. There is no ""Independent Content"" and we can see the text is peppered throughout with quotes, fails ORGIND. The next Times article is older, from 2021, and is also PR and talks about the company's future plans and a profile on the CEO. It contains no ""Independent Content"" and relies entirely on information provided by the CEO and the company. It also has no in-depth information on the company, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The anon source says this article is also good because it even discusses the price/performance ratio of Newcleo's reactor and compares it with that of a competitor - no it doesn't, it repeats information from the CEO about his aims. The Il Foglio article is also PR - the headline even starts with ""The CEO of Newcleo explains..."" and it is a verbatim interview. It contains no ""Independent Content"" and fails ORGIND. The anon IP also likes this article saying it is ""significant coverage"" but doesn't appear to be aware of the ""Independent Content"" requirement. The Anon IP also makes an argument about those being ""acceptable sources"" - which they are for supporting information within the article, but they aren't for meeting the criteria for establishing notability, those are two different standards. The Bloomberg article dated June 20 2022 is based entirely from this company announcement of the same date. Much of what Bloomberg publishes is related to announcements and PR. Lots of publications do this - here's another from moneycontrol.com . Here's another again from tech.eu . All dated June 20. None of these contain ""Independent Content"" and they all fail ORGIND. The Anon IP also provided 6 other sources. Faz.net is dated 3 days after the PR flurry for the funding announcement but it doesn't add anything new to what we learned from the announcement, also relies on quotations from the CEO, has no discernible ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND Le Monde article is based on yet another company announcement and is what is known as a ""puff profile"", essentially regurgitating positive information about the company and their execs. Even the headline puts the claim in ""quotes"". It is (not coincidentally) dated one day after this announcement by the company which has all the same info. Same sort of article as this from Bloomberg or this from News in France . Fails ORGIND, just more regurgitated PR and a puff profile. The Ship Technology article is dated the very next day after the same company PR with no ""Independent Content"". Fails ORGIND The Telegraph article is an interview with the CEO with no ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND The fdi intelligence article is another puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company/execs with no sign of any ""Independent Content"" whatsoever, fails ORGIND. Indefensible provides links to two articles available in ProQuest. The first from MarineLog beings by examining the question on whether a ""nuclear option"" would solve emissions issues for ships and the first number of paragraphs are devoted to a different set of companies and their investigations. The last half or so of the article mentions the  feasibility study involving the topic company's technology (as mentioned in the Ship Technology article above) and then provides a (very) simple overview of the company and how the topic company's reactors work all of which is available on the website and in most announcements. Fails ORGIND. The final source is from Contify Energy News and it says very clearly that it is an ""Original Press Release"". I've no idea why someone thinks Press Release meet NCORP criteria - they don't. Fails ORGIND. From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department - which based on the amount of money it raises, it really should. Some editors appear to consider any old ""significant coverage"" is sufficient to meet NCORP criteria. That isn't the case. The *content* must be examined and must contain ""Independent Content"" as per the guidelines. None of these do. This company hasn't build anything yet and is drumming up business - WP:TOOSOON applies and while I wouldn't have suggested a redirect myself, the suggestion is good seeing as the company is mentioned already. HighKing ++ 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of sources online to support NCORP for this subject. The MarineLog ref should count. Here are some more https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788723615/12150691EEE1421FPQ/36 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788674346/12150691EEE1421FPQ/37 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2759212561/12150691EEE1421FPQ/19 . All of these are independent as far as I can tell, but I do not have more time right now to look at other sources. - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why should the MarineLog ref count? Can you do a little better explaining things rather than just throwing more refs in here, as if somehow that explains things? What material is in the Marineref article that isn't simply regurgitated from their announcement, and if you do find ""new"" ""Independent Content"", how much of it is ""in-depth""? Cos that's the test - in-depth ""Independent Content"", not just published ""independently"" which is what you appear to be relying on, but also that the *content* is independent. Looking at your three new refs, the first is a copy of the ""Le Monde"" article from 21 March 2023. Total regurgitation of company bumpf with no ""Independent Content"" at all. Compare its content with, for example, this article in BNN which is almost identical and both based on the same company-provided material. The second link appears to omit the headline which you can see here which reads ""Newcleo announces plans for €1bn fundraiser as it targets UK nuclear industry"". The entire article is based on a company announcement, fails ORGIND. Here's an even better and more detailed article published in Nuclear Engineerin International the next day but which is also based on the announcement and also fails ORGIND. Or this one in The Times published on the same day, contains the same information based on the Announcement, also fails ORGIND and which was a follow-on article from this one in January where the topic company pre-announced their intention. That also fails ORGIND because it is also based entirely on company PR. The last reference is this one from the Financial Times . The part about the topic company is three sentences and the last sentence is based on a quote from the CEO, leaving two sentences, both of which are a mere standard description of the company and a lack of ""Independent Content"", thereby failing ORGIND. Can you perhaps check before you produce any more refs that the material isn't just regurgitated PR or based entirely on an interview? Try to at least identify a paragraph or something which contains ""Independent Content""? HighKing ++ 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison, but I disagree with your characterization of articles as lacking ORGIND based on just ""puff pieces"" from the company. These are secondary coverage in reliable sources. Based on the machine translation of this article, it discusses risks and challenges rather than just positive aspects of the fundraising. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your comment concerns the publisher being unconnected with the topic company. The guidelines also require an analysis of the *content* - specifically, what paragraphs can you identify that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So not regurgitated or unattributed content. HighKing ++ 12:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you misunderstand independence, although others have said the same thing about me. Obviously there is a disagreement. Let us stick with the reference from Le Monde at least for now, since it proves the point and Le Monde is generally considered a reliable source. (Per Le Monde 's Wiki article, ""Le Monde is considered one of the French newspapers of record, along with Libération and Le Figaro. A Reuters Institute poll in 2021 found that Le Monde is the most trusted French newspaper.""  So there should not be much controversy over using a reference from Le Monde in general. You previously wrote that ""From what I can see, this company has a very active PR department,"" but claiming Le Monde is simply writing ""puff pieces"" that are repackaged PR from the subject is degradatory to Le Monde's editorial process--I do not see any disclaimer they are publishing a paid article for the subject here.) In general, well-known businesses (of varying notability) have journalists and business analysts covering them, especially for startups or public companies, such as for investing purposes. (Put WP:ROUTINE aside for now, that is a separate argument.) Reviewing a press release shortly after publication is a completely normal and respectable activity for them to be doing. So your concern about the article closely following the press release is fundamentally not really a major issue. Of course if their article had zero bearing on the company's activities, it would be completely independent but would also probably be completely useless if not made-up fiction. What Le Monde is doing is providing secondary coverage which is based on but independent of the subject. In particular, the press release https://www.newcleo.com/press-releases/newcleo-launches-equity-raise-of-up-to-e1bn-for-its-unique-circular-next-generation-nuclear-energy-solution/ you pointed at is in English, and there is no French version that I can see from the company. Le Monde had to translate it before covering in French, which is already a sort of analysis. Then if you read the article without just writing it off completely, you can see there are notable differences between it and the press release. For example, the press release from Newcleo mentions ""risk"" but only in terms of nuclear proliferation. In the article by Le Monde, they mention risk in terms of technical reactor operation. And then in the Newcleo press release, they mention ""challenges"" not to the company but rather in terms of global sustainability goals and how the company will help meet them, whereas critically Le Monde (based on translation) uses challenges and problems (which is not mentioned in the press release) in terms of business operations due to ""a technology...[that was] abandoned in 1997 by the French government, after countless technical problems, an exorbitant cost and the considerable mobilization of environmentalists. "" That is clearly a different meaning and independent analysis. Therefore I think your analysis is wrong. - Indefensible ( talk ) 14:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot access the article by Le Monde for comparison ... It's literally the first source you linked in your second comment, ProQuest document 2788723615, I'm not sure what you could mean by this Indefensible ? Are you saying that you haven't read it? I was wondering why you linked it again. But look, if you insist they meet ORGCRIT we can list it at RSN, OK? Just give me a day or two to write something up. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What I mean is that I can see the article on ProQuest but not on Le Monde's website because of the paywall. On Le Monde, the article title appears to be ""Nucléaire : « Newcleo est en passe de devenir la start-up la mieux dotée d'Europe"" but on ProQuest the article is titled ""Le nucléaire se régénère par les start-up"". There is obviously a difference there, right? I cannot look at the other version to compare. In any case, Le Monde is providing secondary coverage on the subject, there is no direct input from the primary source that I can see based on translation. - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - Here based on this posting . I have a seen a lot of misunderstanding about WP:NCORP in AfD discussions lately, especially when it comes to WP:SIRS . It is not just about having sources, it is the evaluation of these sources which determines notability for companies. In order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance. The company can be verified and sources exists (although not to meet NCORP), so a redirect would be a suitable alternative to deletion. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to where? You need a proposed target when voting to redirect. - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Indefensible : , the only thing ""need[ed]"" when voting in AfD discussions is competency . That would include reviewing the context of other people's votes prior to asking such questions. I stated ""in order to not rehash what HighKing says above, they are correct with their assessment in this instance. "" The assessment by HighKing includes agreeing that the redirect target proposed by Alpha3031 as an alternative to deletion (pinging both users in case I misunderstood their contention).-- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You misunderstand, I was just asking for clarification instead of making a mistaken assumption as to your position. There are foreseeable cases where you agree in part or with the general argument but not with the specific conclusion. We should try having unambiguous communications to avoid misunderstandings. In any case, I disagree with HighKigh's assessment per my reply above. What you should also understand is that your understanding of policy is not objectively ""correct"" but rather subjective. At least, that is my opinion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then make your case on why this meets WP:NCORP using WP:SIRS instead of making accusations about people being subjective. Simply stating ""subject has plenty of coverage to meet requirements"" while providing two sources that fail WP:ORGCRIT is not going to do it. I have both been opining in deletion discussions for a long time based on current consensus on those guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, then propose changing them. In the meantime, WP:AGF as just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them ""wrong. ""-- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to clarify, did you even read my rebuttal to HighKing?  Being subjective is not an accusation, it is a simple fact.  I noted my opinion for consistency with that fact.  All I asked for was clarification on your redirect target, nothing more.  But if you want to imply my lack of WP:COMPETENCE , I think you should better review your own misunderstandings first.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Tommy Rooney: Dropped into non-league after that and untraceable since 2008, when he was 24.  Sources so far are four lines on joining Macclesfield, a passing mention in a list of releases, and then a load of dead link transfer stories from a specialist non-league website.  A Google search overwhelmingly gives results for a Gaelic football journalist, which when you consider the difference in popularity between soccer and Gaelic football, is not really a sign that this is a notable footballer.  Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 15:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In a passing mention, Tommy Rooney was playing Sunday League with relatives by the age of 26.  [6] This man passes the defunct WP:NFOOTY but clearly not WP:GNG .  Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (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/2023 October 16 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect In my opinion I would just redirect to Wayne Rooney#Personal life#Family .  Regards.  Govvy ( talk ) 11:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Also fine with a redirect.  Giant Snowman 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Rooney's claim to notability is fleeting at best (a few minutes playing time in the EFL and FA Cup) and there is no enduring or sustained coverage of him to sufficiently demonstrate notability.  -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk ) 11:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , plenty of coverage and some of the sources on page already satisfy GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Everyone's entitled to their opinions but apart from his minutes at Macclesfield all we have are transfer reports from a specialist non-league website and one local newspaper report in Leigh.  We have no proof he was ever any more than a trialist at TNS so the best he went on to was the Conference North (6th tier), and we have no evidence for his life past the age of 24 (except the Sunday League ref I found).  This article wouldn't even exist if he had any other surname.  Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 20:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in article are routine news and databases, BEFORE showed the same, nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth.  WP:BLP requires strong sourcing, this article fails.  // Timothy :: talk 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Portland and Western 1501: No indication of notability in article.  One article is from a possible RS and contains SIGCOV of the subject's paint scheme.  Other sources are either SELFPUB or just lists that include the subject (or are both).  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 02:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Oregon .  Pbritti ( talk ) 02:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree , even rather deep google search did not give me any sites that would satisfy RS.  AriTheHorse 03:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of individual notability.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (a summary of)( the parts that can be verified to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet .  There is no evidence of independent notability, but equally there is no reason this cannot be included as part of the broader article per WP:PRESERVE .  Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like someone",redirect
"List of MÄR characters: Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists .  Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - Very extensive plot summary with sparse references to manga ( WP:PRIMARY ).  Sadly, this is just WP:ITSUSEFUL but not encyclopedic content (aka WP:FANCRUFT ).  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So far, the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginta Toramizu has some decisions to redirect to this page. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to MÄR as per above.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective Merge to MÄR ; not enough non-fancruft to warrant an article but a small listing on the characters is recommended per MOS:ANIME .  Link20XX ( talk ) 03:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with the character section at MÄR .  I was able to get a character section placed there so that the character information can go there in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and redirect , excessive in-universe content, nothing useful to merge in my view.  Stifle ( talk ) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or very selective merge.  Mostly WP:PLOT information, but some of it can be covered at the main article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Merchant Engineering College: Recommend converting this into a Redirect to Gujarat Technological University - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 16:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Engineering , India , and Gujarat .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Gujarat Technological University#Affiliated colleges per nom.  I don't see any independent coverage that would merit a section, let alone a stand alone article and the article does not have any WP:IS sources for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk 16:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"DWIM-AM: Could be redirected to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation .  MarioGom ( talk ) 20:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines .  MarioGom ( talk ) 20:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The first source states that the station broadcasts from Oriental Mindoro.  The rest of the sources talk about the station's programming and updates.  That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG .  ASTIG 😎 🙃 10:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mere primary source records are not counted towards notability.  MarioGom ( talk ) 10:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth ?  Just to be clear what you think is SIGCOV.  Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument.  Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth ?  Just to be clear what you think is SIGCOV.  All except source 1 are reliable and in-depth enough IMV since they're about the station's programming.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete :  Fails GNG and NORG/CORP.  Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.  Comments Source Fails SIGCOV.  PDF fact sheet about another subject.  Mentioned in a footnote: ""* with 1 AM Radio Station - DWIM 9.36kHz  "" 1.  ORIENTAL MINDORO FACTS AND FIGURES 2014 Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject  2. ^ Slain Mindoro broadcaster denied protection by court Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject  3. ^ Calapan broadcaster shot dead Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject  4. ^ Mindoro broadcaster killed; 33rd slain under Aquino Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject  5. ^ Editorial: International Widows Day Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject  6. ^ Journalist seeks court protection from would-be assassins // Timothy :: talk 14:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Same reason as Timothy.  Most of the references in the article have nothing to do with the subject.  Israel's Son 02:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] REDIRECT INSTEAD .  Redirect to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation is perfect instead of deleting.  49.145.111.255 ( talk ) 14:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per TimothyBlue.  Israel's Son 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Israel's Son , you can't have two bolded ! votes.  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 17:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the available reference material about this subject would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with the source analysis above.  This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 11:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect instead to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Inactive per arguments of TimothyBlue and HighKing and possibly add a blurb in that section explaining why that station is no longer active per reliable sources.  - Ian Lopez @ 16:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"The Science of Aliens: There is no evidence these exhibits are, or were, notable or could pass WP:GNG .  These articles were created by the same user at the time of the exhibit using 'citations' which were press releases or primary sources ( WP:NOTADVERT ).  The subjects fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED .  Over a month ago I took the best single citations and put them next to the mention of each of these three exhibit names at Science Museum, London § Temporary and touring exhibitions where there was a brief mention along with all the other non-notable temporary exhibits.  User also created the redirect The Science of... , and the only use of these 4 articles was by this user to link to each other .  However, the same ""names"" are used numerous times throughout Wikipedia for book titles, convention names, other unrelated museum exhibits, and more ( insource search results for science of survival (38) aliens (7) spying (5) ).  For this reason, converting these to redirects would be inadvisable because of confusions — these temporary museum exhibits don't rate higher than published books and other uses of the same strings of words — and since there are no other uses of these, there's no reason to keep these even as redirects.  Grorp ( talk ) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions .  Grorp ( talk ) 00:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I fixed the broken links with Internet Archive Bot.  I found several news hits using Google News.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not exactly.  Your tool was able to recover a single blog article [35] ; the other 'fixes' either point to archived ""page not found"" webpages, or are external links to archived scienceof.com webpages (primary sources) that have no content (unless, perhaps, you still run javascript; my computer shows nothing after trying 3 different browsers).  You suggest you were able to find other sources but have not provided any here or in the articles for evaluation of notability.  Sure you can get 'hits' because there are many museums who have exhibits using the same names, but they're not the same exhibit or origin (from Science Museum, London ).  I haven't seen a single current online article devoted to the exhibits mentioned in these 3 wiki articles.  Have you?  Grorp ( talk ) 00:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could we perhaps both merge with the other ""The science of..."" entries and link to a disambiguation page?   I'm on the fence about whether or not this topic would be worthy of an article but I think it does (just technically) meet WP:GNG .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply: A newspaper blog is a reliable source.  The dead links to reliable sources are frustrating, but I think they can be taken as evidence that the reviews in question were published and were once available online.  A reference doesn't have to be available online today to be valid.  Once notable, always notable.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Science Museum, London#Temporary and touring exhibitions .  Thank you for improving referencing at Science Museum, London .  There is some evidence that these subjects pass WP:GNG so redirects are the least we can do here.  If there are other notable topics that use these titles, we'll create disambig pages when those articles are written.  Or create them now if you like.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisted to consider redirect suggestion (which I believe is different than the one the nominator is argued against).  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Merge - I found quite a few RS covering the subject ( Canadian Geographic , Sunday News Lancaster PA, Design Week , Birmingham Mail , Montreal Gazette , etc.), but I don't know if each exhibit warrants a separate article.  APK whisper in my ear 03:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Still no consensus.  But I need to check, is the possible Redirect/Merge target Science Museum, London#Temporary and touring exhibitions ?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect is fine I guess...  I'd merge these three articles into a one line sentence about the ""Science of"" travelling exhibits and be done with it.  I'm not fussed either way.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b , if I have identified the wrong target article, let me know.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt: Part-sourced to ""royalpedia"", which as I've said before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is a website wholly-owned and controlled by a known sock master and is used by him to promote fantasies.  DrKay ( talk ) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  DrKay ( talk ) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That may be so, but how did the sock-puppeteer go back in time to 1768 to get Christoph Heinrich von Ammon to say ""Princeſſe de Heſſe-Darmſtadt"" and ""Douarière d'Antoine Ferdianand Duc de Guaſtalle"" in xyr book?   That's a bloody good trick.   (The article does state this information 3 times in various ways, to make it seem more substantial than it actually is; the original source not providing a biography of this person.)  Uncle G ( talk ) 22:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A family tree published in 1768 does not establish notability.  DrKay ( talk ) 17:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But it does rather undermine your point about ""fantasies"".  Uncle G ( talk ) 08:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm confident that the vast majority of the world will agree with me that Amélia of Orléans-Braganza is not a princess of Brazil and that her mother is not the Princess Imperial of Brazil, as claimed by royalpedia.  Brazil has been a republic for over 130 years.  DrKay ( talk ) 17:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This quite fails to defend the claim that this is a fantasy made up by Royalpedia, unless the person running Royalpedia has  (a) a time machine that can go back to 1768; or  (b) an ability to consistently on-demand generate wherever I look a whole avalanche of books on the WWW to introduce all of the blackletter German, long ""s""s, and the Vivaldi stuff; or  (c) a mind control device to get the musicologist and the book scanners to all insert a fantasy person into otherwise real books.   Any one of the three would be an amazing achievement.  Uncle G ( talk ) 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's obvious to everyone that I was referring to royalpedia's unsuitability as a source.  The only fantasy here is the one you've created in your own head about my comments on this article.  DrKay ( talk ) 15:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Theodora of Hesse-Darmstadt is a historical person and is of interest for an online bibliotheca as Wikipedia is.  -- 92.76.102.53 ( talk ) 22:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very little is actually about her specifically.  2601:249:9301:D570:D85F:EAB4:D70C:52BB ( talk ) 02:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a historical interest.  As she lived in the 18th century, her information hard to show online source and can only be found in old historical documents of Italy.  She married a ruler of Guastalla, making her the queen or duchess of a dukedom and establishing her as a powerful woman during the era of absolute monarchy.  She may passes WP:NPOL .  She is also known as the ""duchess dowager,"" and her portrait is collected by a museum.  Some aspects of her life story can be found in Pompeo Litta's "" Famiglie celebri d'Italia "" (Famous Families of Italy), an Italian scholarly chronicle, and page 310 of "" House of Hesse - Biographical Lexicon "" by Hessian Historical Commission Darmstadt [ de ] .  Finally, there have long enough her biographical information at page 119 of 'Die Selbstzeugnisse (1782 und 1793) .  Plus extra - details of her significant contributions to the Guastalla church can be found at [1] .  In my view, her article should be preserved on Wikipedia.  However, I still have no information or idea about Margherita d'Este , as I cannot find any sources in various languages.  Thanks.  1.47.128.24 ( talk ) 21:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This user is now blocked for sock puppetry, disruptive editing, incivility, and harassment.  DrKay ( talk ) 12:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article with newly found citation.  1.47.128.24 ( talk ) 23:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — 1.47.144.97 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] All the information you've added is from a single footnote in the source.  A footnote is a ""trivial mention"" and does not meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV .  DrKay ( talk ) 09:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is another refs!  Shame on you, uncle!  I'm an experienced editor of royalty; you don't need to teach me what it is.  We have a history, and I'm also one of your victims.  You ever make problem on many royalty articles, especially in Greece and non-English speaking regions, but I agree you have the right to do.  You mentioned I added a single footnote from a source.  This isn't an ordinary footnote; it has a source and looks fine.  If you not happy with above source, sure here is offline References [Friedrich Karl Gullmann, History of the City of Augsburg from its Origin until 1806, Vol. 5, Augsburg 1818, p. 126, 347, 469 f.; Detlev Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, N. F. Vol. I, 2, Frankfurt/Main 1999, Table 249 (The Landgraves of Hessen-Darmstadt on the Brabant side); Peter Rummel, Article Joseph, Landgrave of Hessen in Darmstadt.] Sources for 18th Italian noblewomen are hard to find online; they are only available offline.  If you dare, challenge me on Southeast Asian royalty articles (Thailand or Myanmar); I'll surely defeat you since I can access offline sources as well.  You can't bully me like you did with other editors.  I especially don't want to argue with WP:IDONLTLIKE editors/ problem maker, or administrators who abuse their power.  I've saved many royalty articles in the past, and I won't change my vote on this article.  Thanks.  1.47.144.97 ( talk ) 10:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — 1.47.144.97 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] You say, ""We have a history"".  There is no history whatever between your IP and my account.  You say, ""I'm an experienced editor"".  There are very few edits from your IP.  From these admissions, your over-reaction to my posts here, your topic focus, and the geographical location of your IP range, I deduce that you are a sock puppet of an editor I have previously blocked, most likely Special:Contributions/2001:FB1:150:0:0:0:0:0/46 / Special:Contributions/Sir Raymon Adrian Siahaan .  DrKay ( talk ) 11:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Every source cited in support of her notability mentions her only in passing.  She was the wife of a minor Italian duke and not herself a political figure, so WP:NPOL does not come into play.  Zacwill ( talk ) 13:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She was still a consort of a territory that was quite notorious for then.  How could she not be notable?  YorkDr ( talk ) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : After recent contributions, a lot of information has been added about her personally with additional citations so it isn’t just about genealogy and therefore does not fit WP:NOTGENEALOGY .  Theodora is also a very notable person in history, especially for Guastalla.  My other reason : This article should stay on Wikipedia because is that it provides a comprehensive overview of her life.  It includes important details about her marriage to Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga and her connection to the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, and her impact on Augsburg such as the masked balls.  The article seems to be well-researched and mostly cited, which adds credibility to the information presented.  Overall, it's a great resource for anyone interested in learning about Princess Theodora's life and historical significance.  Also she should meet WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG after her hosting masked balls.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Azarctic ( talk • contribs ) 19:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hosting a few parties does not make the host notable or meet the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER .  DrKay ( talk ) 07:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] “The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.”  Of which she did, so she should be able to get away with that criteria.  Azarctic ( talk ) 16:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She didn't make unique, prolific or innovative contributions, so she doesn't qualify.  I don't think you understand what organizing a masquerade ball entails.  It's just a grand-type of costume party.  DrKay ( talk ) 17:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that.  But a masked ball is still a field of entertainment coming under as an attraction.  and as you say “costume party” that is entertainment as well.  I understand it isn’t unique or innovative, but it was still a prolific contribution as they were highly productive.  Azarctic ( talk ) 22:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Also, I don't think WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies to families like hers.  People in her position were public figures.  Deletion serves no useful purpose.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above!  She was a duchess of a noble court, not a housewife or a likely YouTuber.  In her era, criticizing her or one of her family members would certainly result in beheading.  That's how significant a duchess was.  2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A ( talk ) 13:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of",redirect
"Lucia Domazet: The subject has earned at least ten caps for the aforementioned national team.  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Croatia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 15:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"High Commission of Antigua and Barbuda, London: No secondary sources; sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , United Kingdom ,  and Antigua and Barbuda .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London , which contains most of the same information so is more helpful to readers than deletion.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article merely confirms it exists.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is deleting better than redirecting?  Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Abdessalem Kazouz Stadium: Equalwidth ( talk ) 09:57, 24 October 2023 (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/2023 October 24 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Tunisia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to ES Zarzis .  Just because the team is notable doesn't mean the stadium also needs a separate article, the stadium doesn't meet WP:GNG .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Yes it's a redirect but not to ES Zarzis, the stadium is owned by local government and is multi-use.  The correct redirect is the town Zarzis .  Govvy ( talk ) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Levi Addison Gardner: The main notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- mayors don't automatically get articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their mayoralty: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the town they were mayor of, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely none of that here. The only other notability claim being attempted here is that he was the grandfather of a more notable person -- but notability is not inherited , and people who are not themselves notable in their own right don't get articles just because they were related to other people.  And the footnotes here are both just genealogy sites, which are not support for notability at all, rather than reliable source media coverage or books about him to establish his notability.  This is different enough in form from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it isn't providing any stronger evidence that he would pass any notability criteria in his own right independently of being a grandfather.  Bearcat ( talk ) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois .  Bearcat ( talk ) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : For a rather ho-hum president, there's a surprising number of things written about the family, but not about Levi... [65] .  Hits in Gbooks as well, but most seem to be family tree things, nothing extensive.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The only sources I could find were either for his relation to Ford or people with similar names in other parts of the country.  While it's impossible to know what else there is in newspapers that havent been digitaly archived without looking thorugh them, I can't see anything to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN .  I would suggest a merge but it's already on Ford's page so there's nothing to really add.  Shaws username .  talk .  19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify , while I'd be ok with deletion per my resasons above, draftifying makes sense to me given the time and effort required to track down news reports from the era.  Shaws username .  talk .  20:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify , it is possible for this article to be improved.  Youprayteas ( talk to me? | contribs ) 19:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I would agree.  He initially seemed notable to me, being the grandfather of a president and being the mayor of a town, but if one cannot find more sources, I myself would encourage deletion of the page.  Thanks - Roger — Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, on second thought, I move we move the page to a draft, where it may be improved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable ( talk • contribs ) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Redirect (optional Draftify if author wants more time to see if they can dig up some sources).  The current sources do not show any notability and a quick newspaper search and google failed to find any sources to help.  KylieTastic ( talk ) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) — Changed from deleted to redirect per later comments.  KylieTastic ( talk ) 10:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Redirect : If @ RogerNotable wants some time to look up other sources, that's fine with me as an alternative to deletion alternative to deletion .  Regarding lack of newspaper coverage, that's not a major concern for me since historical newspapers are usually primary sources.  I'm also not concerned that this page was deleted before; the first deletion discussion was largely ""per nom"" and conclusory ! votes.  Given that Gardner was Gerald Ford's grandfather, I suggest that Roger look at some biographies of Ford to see if there's any significant coverage of Gardner in them.  If he was notable during his life, there might also be entries in biographical encyclopedias, such as The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography .  If those searches turn up nothing, I would think Gardner is probably not notable.  Changed ! vote to redirect per @ IgnatiusofLondon .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) , 00:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Bearcat.  Doesn't appear to meet GNG, unconvinced he will be able to.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford his daughter as a reasonable search term.   There isn't really any evidence of independent notability, but it makes sense, IMHO, to send people looking for him to the couple of sentences in his daughter's article.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I'm fairly confident we can find sources to support an article of reasonable size, though whether it will meet notability criteria is another question.  I can't access The Chicago Tribune , but I am seeing hits at 1 and 2 .  I've added a source from the Ford Library Museum, and can see more coming (e.g. 3 , 4 ).  My instinct is that there is a possibility of notability that does not merit deletion, so preserving the page history by redirecting to a sensible target is a preferable WP:ATD than deletion, if the article cannot be kept.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 03:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also seeing local newspaper hits I can't access: 5 and 6 .  To be honest, these kinds of sources are probably the most likely to establish notability independent of the subject's family.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 04:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, at the time of her marriage in 1912, The Harvard Herald spoke of Dorothy as ""one of the most popular of Harvard young ladies"" ( 7 ), which suggests to me that there is likely plenty of historical local newspaper coverage about the family.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 04:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to pursue an alternative to deletion would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford .  I've incorporated the sources I found into the article.  The sources do not suggest notability independent from the subject's involvement in his daughter's marriage or his being Ford's grandfather: when the subject is discussed, it is always in either context.  The sources I have added contain details about Ford's relationship to his daughter which an interested editor could merge into Dorothy's entry.   As a WP:ATD , preserving the page history allows the article to be recreated if further sources emerge: there are likely to be further sources offline that an interested editor could consult, and I don't think it's unreasonable for some local historian or newspaper to run an article on the early politics of Harvard someday which might push notability.  If someone could also check out the Chicago Tribune sources above that I can't access, I'd be grateful to know if they add anything.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 04:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Zeekerss: More tabloid promo than an encyclopedic article, this is a CFORK of Lethal Company .  Was redirected, but then a redirect war started [20] .  I think the redirect should be restored after the article is deleted.  BEFORE showed nothing that makes this subject notable apart from the suggested target.  Nothing in this article is worth merging.  // Timothy :: talk 11:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Well, Gbkang said let another user remove it if they agree with you.  If it's reverted by someone else, I won't undo it .  So you could just restore the redirect yourself.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and redirect to Lethal Company - Subject is not notable, but closing the AfD, keeping the article, and turning it back to a redirect is better than just deleting the page and starting over again .  Davest3r08 > : ) ( t a l k ) 14:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lethal Company .  I don't know where this ""speedy"" is coming from since it's not a malformed nomination, but harmless to create a redirect.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect – subject not notable, fails WP:NBIO ; hits on Google news shows up his notable game Lethal Company instead with brief mentions.  Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 06:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lethal Company per above.  The developer as an individual is not notable enough for a standalone biography, but the game is notable and the developer is a plausible search term that should direct the user to the article about their game.  Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Container Wars: Donald D23 talk to me 14:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs broadcast by TruTV Another 'follow the leader' reality show copycat concept that didn't get further than one season.  Nate • ( chatter ) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator I would be ok with a redirect.  Donald D23 talk to me 13:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Sophia Churney: It seems that most coverage of the subject is in the context of Ooberman (and to a lesser extent – The Magic Theatre, which is a section of the Ooberman article), a redirect to which would make sense as an alternative to deletion.  toweli ( talk ) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bands and musicians , United Kingdom ,  and England .  toweli ( talk ) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't find any sourcing for this musician, other than streaming sites.  Nothing we can use for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article presents no evidence of independent notability and my searches did not turn up anything.  I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but an unsourced stint as a grammar-school teacher obviously isn't going to pass notability that way, either.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ooberman .  Searching ProQuest, I find multiple articles that mention her or have some short discussion of her, but it's all in the context of being a member of the band.  Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the subject is not notable on her own.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 21:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Zoraya ter Beek: This was a private individual who chose to die under Netherlands long ago passed euthanasia laws.  Her death is unlikely to change anything regarding the Netherlands euthanasia policy, and thus does not pass WP:LASTING .  All coverage is about her death and thus is a WP:BLP1E and fails WP:NOTNEWS .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Europe , Women and Netherlands .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not her death, but her personal process of advocating euthanasia rights that matters.  Victomrya ( talk ) 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (highly selective) into Euthanasia in the Netherlands .  Worthy of one sentence there.  gidonb ( talk ) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Euthanasia in the Netherlands per nom.  I agree with gidonb that the subject of this article might deserve maybe one sentence in the Euthanasia in the Netherlands article, but there's really nothing of substance to merge.  In addition to the WP:NOTNEWS aspect, there are barely any reliable news sources about ter Beek as well.  – Epicgenius ( talk ) 00:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:BLP1E .  No article about her in Dutch Wikipedia, and nothing about her in the their article on Euthanasia in the Netherlands .  This looks like ""news"" planted by the  ""slippery slope"" campaigners against assisted dying: the Guardian says ""An article about her case, published in April, was picked up by international media"" (published where?) and she says herself that that coverage was ""had many inaccuracies and misrepresentations "".  She died, legally, end of story.  Pam D 09:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Euthanasia in the Netherlands , article and sources don't show sufficient notability for WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 22:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Euthanasia in the Netherlands where she merits a brief mention.  Star Mississippi 01:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid: The bid has been withdrawn, thus failing WP:GNG any relevant information can be moved to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids LouisOrr27 ( talk ) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football .  LouisOrr27 ( talk ) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Mexico ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids is also valid.  Svartner ( talk ) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – The same (withdrawn bid) appears to happen with South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid .  Svartner ( talk ) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge both Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids — ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "" very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say "",",redirect
"Jess Lemon: Nothing notable in the article.  Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER .  Most references are tabloid puff pieces or self-published sources.  WWGB ( talk ) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Television ,  and Australia .  WWGB ( talk ) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 10) where she is mentioned.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 10) per LibStar and the nominator.  And just to review WP:NBASIC , the sources need to be ""substantial"" in coverage.  Neither the headlines nor the contents of the articles focus on the actual person, Jess Lemon, in detail, merely describing her in the context of non-notable events.  Such pieces exist covering an incredibly large number of people, but it isn't practical to have an article on every non-notable TV contestant.  The sources used by the creator indiscriminately publish streams of such stories, so referring to them as ""puff pieces"" isn't incorrect.  The creator should also refrain from accusing the nominator of having a ""sexist"" opinion because they hold this view.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 10:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For me it's a weak Keep .  The Who piece is certainly a puff piece, but they do have editorial oversight, and it's sigcov.  The first Mammamia story, same.  The Yahoo news story is shortish, but I think it gets her over the hump.  I think the fact so many of the sources mention her popularity with fans probably explains why a 4th-runner-up got so much coverage.  It's the kind of celebrity bs coverage I hate to use, but it's independent, reliable, and significant.  Valereee ( talk ) 16:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Valereee.  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 23:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 10) — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 10) .  Coverage is routine for a reality-TV contestant.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Slow (Jackson Wang & Ciara song): Although it got a music video, there doesn't appear to be enough coverage per WP:GNG , additionally it did not chart, was not subject to considerable critical reception etc. so does not pass notability per WP:NSONGS .  Could be redirected to Jackson Wang >> Lil-unique1 ( talk ) — 21:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Jackson Wang : A handful of websites, some reliable and others not so much, have covered this song/MV/Coachella performance, but few of them are saying much of substance and they're all essentially saying the same small handful of things.  Without charting or anything else, its case it very weak.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 02:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Though if this song is ever announced to be part of an album as multiple sources suggest it could be, the target should be changed to there (assuming the album is notable).  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 02:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per this logic 104.232.119.107 ( talk ) 08:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Carried Away (Ooberman album): There's a review of the album by Ox-Fanzine , which I added to the article.  The album is also mentioned in a Drowned in Sound review of the band's next album, and that's about it.  A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Ooberman .  toweli ( talk ) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , United Kingdom ,  and England .  toweli ( talk ) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ooberman per WP:ATD .  Ingratis ( talk ) 18:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ooberman § Discography unless more/better turns up at WP:Library .  -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 22:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Aksyon Radyo U.S.: Not to mention, the article has been unreferenced for a long time.  Israel's Son 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines .  Israel's Son 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Creator was a sockmaster, and this is complete nonsense about a station in one community having an American-based format based in California that doesn't broadcast there; there's just nothing for this to stand on, and it's completely made up.  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per MrSchimpf, salting may be considered if the sockpuppetry problem exists.  - Ian Lopez @ 16:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to DYRC : Barely found any independent coverage about the defunct online station.  Based on its website , it existed as a separate entity from DYRC until it closed shop a few years later.  ASTIG 😎 🙃 Redirect to DYRC , which was known as DYXR in the 2000s.  Fails WP:NCORP as a separate entity from the station per Astig's argument.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"WFFC-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 03:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. per nom (and my K04QR-D AfD).  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 16:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"2023 Cricket World Cup final: Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it is notable.  Even the full fixtures have not been confirmed yet (also the teams which qualify for WC or the final is not known), so the date of the final can be changed anytime.  Any significant information has not yet been published regarding the final match, so no need for a seperate article.  Probably should be a redirect or draftified, but that is no longer an option, since the redirect was contested.  RoboCric ( talk ) 16:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports ,  and Cricket .  RoboCric ( talk ) 16:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There have been similar discussions like this- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Indian Premier League Final .  RoboCric ( talk ) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , pointing out that one similar article was redirected has no bearing on this deletion discussion.  The World Cup final article will stand or fall on its own merits.  Frank Anchor 18:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Frank Anchor I pointed out that discussion, since there was the same rationale behind redirecting the IPL final.  I didn't say that IPL final didn't exist, so it also shouldn't exist .  RoboCric ( talk ) 05:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for showing me that you did not take time to read the linked policy.  The basic gist of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that voting to keep or not keep an article because articles on similar topics were dealt the same fate is not a valid reason.  Frank Anchor 12:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OSE is not a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates Spike 'em ( talk ) 13:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Frank Anchor First please be sure about the page you are linking. It is itself not a policy , rather an essay on deletion policy. I linked that discussion because I thought that I had failed to make you understand why the article should be redirected. So, I linked that discussion, because there have been a detailed rationale by many voters. And pointing to other stuff is not always invalid. There have been same consensus for all articles on final matches or any event. Both IPL final and WC final has been created way TOOSOON, so same criteria applies for both of them. Unless any in-depth coverage or sufficient information is available, what is your logic behind keeping the article (not redirecting) with the same information which is already present in the main article ? RoboCric ( talk ) 15:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have been an editor on Wikipedia for the past 12 years and I have just created this article a few minutes ago. This article is about the final match of one of the most popular sports event in the world watched by billions worldwide, the 2023 Cricket World Cup and Cricket World Cup in general as well. Also, this article is not about the final match of a hypothetical future sports event which will take place 4-5 years from now, but a confirmed multi-national World cup which is scheduled to happen in just a few months. I highly suggest that this article be kept because it has the potential to improve further and become a lot better and that can only happen when other editors are given a chance to edit and improve on an already existing article. TheGeneralUser ( talk ) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] one of the most popular sports event in the world indicates notability about Cricket World Cup, not the final match. Until details (in-depth) are found about the final or the confirmation of Finalists, article should not be created. Also see other similar discussions . RoboCric ( talk ) 16:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As explained above, the topic of this AFD needs to remain the 2023 World Cup final and only the 2023 World Cup final. Frank Anchor 18:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has not been confirmed: the cricinfo article linked says it is likely to start on October 5 and end on November 19 Spike 'em ( talk ) 15:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Spike 'em Thank you for your comment. As per advice given by many other editors, I accept their useful advice and have come to the conclusion that for now, a redirect is the best thing to do so. Hence, this discussion can be closed by any closer as required. TheGeneralUser ( talk ) 15:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:CRYSTAL allows an article if the event is notable and almost certain to take place . This event is notable as it is the world championship game of one of the most popular sports in the world, and by the presence of articles on prior Cricket World Cup finals. The event is almost certain to take place as the date (which is only a few months from now) and venue have already been announced and qualifiers for the tournament are already in progress. Frank Anchor 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to neutral per above comments by Spike 'em.  A redirect is acceptable based on the date being not as ""certain"" as I previously thought. Frank Anchor 16:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Frank Anchor , When the teams for the main tournament itself isn't confirmed, then how can you predict the finalists? If smaller details like finalists and in-depth coverage is not found about the final, then I see no point of making a separate page for the final. All the given information (Format=ODI, Tournament= CWC) is already mentioned in the main article . Plus note that until the full fixtures are not confirmed, the final match date can be changed anytime. And the other articles of this kind were created only when sufficient information was available or the match date came closer. RoboCric ( talk ) 16:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a valid argument to not keep. The date of any event can change at any time right up to the start of the event. You may remember something called COVID-19 that pushed back the date of many sporting events, sometimes mere days or even hours before they were to take place. WP:CRYSTAL even takes this into account by explaining that [d]ates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. Also, one user see[ing] no point of making a separate page for the final does not mean there should not be an article about it. Frank Anchor 16:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Frank Anchor Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Indian Premier League Final and consensus reached from other related cricket articles. RoboCric ( talk ) 17:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ RoboCric : And you can please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  Pointing out that one similar article was redirected has no bearing on this deletion discussion. The World Cup final article will stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 18:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . RoboCric ( talk ) 16:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to main tournament article. Not enough is known about this match yet to write a separate article on it. Spike 'em ( talk ) 06:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the spirit of WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE , we don't yet need a separate article that just repeats a few lines from what is currently the main one. I have no doubt that this match will receive significant coverage in its own right at some point soon, but has not done so yet. Spike 'em ( talk ) 13:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Cricket World Cup . Way WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article as there is entirely insufficient content to warrant a split. wjemather please leave a message... 07:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to main tournament article. There is not enough known information to warrant a separate article at this time, the details we do know (the date and location) will be in the parent article anyway. This article provides no additional information or benefit to readers at this time. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect with the article in its current state I don't think we have any alternative but to redirect. If there was more of an article, perhaps I'd think differently. We can handle everything we need to handle in the competition article for now. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 09:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Cricket World Cup . I had previously explained to TheGeneralUser that a redirect was the best state for the article title at this time . As you can see at Draft:2023 Cricket World Cup Final (note case difference on ""Final""), TheGeneralUser seems to have a strange preoccupation with being ""the original author"" of the article. Although not 'huge' edits, the draftification of the original redirect has already obscured several other editors' contributions.  Not helpful behaviour.  -- Hadal ( talk ) 14:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Addendum : Per my note above, the closer should consider reversing TheGeneralUser's move at Draft:2023 Cricket World Cup Final and redirect this case difference as well, to restore previous edits. -- Hadal ( talk ) 14:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, a hist merge is in order, this is pretty petty WP:OWN behaviour.  Spike 'em ( talk ) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Important Note - Thank you Hadal and Spike 'em for your comments. As I had mentioned before, I had only intended to create this article for the benefit of the readers and the encyclopedia, but I can completely understand the point of view given by you both and other editors. I never claimed ownership of any kind of article anywhere and my primary purpose has always been to improve the encyclopedia. Hence, I have redirected this article myself to 2023 Cricket World Cup and this discussion can be closed as required by any closer, so that everyone else can go ahead and spend time in doing the most important thing which is to improve other articles and Wikipedia in general as well. This article can be created when more information about the final is available in detail. Thank you. TheGeneralUser ( talk ) 15:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Cricket World Cup WP:TOOSOON . While the topic will likely be notable enough for a separate article in the future, there's no way near enough coverage as of now for the article to exist in mainspace. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"UJ Soweto Stadium: With that being said, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NSTADIUM .  If I knew how to multi-AfD, I would've included UJ Stadium .  dxneo ( talk ) 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa .  dxneo ( talk ) 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to University of Johannesburg#Athletics, sport, arts and culture .  Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] GiantSnowman , I concur, redirecting seems fair enough — dxneo ( talk ) 05:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 07:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Tainted Canvas: The cited sources are not helpful for establishing notability, as they are promotional pre-release coverage with no independent analysis of the film.  Searching online, I was able to find reviews, but only one of them (a negative review in WhatKeptMeUp) appears to be potentially reliable ( [19] ); the others include a Medium blogpost ( [20] ), a two-person blog ( [21] ), an unbylined review from a 3-person blog ( [22] ), and a review on what appears to be a social media and PR site ( [23] , no masthead, no editorial policies, but there is a Log In button for their ""African creatives community"").  The film's Rotten Tomatoes entry lists no critics' reviews ( [24] ), and it seems somewhat telling that Pulse, which published most of the pre-release coverage, did not publish a review following release.  signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria .  signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Segilola Ogidan ; but given the reviews (although some are on blogs, technically ) and the minor award received ( https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/movies/tainted-canvas-wins-first-award-amid-covid-19/t8vhnfg https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2021/05/15/segilola-ogidans-tainted-canvass/ really really not opposed to Keep; opposed to Deletion.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Slashed: Previously deleted and immediately recreated.  Donald D23 talk to me 19:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 19:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because there are a LOT of interviews in reliable media ( Guardian , Belfast Telegraph , etc) at the very least a redirect to Ash (band)#Charlotte Hatherley, Nu-Clear Sounds and Free All Angels (1998–2004) , where it is treated.  But not opposed to keep if NME sources or other can be checked and considered significant. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , as nominator I am not opposed to a redirect as detailed above.  Donald D23 talk to me 23:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above, I don't think this is notable enough.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 18:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Yat with acute: The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG , but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter ( Yat ) with Acute accent or Stress (linguistics) .  See the previous deletion discussion regarding nine articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) .   — Michael Z .  17:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Europe .   — Michael Z .  17:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ye with grave .   — Michael Z .  20:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Acute accent or Yat .  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - note that in the previous AfD mentioned above, there was not just minimal discussion, there was nothing there other than the nom's statements.  I'm not sure we can continue soft deleting related pages without input from other editors with experience in these topics (which isn't me, to be clear).  JMWt ( talk ) 08:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ETA: this one which soft deleted 9 pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) JMWt ( talk ) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is “soft deletion”?  This proposal is for deletion.  There was nothing wrong with the previous deletion, but please let me know if you actually find a real problem.  The proposed deletion was posted at the top of all of the articles.  It was posted in article alerts for three WikiProjects.  [68] [69] [70] It was posted in appropriate deletion logs.  [71] [72] [73] [74] An article creator was notified.  [75] — Michael Z .  21:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Michael , look at WP:SOFTDELETE .  It's used in situations where there has been low participation in a discussion and no Keep votes.  The article is treated as if it is a Proposed deletion and can be restored upon request at WP:REFUND .  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) for an example of where Soft Deletion was used.  L iz Read!  Talk!  04:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay.  JMWt seemed to be arguing against soft deletion due to low participation, so I don’t understand their intent.   — Michael Z .  05:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You previously stated ""See the previous deletion discussion regarding nine articles at..""  I was simply stating that there is nothing to see when nobody else contributed to the discussion.  As I said, it is very hard for me to make a comment on this AfD and it seems almost nobody else can either.  In which case soft deletion seems like a mistake to me. I think we need more input for even soft delete beyond a single editor making statements that the rest of us are unable to parse.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Or what you refuse to see is that editors view this as an uncontroversial deletion of material that’s all already in other articles where it belongs.  Your argument is “I don’t understand this but I am suspicious of you.”  If you can’t assume good faith then go ahead and find additional knowledgeable editors to comment before this discussion closes, or do some research and find some sources, but casting your unfounded doubts here is not helpful.   — Michael Z .  15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And the whole point of soft deletion seems to be this situation which you say it’s not acceptable for.  If you don’t like the guidelines, then go change them instead of trying to bypass them in this discussion.  I am not doing anything wrong, and your line is potentially disruptive.   — Michael Z .  15:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to yat - Is there a problem with a redirect here?  Also, is the problem you describe something effecting Yat with diaeresis as well?  Suriname0 ( talk ) 20:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re: yat with diaeresis, from the image it is clear that the diaeresis was used as a substitute where the grave accent wouldn’t fit over the tall letter when setting metal type, in that one dictionary.  Was that a convention, no idea, since that article is un-referenced.  I would propose deleting it too.   — Michael Z .  03:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to yat , considering it is a variation of the letter.  If other articles are added here, I also consider redirecting those to their respective pages.  Persent101 ( talk ) 23:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Sarrive Badiambila: The subject has earned at least one cap for the aforementioned national team.  I am unable to find sufficient coverage, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Democratic Republic of the Congo .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 19:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers .  BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  BLPs require strong sourcing from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 00:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"O'Farrell Street: Xx236 ( talk ) 09:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Xx236 ( talk ) 09:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Originally a redirect.  Xx236 ( talk ) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete I gather it is the central street in a notable neighborhood but it's plain that it goes through a lot of the rest of the city too.  No claim that it is notable in its own right.  Mangoe ( talk ) 14:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objection to the redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Farrell Street , although I note that the attempted 1 sentence rewrite of the article did indicate that Jasper O'Farrell is the best redirect target.   I went searching for stuff about the street, and instead hit several biographies of Jasper O'Farrell almost straightaway, after going through a load of things that turned out to be simple street addresses, including Tuomey's History of Sonoma County, California and the hyperbolic The Immortal San Franciscans for Whom the Streets Were Named .  Uncle G ( talk ) 03:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Sabato's Crystal Ball: User:Elli has requested that this proceed by AfD instead, so here is the rationale I provided on PROD: Per WP:CORPDEPTH , there does not appear to be any significant coverage of this organization.  All references appear to be trivial (i.e., to their predictions, rather than to coverage of the organization qua organization).  (See also User:NewsAndEventsGuy 's post here ).  I look forward to your thoughts.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with CORPDEPTH being the relevant standard here; this article is about a website so Wikipedia:Notability (web) (and particularly WP:WEBCRIT ) is more relevant.  Not sure if this meets that, though, and I don't have the time to conduct a search for sources right now.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 01:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think CORPDEPTH applies because they operate out of the University of Virginia and have employees.  But, even if NWEB does apply, I think the article fails because it's WP:INHERENTWEB for the reason stated above: it's oft-cited, but WP:ENN and I can't find any WP:SIGCOV .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's relatively difficult to find sources about media itself.  Given how frequently-cited this is; it's worth considering whether deletion of the page really serves the project, even if it doesn't strictly meet our notability guidelines (which are only guidelines, not policy that must be strictly enforced).  This is linked in many articles as a source of a rating for a particular race; and clearly that usage is endorsed by many news outlets such as the New York Times frequently citing them for prognostication.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 03:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Politics , Websites ,  and Virginia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There are definitely news articles covering the site's ratings but not sure they rise to the level of GNG: [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] .  As Elli notes, the site is very frequently cited, so I am sure there are other examples.  Not opposed to merging with Larry Sabato either.  - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 19:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Good suggestion RE merging with Larry Sabato.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 21:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : I think a better target is the parent organization, University of Virginia Center for Politics , rather than to Sabato himself, as there is much more room for expansion than in a biographical article.  Not in favor of merging as there is nothing currently in the article to merge; the article's current state is a biennual ticker of how right they are, not any meaningful critical coverage of the organization itself.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that some of the content might be relevant; for example, the most recent predictions might meet meet notability criteria.  In any event, if this goes the redirect route, I think the newsletter is probably more notable for being Sabato's means of disseminating election prognostications, not for its affiliation with the Center.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Larry_Sabato#Sabato's Crystal Ball where information about the newsletter is found.  I do agree with others that there does not seem to be much substantive coverage about the newsletter outside of the predictions.  -- Enos733 ( talk ) 05:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Larry_Sabato#Sabato's Crystal Ball , and merge any relevant content there.  I agree with others who've commented above that the subject falls short of the notability bar needed to warrant a standalone page, and that the section in Sabato article is the most appropriate target for redirecting.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Selectively Merge .  It's not notable, but there is some information that should be merged back.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Safe Superintelligence Inc.: Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ilya Sutskever ; while there are other co-founders the press coverage is clear that he is the primary instigator ( CNBC , AP ).   And there is nothing other than that press release to be the topic of an article.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 15:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ilya Sutskever : (and merge) WP:TOOSOON , essentially just WP:MILL press releases - no evidence of independent notability right now C F A 💬 17:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As of now, even a redirect is premature.  Announcements made a couple of days ago regarding future plans for a company that has done nothing yet belong in press releases, not encyclopaedias.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Straightforwardly not notable, at least not yet.  Sustained coverage may occur later.  StereoFolic ( talk ) 02:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It's obviously clear that it's notable because the company's incorporation has been extensively covered by at least a dozen highly reputable news organizations, such as Bloomberg , The Verge , Axios , CNN , AP News , CNBC , New York Times and others.  The article is worthy and notable to exist merely as a stub.  Redirect does not make sense, as other notable people are involved in the organisation, including former Apple AI lead, Daniel Gross (entrepreneur) , and former OpenAI researcher Daniel Levy .  Additionally, Ilya having co-founded OpenAI carries significant credibility Mr Vili talk 04:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A brief flurry of news coverage from reliable sources does not indicate notability; see WP:SUSTAINED StereoFolic ( talk ) 12:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It's been mentioned in many of the most reputable sources and the founders are very notable.  If you don't keep it at least as a stub, then the Wikipedia pages about the founders have nothing to reference.  It's just a gap in Wikipedia's coverage.  Obviously if it's WP:TOOSOON , it can be deleted and added back later, but it seems wiser to leave it as a stub at this point.  Kfein ( talk ) 04:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The question as to whether it can be deleted is what is being discussed now.  Saying it is discussed in sources does not help at AfD.  We need to discuss the actual sources.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's worth noting that WP:THEREISNORUSH .  Revisiting this question in a month might be the wisest course.  Kfein ( talk ) 22:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your argument appears to be we should keep it because maybe we will have more time to think about it in a month?  What is the policy reason to keep it?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that more reliable sources may write substantive pieces about the company within the next month, expanding the scope of the article and putting to rest some of the concerns about notability.  Even if this question were revisited in a year, no harm would be done.  The article as it is now is perfectly appropriate and likely of value to users of Wikipedia.  Kfein ( talk ) 21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this, for some reason, becomes notable in a year, then any editor may apply for a WP:REFUND to get this page restored, and to develop said article.  How valuable that would be is a matter of opinion.  There is not really much in this article that could make it into the article of a notable version of the company.  The sources here would not make the cut, and what makes it notable will be quite different from what we have now.  It would be the CORPDEPTH sources that drive the creation, not these 5 sentences.  But in any case, that offer is there for all deleted articles.  Nothing is really deleted, it is merely tucked away safely and can always be refunded should a non notable topic one day gain notability.  That being the case, there is no reason to keep this published in mainspace in the hope that one day this just may possibly be notable.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the explanation of the restoration process.  But there is plenty of reason to keep this article intact.  People researching the founders of the company may want more details on the company itself, and people researching the company or competitors would find the article of value.  This is a topic of great interest lately and Wikipedia offering in-depth coverage is of great benefit to Wikipedia users.  The fact that so many major news outlets covered the founding of this company is proof of the widespread interest.  The fact that there is a complete and detailed article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI is further proof.  That article could be improved by linking to this article, for instance, in the Aftermath section.  Kfein ( talk ) 14:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect  to Ilya Sutskever .  I don't see any evidence this meets GNG or NCORP ; the coverage so far is enough to support inclusion on Sutskever's page but I found no in-depth coverage of the company beyond the announcement of its founding.  I'd be open to reassessing if the editors arguing to keep would present some of the ""extensive coverage"" they are arguing exists; all I see is outlets picking up the press release on its founding, and every article I looked at was essentially the same as the two linked by Walsh90210.  Since there is coverage with respect to Sutskever and the company is mentioned on his page already, I don't see any issue with a redirect.  Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 17:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, this organisation's founding has independent notability due to the events related to the temporary firing of sam altman leading up to the resignation of key people at OpenAI, such as Jan Leike and Ilya Sutskever Which are discussed in various sources including examples below: https://www.ft.com/content/68cb9b1f-c3bb-4a90-a8b6-17b7e3ecd234 https://siliconangle.com/2024/06/19/openai-co-founder-ilya-sutskever-launches-startup-develop-safe-superintelligence/ This isn't a routine company incorporation.  There's a lot of history behind it that should be noted, as well as the other cofounders all having strong crediblity and notability themselves.  I vote that the article remains a stub for the time being, or at worst case, drafted.  A redirect here does not make sense.  Mr vili talk 18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That isn't going to pass muster for an NCORP AfD.  You are saying that the startup inherits notability from notable founders.  It doesn't.  Under NCORP we need WP:SIRS - significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.  For significance you need to consider WP:CORPDEPTH which says Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.  Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] pretty much every news source is significantly covering the incorporation beyond WP:MILL , they are all talking about the history of events leading up to the incorporation which is not a usual scenario.  Mr vili talk 18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:PRIMARYNEWS aside (and that's important, actually, because we need secondary sources), no such sources have been shown to exist yet.  The above two certainly are not at CORPDEPTH.  Not even close.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ilya Sutskever - per my comment above.  This startup does not meet WP:NCORP .  The redirect is an acceptable AtD.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ilya Sutskever in my mind it is a WP:TOOSOON .  Maybe in the future when they start doing something, it could be created.  TagKnife ( talk ) 12:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The founding of Safe Superintelligence Inc. is recognized on a world wide level.  One major reason is the history of Open AI , which is deeply connected to the founding of this company, see temporary firing of sam altman and the intense discussion about AI safety .  Some additional sources are: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Wiki contributor xyz ( talk ) 19:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC) — Wiki_contributor_xyz ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] 1.  See WP:NEWSORGINDIA .  But in any case, suffers as for 2-8 below 2-8.  WP:PRIMARYNEWS .  Someone announces they are doing something.  That is a primary source.  The notability of the founder is not inherited by the company.  Note that all of these are the same.  Just an announcement that someone notable intends to do something.  These do not meet CORPDEPTH.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ilya Sutskever per above until something happens such that this has established notability, without prejudice against recreating if this ends up being a thing.  jp × g 🗯️ 07:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ilya Sutskever per WP:NORUSH as  Kfein says.  Spinout can be discussed on parent article talk page should there be appropriate coverage in a few months.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/former-openai-employee-ilya-sutskever-launches-new-company-to-build-safe-superintelligence-2555586-2024-06-20 ^ https://www.ft.com/content/68cb9b1f-c3bb-4a90-a8b6-17b7e3ecd234 ^ https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/former-openai-chief-scientist-start-new-ai-company-2024-06-19/ ^ https://apnews.com/article/openai-sutskever-altman-artificial-intelligence-safety-c6b48a3675fb3fb459859dece2b45499 ^ https://time.com/6990076/safe-superintelligence-inc-announced/ ^ https://www.israel21c.org/openai-cofounder-starts-new-firm-dedicated-to-safe-ai/ ^ https://www.djournal.com/news/national/safe-superintelligence-inc-pioneering-ai-safety/video_778aa637-e444-5078-a2eb-838993b0b876.html ^ https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/business/money-report/openai-co-founder-ilya-sutskever-announces-his-new-ai-startup-safe-superintelligence/3440309/ 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.",redirect
"Iranian cleric taking photo incident: The title also appears to be shoddy Borgenland ( talk ) 17:35, 22 March 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 March 22 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography , Crime , Events ,  and Iran .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not everything that happens in the news needs to have its own article.  No reason to keep based on existing sourcing.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I swear we just had a similar incident at AfD...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Scrolling through AFDs, I often have feelings of deja vu.  L iz Read!  Talk!  20:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I got confused with the templates when I nominated it.  My bad.  Borgenland ( talk ) 03:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Human rights in Iran : Non-notable incident in a long list of similar events in the country.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested.  It seems like a common event .  Bearian ( talk ) 17:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Aas (TV series): — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sarwat_Nazir#Plays_and_dramas .  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Antisyntagmatarchis: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  In Greek letters, the name is Αντισυνταγματάρχης.  The Greek article el:Αντισυνταγματάρχης doesn't have any references either, but if you google Αντισυνταγματάρχης through",redirect
"INVNT: There are sources, but they are not reliable.  Moreover, stricter scrutininy should be given to them per WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND .  Local Variable ( talk ) 17:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Ahh, a brand experience company (that the article doesn't explain...) and promotional firm.  The article uses only PR items (which does not come as a surprise) and I only see events they've organized, so either primary or simple name drops.  Nothing extensive or in RS.  PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty of coverage in Global News Wire, which republishes press release items.  We need some kind of sourcing that's not related (to this brand experience firm) so we can possibly keep here...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b Check readersdigest and eventindustrynews.com .  I have just added them.  Z3r0h3r000 ( talk ) 02:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First one, maybe, but it's only signed by the publishers, so is likely a RP item; second one is a trade journal, we don't consider it a RS Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On Reader's Digest Sponsored content is clearly marked as ""Promoted Content.""  Check this page for examples: https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/down-to-business Z3r0h3r000 ( talk ) 06:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still a delete in my eyes.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Though it is not MSM coverage, the subject is covered in various trade publications.  [23] [24] [25] desmay ( talk ) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bear in mind that there's a usual presumption against using trade publications to establish notability: Wikipedia:TRADES .  Local Variable ( talk ) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:TRADES says Trade publications should be approached carefully, though it's not stated that they are outright unusable.  If there's any proof suggesting these publications might have a conflict of interest or a direct relationship, such information should be provided.  In the absence of such evidence, it's appropriate to proceed under the assumption of good faith.  Z3r0h3r000 ( talk ) 01:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All three of those source are press releases (see this wire ), routine coverage WP:ORGTRIV and/or sponsored content.  S0091 ( talk ) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  These here are new citations not in the article when the page was nominated and got the above Delete vote, so all should be reconsidered: readersdigest.co.uk - Reader's Digest is well known and reputable publication since 1922 eventindustrynews.com - Very indepth article meetings-conventions-asia.com sunshinecoastnews.com.au - behind paywall, but it appears to be a good article about the company In addition, there a bunch more good articles such as: ceoworld.biz - CEO Spotlight, but majority of info is about the company exeleonmagazine.com - Also about the CEO, but a good portion is about the company.  thedrum.com Z3r0h3r000 ( talk ) 01:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't want to seen as badgering voters, but you did directly ask for us to reconsider, so I will.  My view is unchanged.  The sources are not reliable.  They don't meet the higher degree of scrutiny for independence in relation to articles about companies (to stop marketing/trade publication websites enabling the proliferation of promotional articles).  It should be noted the UK Reader's Digest is different from the American one.  As the page you link suggests, it's operated under licence.  That's probably the only somewhat reliable source; the article needs many more.  While further contributions are welcome (including making the article not sound promotional), keep in mind that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability .  Local Variable ( talk ) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP : The company is mentioned on Woodstock's own Wikipedia page as a partner.  ""The scheduled date for the ""Bethel Woods Music and Culture Festival: Celebrating the golden anniversary at the historic site of the 1969 Woodstock festival"" was August 16–18, 2019. Partners in the event were Live Nation and INVNT.""  CAMPAIGN is a world renown source speaking directly on the company.  This is a global company, which would naturally have global media sources.  Another source (clients are world renown - Amazon, Zillow, Microsoft) directly about the company - Event Industry News .  Another source directly about the company: Campaign BRIEF Another source directly about the company: Exhibit News Company does General Motors CES Keynote: Biz Bash 184.74.225.194 ( talk ) 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — 184.74.225.194 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Keep The Wikipedia page for INVNT outlines the company's role as a global live brand storytelling agency, detailing its history, key projects, and approach to branding and events.  -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 13:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Oaktree and Local Variable.   The vast majority of sources are press releases, partner/sponsored content or based mostly on the what the company says about itself which are primary and not independent.   Others are routine coverage and non-RS that exists for promotional purposes.   Almost all sources are trade publications which are not helpful for establishing notability ( WP:TRADES ).  S0091 ( talk ) 15:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They have also several non-trade publications such as 1 , 2 .  These are business publications.  Trade publications would be those related to Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations industries.  Reader's Digest is also not a Trade publication.  Icesnowgeorge ( talk ) 21:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closing admin :  I only just noticed there is another page, INVNT Group .  The same rationale applies.  I am adding it here.  Sorry for the inadequate BEFORE.  INVNT Group ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (courtesy ping: @ S0091 : @ Oaktree b : ) Local Variable ( talk ) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding @ Desmay , @ Loewstisch , @ Z3r0h3r000 .  @ Local Variable see WP:BUNDLE for how to include more than one article in a single AfD.  S0091 ( talk ) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you!  Local Variable ( talk ) 05:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Local Variable INVNT is a Subsidiary of INVNT GROUP.  INVNT GROUP has many other subsidiaries.  I have compared their citations and they have only a few citations in common and content of these articles are different.  Possibly we can make the argument to MERGE the pages, but to me it appears that both entities have enough coverage to deserve their own pages.  In addition, I do not believe your addition of INVNT GROUP into the same AFD after a few days is proper, as some prior votes have already been placed, so the deletion of that page should not be based on whatever the outcome of the results is here.  Maxcreator ( talk ) 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP : INVNT has enough coverage to be considered notable.  Reader's Digest Article seems to be the best one, but there are others.  INVNT Group is the parent company should not be included in this AFD, due to its late addition.  Maxcreator ( talk ) 20:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to INVT, the ""post"" on Reader Digest came from INVT , ""The post INVNT – Transforming Brand Potentials appeared first on INVNT GROUP NEWS."" so this is native advertising and why there is no named author, simply ""Reader's Digest"".  This is a prime example of pretty much all the sources.  S0091 ( talk ) 20:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not so evident to me if what you say is the case.  The original post is gone.  The content of the post on their website may have been different so without seeing it, we cannot say that it was copied.  It would not make sense that an article in their own website would speak in 3rd person rather than 1st person.  For example why would a post on their own site say ""This forward-looking agency has achieved a lot..."" if they were talking about themselves?  However, I stick with my KEEP vote based on several other articles available on the company.  Maxcreator ( talk ) 21:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why ... if they were talking about themselves?  Because that is what PR people do.  They try to hide the fact that they are talking about themselves.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 10:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Keep ! voters are failing to critically analyse the sources.  The tone of the Reader's Digest article alone sets off alarm bells.  The Reader's Digest article is clearly advertising disguised as an article.  Other sourcing to trade publications aren't helpful in establishing notability.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 04:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If any voters are from the United States, you'd know that you wouldn't have that extra national federal holiday added in 2021 called Juneteenth.  Without this company that would not have been possible.  The last federal holiday established in the US was Martin Luther King day in 1986 (35 year lapse) - let that sink in on the notability and power in question here.  The company is also called out on Opal Lee's Wiki page.  : ""In partnership with global marketing agency INVNT Group, she promoted a petition for a Juneteenth federal holiday at Change.org; the petition received 1.6 million signatures. She said, ""It's going to be a national holiday, I have no doubt about it.  My point is let's make it a holiday in my lifetime. "" 2603:7000:4D3D:173F:4C2F:9DB5:AE2:E053 ( talk ) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are confusing INVNT Group with INVNT. It was INVNT Group the parent company that promoted the Juneteenth and Opal Lee. Icesnowgeorge ( talk ) 21:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the creator of INVNT Group page (not INVNT), I also oppose lumping these two AFD's after the fact. The parent company's page is distinct from its subsidiary INVNT. It is like lumping Pepsico (which owns 22 subsidiaries) and Pepsi, and saying they are the same and they should both get deleted. I also vote to keep INVNT. Reader's Digest being a credible well known publication is unlikely to break the law and publish sponsored articles without paid disclosures. The Reader's Digest article does not sound overly promotional either. It is just talking about the history of the company and their accomplishments. How else can you write an article without mentioning a company's accomplishments? . Here are some examples of articles on Reader's Digest that have been tagged with word like PROMOTED CONTENT or UNBIASED PARTNERSHIP: 1 , 2 . This indicates that they do disclose sponsored and paid posts. The citations previously provided by earlier KEEP voters appear satisfactory to me. Trade publications are permissible and not prohibited by the policies. We simply need to scrutinize for signs of sponsored content or PR articles. For instance, these three articles seem authentic to me. For example, these 3 articles here look genuine to me. 1 , 2 3 Also only EventIndustryNews.com can be considered a trade publication the rest are business publications. It is not accurate that all their citations are trade publicaitons. Icesnowgeorge ( talk ) 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do you oppose the AfDs being merged? All contributors have been notified. You have had an opportunity to contribute. What's the practical injustice in merging them? I'm happy for the closing admin to relist it, but it would be bureaucratic silliness to list them separately when the concerns raised apply to both. In any event, If the parent company isn't dealt with in this AfD, I intend to list it separately later anyway. Local Variable ( talk ) 04:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I see that a few references have been entered here, that speak to the subject's notability, though there are not an abundance of these. Knox490 ( talk ) 00:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's improper to add additional articles for consideration for deletion midway through a deletion discussion. And the way it's been done, XFDCloser, which is the tool we use to close discussions, will not recognize the addition so it will likely be ignored. I encourage the nominator to remove the AFD tag. Any bundling of articles should occur when the nomination is posted, not after. L iz Read! Talk! 07:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz This has been done. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, I'll consider nominating it separately. Thanks. Local Variable ( talk ) 12:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting a source analysis table would be helpful to this discussion as there is disagreement over the independence of the sources brought into this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Weak keep – While there are many press releases, after its removal, I feel like there is just enough in Australian trade publications to make this enough for a smaller article. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/down-to-business/invnt-transforming-brand-potentials Clearly advertorial, has had diminishing rep as well. Native advertising as S0091 said. WP:NEWSORG ? sure ✘ No https://www.eventindustrynews.com/spotlights/agency-spotlights/agency-spotlight-invnt Labelled as ad ? blog? ✘ No https://www.meetings-conventions-asia.com/News/Whats-On/INVNT-bolsters-live-and-virtual-offering-with-new-agency-group press release ? Seems like a minor trade publication ✘ No https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2024/03/05/global-agency-expands-to-tourist-mecca/ Benefit of the doubt ~ A minor local paper, wordpress theme? sure ~ Partial https://ceoworld.biz/2020/02/17/ceo-spotlight-scott-cullather-builds-a-global-footprint-for-invnt/ Assumption Promo website ✘ No https://exeleonmagazine.com/scott-cullather-the-wizard-brand-storytelling/ This is a blatant ad Their about section rings bells ~ about founder ✘ No https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/04/25/invnt-secures-number-client-wins-increasing-revenues-over-54m ""Content created with:"" – ad. Established trade publication This is WP:ROUTINE . ✘ No https://www.forbes.com/sites/partnerreleases/2020/02/20/husband-and-wife-co-founders-of-invnt-join-forbes-speakers-network/?sh=729e400a7fd6 Partner release staff ✘ No https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/08/23/case-study-samsungs-galaxy-note10-unpacked-launch-with-invnt ""Content created with:"" – ad. ✘ No https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/invnt-separates-parent-company-time-inc/1441710?utm_source=website&utm_medium=social ya Established trade pub WP:ROUTINE . ✘ No https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-expands-to-singapore/449496 Benefit of the doubt, although WP:NEWSORGINDIA . ~ a bit WP:ROUTINE . ~ Partial https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-names-new-ecd/450799 Benefit of the doubt, although WP:NEWSORGINDIA . ~ a bit WP:ROUTINE . ~ Partial https://exhibitcitynews.com/invnt-opens-of-london-office-2424/ ~ No byline? Might be press release ~ Not sure ~ Partial https://campaignbrief.com/global-live-brand-event-agency/ I don't think so, it's ""About"" section goes directly to its ""advertise"" section ✘ No https://www.eventindustrynews.com/spotlights/agency-spotlights/agency-spotlight-invnt press release ? ✘ No https://www.brandinginasia.com/invnt-group-and-msm-form-strategic-partnership-to-work-with-brands-across-the-motorsport-industry/ press release https://www.brandinginasia.com/pricing-plans/ ✘ No https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-group-expands-to-india/493847 WP:ROUTINE . ✘ No https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/move-week-invnt-hires-new-chairman/1136609 About John Wringe. ✘ No https://www.adnews.com.au/news/invnt-group-bolsters-apac-team-as-it-celebrates-third-birthday-in-the-region ~ Seems like a minor trade pub in Australia ~ Partial https://www.campaignasia.com/gallery/case-study-xerocon-brisbane/447174 Pay-walled, but a case study seems okay? ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . TLA tlak 03:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify is another route. TLA tlak 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks so much for the table, great work. To me, the obvious conclusion from it is the article falls well short of GNG. Every source has a problem. In my view they can't be summed up to resolve the problem. Nearly all are trade pubs that are just unhelpful in determining notability. Local Variable ( talk ) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Yeah, I get it, there are issues with a lot of the sources. Trade publications are questionable. I'm personally at the weakest weakest keep, as I think there could be enough RS here for a stub or something. TLA tlak 11:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for putting this together TLA.  Walking through the ones which you identify as counting toward notability, almost all of them are press releases/announcements and/or based largely on what the company says: https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2024/03/05/global-agency-expands-to-tourist-mecca/ is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV ( the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business ) https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-expands-to-singapore/449496 is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV ( the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business ) https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-names-new-ecd/450799 is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV ( the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel ) https://exhibitcitynews.com/invnt-opens-of-london-office-2424/ is a press release, Business Wire ProQuest 883465109 , and fails WP:ORGTRIV ( the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops ) https://www.adnews.com.au/news/invnt-group-bolsters-apac-team-as-it-celebrates-third-birthday-in-the-region is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV ( the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel ) https://www.campaignasia.com/gallery/case-study-xerocon-brisbane/447174 is written by a marketing executive/""content creator"" and based largely on what Laura Roberts, INVNT's managing director, says. This is primary source , not independent and may fail WP:RS . Also the vast majority are trade publications and per WP:TRADES there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability .  Either way, none are WP:NCORP qualifying sources for WP:GNG . S0091 ( talk ) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just to add, I agree  none meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – I would strongly suggest the consideration of a redirect to INVNT Group for those who believe delete is the choice here, as an WP:ATD . It is verifiable that INVNT is a subsidiary of INVNT Group, so that only makes sense. TLA tlak 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are there sources supporting the notability of that company? I don't want us to get sidetracked (you'll see the remonstration above about a late joint nom) but to me it's one the same. Neither is notable. So a redirect might be futile. If a redirect is the outcome that's fine,  but I think the target article needs to go through AfD too since it's equally skating on thin ice. Local Variable ( talk ) 07:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, INVNT Group has an article at the moment. I'm between redirect, draftify, weak keep. Maybe the parent company is on thin ice but we can't assume that until a full discussion. TLA tlak 12:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect to INVNT Group . This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .  ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The source table above includes ""partial"" as an option - just to point out, sources cannot be used to establish notability if they don't meet *all* of the criteria. That leaves one source listed as meeting the criteria - except that analysis is flawed and the article is a ""puff profile"" PR piece for the two featured companies and which fails to include any in-depth information on the topic company. HighKing ++ 22:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to INVNT Group : I have not found adequate sources meeting SIRS . Per HighKing, the source assessment table actually shows that this doesn't meet NCORP. Redirecting is an appropriate ATD. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with a redirect to INVNT Group but will likely nom that article given it has some of the same or similar sources. S0091 ( talk ) 20:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly. This AfD is a quagmire because, regrettably, I didn't know this article existed. I don't think they were Wikilinked (or it wasn't obvious if they were). The closing admin should consider closing this AfD as no consensus, and the two can be renominated together for a joint AfD. A redirect is also fine. Local Variable ( talk ) 12:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreeing with this. TLA tlak 14:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Going through the Keep !votes, it is a little confusing as to what the position is currently. For me, none of the sources meet the GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If anyone feels one or other of the sources are being overlooked or unfairly dismissed, can you point to specific sources. It would also be helpful if you also identified specific paragraphs/pages within the sources that you believe contains in-depth ""Independent Content"" *about* the topic company (not products/services/execs/related companies/etc).  HighKing ++ 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Putting aside obvious problems with some of the keep votes, such as one from a single purpose account and those stating a conclusion without reasoning - the problem is that redirection to the parent company's article has been raised as an ATD, but that article suffers from the same problems as you've identified.  Since they weren't joint nom'd, we can't nuke both.  The idea is to renominate both and reconsider it.  Local Variable ( talk ) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Local Variable if this is redirected to INVNT Group, then that article is nom'd and consensus is to delete, the redirect will be deleted as well so same outcome.   I personally don't see a need to re-discuss this one again unless of course it's closed as no consensus.  S0091 ( talk ) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  Local Variable ( talk ) 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  TLA tlak 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Michael Dante (wrestler): Fram ( talk ) 09:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Wrestling ,  and Netherlands .  Fram ( talk ) 09:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines; no reliable sources found.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 14:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to wXw World Tag Team Championship .  There is coverage in niche media and some passing mentions in the regular media.  Not enough for the GNG, yet definitely sufficient for a redirect.  Dante won two world championships twice, one of these has an article.  That's to where we should ATD.  gidonb ( talk ) 23:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"2024 Facebook outage: fails a ten year test and probably a one year test as well.  ltb d l ( talk ) 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support Redirect .  Short (albeit worldwide) outage, not notable.  [Update: Redirect per User:Ritchie333 below.] Dave.Dunford ( talk ) 17:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Obviously too soon, not obviously different from a usual outage.  If any relation to Super Tuesday is noted by RS, I can imagine the outing being covered in the 2024 United States presidential election article, but not in its own stand-alone article.  — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum .  ♠ 17:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete But also consider discounting my ! vote because I was made aware of this offwiki.  G M G talk 17:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2021 Facebook outage and rename as Meta services outages , with a redirect from Facebook services outages , to parallel Google services outages .  Fences & Windows 18:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree with this merge.  2021 Facebook outage has detailed coverage of a particular outage and it would not improve that article to merge with others.  We could make a Meta services outages (and I'd be fine merging this there) but I'd still keep 2021 Facebook outage as a separate page.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Elli , the 2021 Facebook outage is fine as a page, but creating a Meta services outages page could be useful.  Another possibility is broadening the scope of that new article and splitting out the ""technical issues"" section of the overburdened Criticism of Facebook page.  Darker Dreams ( talk ) 00:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outage .  This is one of those cases where I'd say ""I wish we didn't have the article right now"", but since we do, then it was worth seeing if it could be destubbed.  It probably can't, so it can go in the parent article, which was my initial intention of putting in a sentence or two.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ritchie333 that article is already too long (with a boilerplate notice on top about excessive page size).  I think @ Fences and windows 's proposal is better.  JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I think it is too early to create this article as there is not enough information or events + Is every outage we're going to create a single article about?  that convert Wikipedia into a newspaper ( WP:NOTNEWS ) and I think we should merge all previous articles to one article.  -- Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not a significant event.  Fails WP:NSUSTAINED .  -- Wiki Linuz ( talk ) 21:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Computing ,  and Websites .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Clealy does not meet notability guidelines.  There is a very small chance it is WP:TOOSOON but much more likely it has no notability at all.  WP:NOTNEWS applies and under either policy and GNG, this one is a clear delete.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect , per Ritchie333 .  -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?  Lo dicono a Signa.  22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose / Keep WP:RECENTISM is an essay about something that happens at wikipedia, not a deletion criteria or policy.  Part of the essay even makes an argument about recentism being good .  Ten year test is similarly just one way to measure that.  There is clearly enough coverage to meet WP:Notability , which is an inclusion criteria.  The exclusion criteria of WP:Notnews don't apply; this is not ""original reporting"" (it relies on other news reports as primary sources), and it's clearly neither ""who's who"" or ""celebrity gossip and diary.""  The closest notnews exclusion would be ""news reports.""  However, the news reports exclusion is specifically for being WP:ROUTINE information, while those being used are not .  I would support merging to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outage as providing the appropriate level of coverage.  However, I'm concerned that page has been tagged as ""too long to read and navigate comfortably"" since 2021.  It should be cleaned up and possibly split into sub-articles before information is added.  Darker Dreams ( talk ) 23:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But WP:NOTNEWS is policy.  I do not understand how you think the policy does not apply, saying it is because the article relies on other news reports as primary sources .  That is exactly why it does apply.  And as you say, the article is built on primary sources, which is why it does not meet GNG either.  Sources should be secondary for notability.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 23:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I mistyped; I meant ""it relies on other news reports not primary sources.""  Now, looking at WP:PRIMARY I see that ""For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources."" (Which is a wikipedia-ism that I didn't realize before.) Though, in fairness to the stub-like nature of the article, it's done a pretty good job of limiting to verifiable facts without spinning into the problems of breaking news.  Meanwhile, also policy is WP:BREAKING explicitly gives guidelines for handling breaking news which includes WP:DELAY (which we're too late for; already created) and WP:RAPID which is exactly this discussion.  All of that said, I still think that merging would be appropriate - if the target for merge didn't need so much cleanup.  Darker Dreams ( talk ) 00:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- zero assertions of notability.  ⇒ SWAT Jester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!  01:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This article not meet notability guidelines.  Ayane connect me!  01:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Was down for two hours, nothing out of the ordinary for a website.  Doesn't compare to the Rogers outage in Canada or the At&T outage that lasted much longer.  I don't see this as being notable; at best could be a mention in a ""facebook in 2024"" article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete / Merge - If the situation is same as the 2021 Facebook outage article, then we can consider merging it with another article as per Ritchie333's suggestion.  As this is just a login error and not the server having an error, then we can consider deleting this article.  Weareblahs ( talk ) 05:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a 2 hour outage is nothing, at a minimum these outage article should be at least 12 and preferably 24 hours.   As per not news , if there is anything unusual about the outage a line or two in the [{Facebook]] article is enough.  Gnan garra 06:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree, while the length of the outage was only 2 hours, its impact was much more widespread than just ""a web site"" AShugg ( talk ) 10:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fb may be considered more than a just a website, yesthe impact is wide spread given its global reach.  The issue is every incident article worthy, is this one of such significance(not based of the number of news reports).  Any outage of these types of companies should be based on the reason not the numbers reporting it, and then asked if it can be covered in better ways.  This incident is minor and can be covered with just a passing note in the main article for now.  Gnan garra 11:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with 2021 Facebook outage to create Meta services outages per suggestion by @ Fences and windows .  It is not the length of the outage that was significant, but its impact - not only Meta smartphone/web applications (FB, Messenger, Instagram, Threads, WhatsApp, more?) were affected, but any third-party app or service using OpenID to provide a ""Log in with Facebook"" function so that users don't need to create a new account and password.  People were locked out of systems without even realising that they were indirectly depending on Facebook to be functioning correctly.  As such it is a noteworthy lesson for Internet users.  AShugg ( talk ) 10:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Criticism of Facebook : Or create Meta services outages and transfer there.  Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait a month or so, honestly.  Merge with Criticism of Facebook ; 0 signs of sustained coverage after two weeks.  The article states that ""impacts from the outage"" are still being investigated, so we can't know for sure whether or not this event meets or will meet the ""lasting effects"" criteria or the ten year test.  Additionally, since it's recent, we don't have any evidence that future coverage will be sustained or not.  I wouldn't significantly oppose merging, though.  ObserveOwl ( chit-chat • my doings ) 08:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC) (edited 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)) [ reply ] This is an argument that it is WP:TOOSOON .  Per that essay, you might argue for keeping this in draft, even though clearly not ready for mainspace now.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The essay seems to focus more on topics that haven't yet been significantly covered in reliable sources and fail verifiability, which is not the case here.  It doesn't mention much about sustained coverage or impacts from events.  ObserveOwl ( chit-chat • my doings ) 09:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What secondary sources cover Tuesday's outage?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article's reference section highlights sources like The Independent , BBC News and The Washington Post that synthesize information from primary sources, such as Twitter/X and Downdetector reports and statements from Meta and US cybersecurity officials, into somewhat comprehensive articles, meeting the "" synthesis "" part of WP:SECONDARY .  ObserveOwl ( chit-chat • my doings ) 11:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, these are all reporting the event (unsurprising as they are news reports about the event).  They are primary.  See WP:PRIMARYNEWS .  This is true of all the sources in the article save one.  I was prepared to accept this is secondary: [9] , although there might be other things to say about it.  But that is moot as that article is talking about the 2021 outage.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't really know what lasting secondary coverage there will be after an event until... you know, a bit after the event.  Rushing to AfD isn't particularly constructive.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 15:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Flip that around: rushing to create the article isn't particularly constructive.  If you think this may be notable one day (I don't, incidentally) then it can be draftified and worked on pending the arrival of secondary sources.  That is the thrust of WP:TOOSOON also.  I wouldn't oppose draftify as a WP:ATD although I suspect you might be wasting your time.  I could be wrong on that though.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I agree that rushing to create articles on current events that might not be notable isn't particularly constructive.  However, once the page exists, rushing to delete isn't helpful either.  Two months from now this discussion would be much clearer and the harm of having this page exist for two months while probably not being notable is negligible.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait per WP:RAPID . -- Ideophagous ( talk ) 20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Okay, it's a week later and we need to see more of a consensus.  Right now we have editors arguing for Delete, Redirect/Merge (but with different target articles suggested) and Wait which I'm assuming is actually a Keep argument.  This article was created fast and AFD'd fast, has the passage of time clarified the situation any?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outages per Ritchie.  A sentence there is sufficient.  I think that is a better target than 2021 Facebook outage , which was a separate event.  Pawnkingthree ( talk ) 01:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment having not seen anything reported about the event since it happened, I stand by my intial delete comment.   I can see common sense decision in making it a rediect to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outages .  Gnan garra 07:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Así Es (Américo album): Charsaddian ( talk ) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Américo : Found no additional coverage.  Sources on es:Así es (álbum de Américo) are no good (one's just a discography list and the other's an artist bio with only a passing mention of this album).  Note that I don't have access to any Chile/Latin America-specific archives, assuming they exist, so there could be plenty of coverage that just isn't archived where I can see it.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 11:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Potential keep I am fairly sure this album did receive press coverage to make it worthy enough of an article, but the problem is that these sources are offline and may only be available at Chile's National Library.  This album contains probably Americo's most famous song ""El embrujo"" (the cover of a Peruvian song), and although it was released in 2008, I remember it received some heavy airplay still by 2012.  This article on La Tercera only makes a passing mention of ""Asi es"".  ""Sus fans suelen seguirlo a todo el país y se saben de memoria su primer disco como solista Américo, Así Es, donde destaca ""El Embrujo"", su gran éxito"" (His fans often track him down all over the country and have memorized his first solo album, Así es, which features his greatest hit ""El embrujo"").  Another potential source is El Mercurio, but for some time even its search function is behind a paywall I can no longer access it (I used to be a subscriber).  This 2016 article also by La Tercera [1] says: ""mpartirTras aquel exitoso tándem de discos de Américo, Así es (2008) y A morir (2008), que incluyen los mayores hit del ariqueño -El embrujo, Te vas, o Que levante la mano-, vino el premio mayor: un aplaudido show en Festival de Viña 2010."" (After the successful albums of Americo, Así es (2008) and A morir (2008), which include the greatest hits of the Arica man -""El embrujo"", ""Te vas"" or ""Que levante la mano""- came his greatest award: a show at Viña del Mar Song Festival 2010).  This bio of Americo at Música Popular reads: ""En 2007 grabó Así es, donde figuran los singles “El embrujo” (del autor peruano Estanis Mogollón, una de las más escuchadas de ese año) y “Traicionera”, ambos con gran rotación en radios tropicales. [...] Fue en 2008, tras ese éxito reciente de Así es, cuando pasó de ser de una figura a un fenómeno tropical"" (In 2007 he recorded Así es, featuring singles ""El embrujo"" (by Peruvian songwriter Estanis Mogollón, one of the most listened-to songs that year) and ""Traicionera"", both on heavy rotation at tropical radio stations.  [...] It was in 2008, after that recent success of Así es, when [Americo] went from becoming a tropical figure to a phenomenon).  -- Bedivere ( talk ) 18:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Américo .  I don't necessarily disagree that offline/foreign-language sources may be out there, but even if this album is notable, we have the editorial discretion to cover it ""as part of a larger page about a broader topic"", as WP:NOPAGE puts it.  That's what makes the most sense in this case: we can easily redirect to the singer's article without a substantive loss of information, and the alternative – what NOPAGE describes as ""a permanent stub"" – isn't desirable for editors or readers.  Obviously this calculus would change if someone were actually able to dig up the offline/foreign-language sources discussed above, so if that happens (unlikely but possible), the editor shouldn't hesitate to un-redirect the article and add the additional content.  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Evelyn Smythe: While generally notable in universe, I can't find many sources displaying outside notability in a BEFORE.  She's listed at the Companions article, so a redirect there could work as an ATD.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blank and redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters § with the Sixth Doctor .  This looks like entirely unsourced fancruft to me.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 05:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as lacking reliable sources.  A redirect is cheap, per WP:ATD .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Still unsure whether this article should be blanked (as in creating a regular Redirect) or fully Deleted.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters#with the Sixth Doctor - Minor character that only appeared in spinoff material.  No significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG .  The character is already listed on the appropriate character list, so redirecting there is sufficient.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters#with the Sixth Doctor as AtD, fails GNG no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject diretly and indepth.  Article reads as fancruft.  // Timothy :: talk 11:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Nathan Elams Cockrell: Subject does not fall under any of the WP:NBIO 's ""Additional criteria"", and is thus governed solely by WP:NBASIC which is functionally equivalent to WP:GNG - which the sourcing isn't even close to reaching.  The identified sourcing is limited to passing mentions (refs #1, #3 and #4 as of the time of AfD start) as well as a dead link to the generally unreliable Ancestry.com website (ref #2 as of the time of AfD start).  I'm unable to identify further coverage that would contribute towards meeting the GNG.  Ljleppan ( talk ) 05:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not opposed to a to redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon either.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 06:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America .  Ljleppan ( talk ) 05:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Fraternities and sororities ,  and Alabama .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon .  Please ping me if more sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote.  𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 19:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon .  I can't find anything more than passing mentions.  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 07:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , and continue to improve the article.   The Fraternity and Sorority Project is working on many such pages, and is quite thorough in improvements and citations once we attend to each one.   An arbitrary AfD prod, here, after the article had been in place for 17 years is unhelpful - though we appreciate the alert that it needs work.  We agree.   We have the space, and clarifying which Nathan Cockrell was SAE's founder is valuable to those involved in this organization.   It is reasonable to allow articles for founders of the 1,500 or so national academic, or honor, or professional fraternities and societies as the development of a national fraternity is in itself noteworthy.  While the founders are often deceased, their notability does not decrease over time.   For many of these, thousands of collegiate members seek biographical information about the founders, memorize their names, and seek to understand their legacies.  As Wikipedia is a work in progress, please let this process continue.  Jax MN ( talk ) 00:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon .  There does not appear to be referencing other than passing mentions.  Subjects are not notable because they founded a notable organization (or in this case, was one of eight founding members), there must be significant coverage by reliable sources to prove that they themselves meet Wikipedia's notability standards.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 12:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Treadwell, Georgia: The post office, everyone seems to agree, was named ""Amzi"", but GNIS cites a Board of Geog.  Names decision which is dated Jan. 12, 1897 in preferring Treadwell.  Nonetheless, the name didn't appear on the topos until it was back-added from GNIS, and the latter claims that the source of all its info on the spot comes from ADC maps.  I have a lot of experience with the latter (everyone around here used them for street maps before Garmin) and I wouldn't take them as terribly authoritative on this sort of place name— but also, if the name didn't get entered until 1993, what's with the 1897 decision?  And where did ADC get the name from?  This leaves us with the 1900-era cyclopedia, which has come up before.  It mentions Amzi, but I can't tell whether it also mentions Treadwell, because apparently only the fist volume (A-E) is available online.  Again, we have the population figure which doesn't appear to come from the census.  Amzi is called a ""post-village"", which could mean a place that's just a post office.  And the authors seem unaware of the BoGN decision.  My reading is that this is an area served by a post office, but without evidence that it is a distinct settlement.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state) .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a more thorough history, which explains why the name Smith Treadwell kept popping up and the whole Treadwell connection, at https://www.murraycountymuseum.com/book_01.html#CHAPTER_IV .   It has the school, mill, shop, church, and craft fair.   There's parallel coverage in various history books (and presumably contemporary newspaper reports given the citations) about Smith Treadwell's gravestone in the Treadwell cemetery in Spring Place, which weathered in an unusual and suggestive manner in the late 19th century.  Uncle G ( talk ) 11:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I grew up in the area, and am familliar with many people involved with that book (that Uncleg is talking about), It's practically self published, though.  It's also probably about all your going to find history wise on Treadwell or Amzi.  Probably not going to be enough sources to write and article.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] merge to the murray county article I added it to the list there.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep it has a stated population (though not apparently from a census) and name origin.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as not encyclopedically notable jengod ( talk ) 17:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus yet.  I assume the Merge target article is Murray County, Georgia .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Murray County, Georgia , almost certainly lacks coverage.  Mach61 05:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Connect.com.au: It may have been one of the first ISPs in Australia but that fact itself does not confer automatic notability.  Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:CORP .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Computing ,  and Australia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : significant coverage provided by book in 2nd reference.  Yet again LibStar nominates an article with clear significant coverage.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We need multiple sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 09:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The book that is currently the second reference contains one instance of the text string ""connect.com.au"": AARNet introduced its value added reseller program, with the first Internet service provider in this formal sense being connect.com.au, in May 1994.  That's not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination.  There's one other relevant sentence on p. 52, a passing mention in a section about another company .  If we are to have this article, we need a better basis than that.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 13:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks XOR'Easter, yes that's not significant coverage, Jack's ! vote is based on defective reasoning.  LibStar ( talk ) 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It may make more sense to say what can be said about this in the article Internet in Australia , which has historical sections.  Trimmed of the vaguely advertorial language (e.g., assuring the future competitiveness of Australia's wholesale and business internet market ), what's left might slot in there nicely.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The accessible sources are just trivial mentions.  The subject does not seem important enough to be added to Internet in Australia#History , as the only claim of significance that can be backed by a source is that the subject was the first user of AARNet .  Redirects to AARNet or AAPT Limited don't seem to be viable either.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 19:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to, or weak merge into, Internet in Australia § History per XOR and Tutwakhamoe.  -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 22:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Internet in Australia , or weak redirect , per XOR; they do fit together nicely, and it makes more sense to build out that article than to have a mostly unsourced article here.  DFlhb ( talk ) 07:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"TSJ FC Virginia: All of the coverage in the article is either about the Washington Spirit or is a primary press release, or an article on a former player which only briefly mentions the organisation.  There is a WPSL section, but a third tier soccer team in the USA wouldn't necessarily pass WP:GNG, and I can't find any information on them either.  SportingFlyer T · C 00:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Virginia .  SportingFlyer T · C 00:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2006 WPSL season , only claim to fame.  Giant Snowman 21:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  I expanded this article after stumbling on it in a few different contexts and noticing it hadn't been updated since around 2009.  I don't oppose deletion.  I disagree with GiantSnowman that the one-year existence in WPSL is its only or most notable trait since there's even less coverage available of that than the first Burke abuse allegations or the Torres hiring controversy, which are connected to what happened at the Spirit but about FCV.  Its connections as the youth club of a few senior USWNT players are also more notable than the one WPSL season, though not enough on its own for GNG.  Most of the content for the WPSL season is also unsourced, and I can't find sources for it.  I'd rather summarize this article's contents in a separate article about The St. James (sports complex) , which has considerably more IS/RS/SIGCOV ( USA Today ; Northern Virginia Magazine 1 , 2 , Washington Business Journal 1 , 2 ; The Athletic on the Spirit bid; plus RS but likely non-IS NBC Sports on its MLS DC United partnership; Washingtonian 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ; and all the cited SoccerWire and W&M mag content) and then redirect this and the old article title F.C. Virginia to that.  - Socccc ( talk ) 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no opposition to either of these options, though the Spirit controversy only seems very tangentially about the team.  SportingFlyer T · C 00:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The initial allegations against Burke of using abusive language toward players was reported by a parent of a FCV player, and those alleged incidents occurred entirely while Burke was at FCV and before the Spirit hired him.  FCV hired Torres well after Torres had exited the Spirit.  Both of those events got significant, independent, and reliable coverage in the context of FCV, particularly Burke's alleged abuse at FCV ( Burke 1 with out-of-market print syndication , 2 ; Torres ).  But I don't disagree that if FCV isn't already notable on its own, then that alone doesn't make it so.  The St. James bid for the Spirit is admittedly tangential as context for the connections between TSJ, FCV, and the Spirit, and better served between the Spirit's article and an article about The St. James org/complex, not FCV.  - Socccc ( talk ) 02:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft for an article on The St. James, which summarizes FC Virginia, its acquisition, and connections to the Spirit, is at Draft:The St. James (sports complex) .  If approved for AfC, I'd suggest redirecting to that article.  If not approved, I suggest redirecting to Women's Premier Soccer League , which lists it, and categorizing the redirect under Category:Elite Clubs National League teams to capture the youth soccer context.  - Socccc ( talk ) 02:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft passed AfC and is live at The St. James (sports complex) .  - Socccc ( talk ) 15:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  There is support for a Redirect but different target articles offered.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A redirect to Women's Premier Soccer League is the best option because it is listed as a team, whereas in 2006 WPSL season it is listed as a participant.  Karnataka ( talk ) 17:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Semantic primes: It would make more sense to move any substantial content there instead.  The A universal syntax of meaning and Natural semantic metalanguage sections are completely unsourced and don't appear to conform to the encyclopedic style.  NicolausPrime ( talk ) 02:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics , Logic , Philosophy ,  and Language .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We'd be well advised to leave a redirect page in place after the deletion of Semantic primes.  Kubis ( talk ) 05:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or Redirect - it's a common enough term so we should merge the useful, well-cited content and keep the page as a redirect - car chasm ( talk ) 07:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the section in Natural semantic metalanguage .  I'm struggling to find anything worth keeping here aside from the table, which is already in the target article, but I suppose we can keep the page history under the redirect just in case.  – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 12:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think having the term itself as a redirect is more valuable than the page history, but I've updated my vote as I'm also fine with redirecting.  - car chasm ( talk ) 17:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Edward J. Plunkett: Relies on one source, Google results reveal only that ""Edward J. Plunkett"" is a fairly common name.  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America .  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts , although also borderline on weak-keep (if other sources are found).  I have checked the old newspaper archives and there isn't a great deal of WP:SIGCOV , perhaps surprising for someone who at the time was the youngest ever elected.  There are numerous passing mentions, but not enough to build an article from.  Even the single book citation offered (which I have now linked) is merely just a paragraph on half a page.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 17:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect per Bungle.  I like the photo, but mayors, especially of small towns, generally aren't notable, and the article as written fails WP:GNG .  SportingFlyer T · C 17:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the fact that he was in office for only one year (according to the infobox) doesn't help his case.  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 17:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This may well be true, but so it also seems to be true for others listed on the List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts article (many of who also have their own article, which are either mostly or exclusively cited to that single book source).  I am not suggesting an argument for WP:OTHERSTUFF and stand by my suggestion to redirect, though i'd also suggest a wider discussion around the other articles, some of which have existed over 10 years, may be worthwhile too.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 20:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and/or redirect him to the list .  Marlborough MA is not large enough to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on its mayors in the absence of significant reliable source coverage about their political significance — at the mayoral level of office, the notability test is not passed by minimally verifying that he existed, but by writing and sourcing a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his time in office had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.  But that's not what's on offer here.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts ?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of mayors of Marlborough, Massachusetts Nothing is present here that leads to this subject getting to WP:GNG or WP:NPOL .  Another recent mayor from this town had an Afd recently and that ended up being the result Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romeo Gadbois .  User:Let'srun 13:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"David Knights: __ Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 10:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Inertialess drive: While it is plausible the topic could be notable , given the ORish state of this, nothing here is rescuable; 80% of the article is a plot summary for Lensman series , and the remainder 20% is unsourced OR in the WP:IPC -failing style of ""this term also appears in the following random works"".  WP:TNT treatment is advised, although WP:ATD-R allows for a less drastic solution of redirecting this to Space travel in science fiction where the term is mentioned.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Spaceflight .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m obviously biased, since I was the first contributor, but “a pure piece of WP:OR , poorly sourced” is clearly incorrect:  The first two footnotes are uncontroversially secondary research, and there are nine other footnotes, which I think is above average for a Wikipedia article of this length.   I can’t speak to the quality of citations by other contributors, but would welcome specific corrections.  — FlashSheridan ( talk ) 19:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To my surprise, there seem to be 368 pages that link to it (a number which could perhaps use some filtering); that’s a lot of red links to fix.  — FlashSheridan ( talk ) 19:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are 325 pages that transclude Template:Science fiction , which includes a link to inertialess drive , so the numbers for links to the latter are almost certainly heavily inflated by that (some pages may of course transclude the template and include a separate link to this article).  TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FlashSheridan , could you perhaps elaborate upon what you are referring to when you speak of secondary research here?  I am a bit confused by the article itself in terms of what's in-universe and what's real-world.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 20:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] > could you perhaps elaborate upon what you are referring to when you speak of secondary research here?  Citations to “The Epic of Space,” page 84, in Of Worlds Beyond, 1947, and to Samuel Lawrence Bigelow’s Theoretical and Physical Chemistry.  Of Worlds Beyond was quite important in the intellectual history of early science fiction, and I dare say most readers have been puzzled by Dr Smith’s reference.  > I am a bit confused by the article itself in terms of what's in-universe and what's real-world.  That’s fair criticism, and I’d be happy to fix it.  — FlashSheridan ( talk ) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I have that right, the article cites E. E. Smith 's essay from Of Worlds Beyond (1947) to verify that Samuel Lawrence Bigelow's Theoretical and Physical Chemistry (1912) was the first mention of an inertialess drive?  And this is real-world background information for what follows, which is all in-universe?  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, so I was able to access Of Worlds Beyond via the Internet Archive .  The relevant passage on page 84 is I would not use mathematically impossible mechanics, such as that too-often-revived monstrosity of a second satellite hiding eternally from Earth behind the moon.  Since the inertia of matter made it impossible for even atomic energy to accelerate a space-ship to the velocity I had to have, I would have to do away with inertia.  Was there any mathematical or philosophical possibility, however slight, that matter could exist without inertia?  There was—I finally found it in no less an authority than Bigelow (Theoretical Chemistry—Fundamentals).  Einstein's Theory of course denies that matter can attain such velocities, but that did not bother me at all.  It is still a theory—velocities greater than that of light are not absolutely mathematically impossible.  That is enough for me.  In fact, the more highly improbable a concept is—short of being contrary to mathematics whose fundamental operations involve no neglect of infinitesimals—the better I like it.  So Smith does not actually say that Bigelow was the first one to propose inertialess travel, only that that's where he (Smith) got the idea from.  I hardly think we can call this secondary research, contrary to your assertion that it is uncontroversially so.  We're citing Smith about where Smith got inspiration for a story Smith wrote, in a passage describing that story by Smith.  Combine this with the WP:Writing about fiction issues present here and the fact that the article otherwise relies entirely on the primary literature (i.e. the works of fiction themselves), and I think the description of the article in the nomination is rather apt.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] >   So Smith does not actually say that Bigelow was the first one to propose inertialess travel, only that that's where he (Smith) got the idea from.  Fair point; the absence of contrary evidence is of course not conclusive, though for an intellectual history it is rather suggestive.   Happy to make the correction.  >  We're citing Smith about where Smith got inspiration for a story Smith wrote, in a passage describing that story by Smith.  Yes, in one of the key early books on the intellectual history of science fiction (admittedly rather a recondite area).   Citing that didn’t seem like original research to me.  — FlashSheridan ( talk ) 22:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not original research, but getting it straight from the horse's mouth is not exactly secondary research either, now is it?  This entire article relies on WP:Primary sources , in violation of policy.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 22:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was published in a volume edited by someone else, as close as existed at the time to a scholarly publication on the subject.   (One of the few available, in my experience, in ordinary bookshops, even decades later.)  As I recall (from the few times I’ve done it myself), this would have allowed Dr Smith himself to cite it, so it seems odd for you to forbid someone else to rely on it.  — FlashSheridan ( talk ) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You may think it odd, but remember that there are significant differences between Wikipedia and scholarly sources.  Scholarly sources encourage original thought, while WP:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought .  Scholarly sources largely prefer primary sources, while Wikipedia largely prefers secondary sources.  And so on.  Mind you that the only sentence in the entire article that (1) is referenced (2) to something other than a work of fiction is The possibility of inertialess travel was first suggested in Theoretical and Physical Chemistry, published in 1912 by the Tellurian chemist Samuel Lawrence Bigelow , an alumnus of Harvard .  —and the sources there are Of Worlds Beyond (discussed above; I'll also note for the record that the note Piotrus alludes to below reads, in its entirety, ""The Epic of Space,"" page 84, in Of Worlds Beyond, 1947. Dr. Smith gives the title as Theoretical Chemistry–Fundamentals, and provides only a last name. Given the other errors in “The Epic of Space,” e.g., “Trweel” for “Tweel” on page 80, the misspelling of “Constantinescu” on page 84, and, arguably, E. E. Evan 's analysis of Triplanetary on page 87, the error does not seem implausible. ), a library entry to verify the year of publication for Theoretical and Physical Chemistry , and a webpage that appears to get its information from Ancestry.com (at least, the webpage states at the bottom that RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community. ), a WP:Generally unreliable source per WP:ANCESTRY.COM , to verify that Bigelow went to Harvard.  The rest either lacks any kind of source at all or relies improperly on the works of fiction themselves.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 08:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Space travel in science fiction where this is covered with better sources.  There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a split, here.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] > Space travel in science fiction where this is covered with better sources.  No, that article doesn’t mention either Of Worlds Beyond or Theoretical and Physical Chemistry.  — FlashSheridan ( talk ) 20:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Key words: ""better sources"".  As opposed to: WP:OR .  PS.  TompaDompa already explained it in detail above.  It is quite possible we can add a sentene or two to the ""Space travel..."" article, based on secondary sources.  And for the record, there will be no red links to fix - per the nom, there should be no hard deletion, just redirection (due to this failing WP:GNG , in particular, SIGCOV requirement).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And one more reply: it does not - and why should it?  Those works are not mentioned in the nominated article outside a confusing footnote.  And that footnote is very ORish, ex.  ""Given the other errors in..."".  Who says there were errors, and how is this relevant to the article?  I am sorry, but I did say this is a ""mess"" and it needs a WP:TNT treatment, and I stand by this assessment.  What was passable in 2006 is very much not so in 2024.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm very new here, so I'm not sure my opinion matters, and I'm probably going to make a mess out of the formatting expectations for this process because yikes .  There do seem to be some sources that discuss this as a trope with value to the craft of science-fiction storytelling.  I found a book that confirms Triplanetary as the first use and describes the trope as a means to end-run physics and allow galactic-scale storytelling ( Gunn, James.  Alternate Worlds: The Illustrated History of Science Fiction (3rd ed.).  McFarland.  p. 134.  ISBN 978-1-4766-7353-0 .  ).  Paul Gilster is a fairly respected space technology writer who also describes the fictional history of the concept, including precursors to Triplanetary .  and it's real-world futurist applications or likely, lack thereof ( Gilster, Paul (2004).  Centauri Dreams: Imagining and Planning Interstellar Exploration .  Springer.  ISBN 978-1-4419-1818-5 .  ).  I don't have access to this , but Google suggests some relevancy.  There's also a lot of ufology nonsense about the topic, which I'm sure isn't enough to actually make a topic a thing but is.. .  maybe worth noting in an article with wider context?  It's a fictional element either way, after all.  Lubal ( talk ) 20:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Welcome to Wikipedia in general and WP:Articles for deletion in particular.  Being new in no way makes your input less valid/relevant/important.  I took a look at those sources.  Gunn makes a rather brief mention of inertialess drives on pp. 134–135 .  I would characterize that as a passing mention falling short of WP:Significant coverage of the topic (Gunn doesn't discuss the concept, he merely mentions it in the context of Smith's fiction).  Gilster similarly briefly mentions inertialess drives on pp. 173–174 .  When it comes to your last source, searching for ""inertialess"" on Google Books gives me no results .  So it does not appear to me that those sources would be a sufficient foundation for an article on this topic, though they may be useful for other articles on related topics.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re: That third source.  That's... interesting, because Google gave me this snippet: ""Some early SF writers posited a hypothetical “inertialess drive”, which was capable of reducing a spacecraft’s mass to zero and hence neutralizing its resistance to acceleration. Such...""  No idea as to further context; like I said, I don't have access to that one.  And I certainly don't understand how Google handles searching/snippeting of otherwise ""unavailable"" text.  Otherwise, is there a bright-line rule on what constitutes passing mention?  Gilster, in particular, seems to give the topic a couple of paragraphs of attention in the context of fictional elements that some people hope might not be completely impossible (that cited footnote from Arthur C. Clarke might also be worth scaring up).  On the other hand, the whole ""ZPF might let us delete inertia"" thing, Clarke included, is about six inches short of total nonsense, so while I think this is more than a ""passing mention,"" I also don't think it's a source I'd want to hang my hat on.  Lubal ( talk ) 21:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is indeed peculiar, though Google is of course known to be fickle at times.  Alright: looking into it a bit more (i.e. checking a PDF of the book instead of the Google Books page), it turns out that the book says Some early SF writers posited a hypothetical ""inertialess drive"", which was capable of reducing a spacecraft's mass to zero and hence neutralizing its resistance to acceleration.  Such drives appear in the novel Triplanetary by E. E. Smith, originally serialized in Amazing Stories in 1934, and in Kenneth Robeson's ""The Secret in the Sky"" from the May 1935 issue of Doc Savage magazine.  These early treatments of inertialess drives assume that nullifying an object's mass would make it easier to accelerate and manoeuvre.  That would be true if the inertial mass was reduced substantially, but not all the way to zero.  on page 112 (annoyingly, Google lets me preview page 111 and 113, but not 112...).  This, however, seems to be the only mention in the book.  As to your question about whether there is a bright-line rule : not really, it comes down to editorial judgment.  To quote myself from a 2021 AfD discussion : what WP:SIGCOV says is "" Significant coverage "" 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.  There does not exist any general consensus about where to draw the line, so we judge it case-by-case.  Some editors focus on length of coverage; a cut-off of WP:One hundred words has been suggested.  Some editors focus on breadth of coverage.  Some editors focus on depth of coverage.  A pretty good starting point, in my opinion, is the following passage from WP:WHYN : We require ""significant coverage"" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.  If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed.  Which is why we ma want to consdier if we could add a short paragraph based on these sources to Space travel... ?  It is a Good Article, and we cannot bloat it with fancrufty plot description and ORish examples, but the sources we found likely lend themselves to a sentence or two.  What do you think?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure if it changes anything.  I agree that most of the sources discussing this topic don't individually have a lot to say about it, but there are quite a few sources that say something , and they aren't saying the same thing.  I took a shot at workshopping what this might look like if we were going to rewrite it entirely and then keep it.  It's at User:Lubal/Inertialess .  Separately, there's another article at inertia negation that probably more or less overlaps this topic and is arguably even worse.  That one might need to be redirected or deleted, too.  Lubal ( talk ) 21:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lubal I've AfD the terrible article you reported; as for your rewrite, it looks quite solid although right now I do not have time to spot check the sources.  I wonder what User:TompaDompa will say?  Side note: if the current article is deleted and then you add your version, it might be eligible for DYK.  Otherwise, if we replace the content now, it would not, I think.  Which does not make sense, IMHO, but rules are rules.  Perhaps I misunderstand them - ping @ BlueMoonset for a comment on this?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Piotrus , it's unlikely that an article that's deleted and recreated in short succession will be considered eligible for DYK.  Especially since any recreation would likely include the pre-deletion history.  Whatever is ultimately done, don't include DYK in your calculus unless the article ends up a 15K+ prose character monster.  BlueMoonset ( talk ) 05:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BlueMoonset I see.  That's unfortunate, seems to me like it is a topic to discyss at DYK.  What Lubal did is to effectively write a new article; why shouldn't his work be recognized by the DYK community?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm unsure if I'll have time to check Lubal 's draft at User:Lubal/Inertialess ; I'll get back to you if and when I do.  As a note to the closer , it may be worth relisting this discussion specifically to give editors time to reach consensus on whether the draft should replace the old version.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 06:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PS.  Same author as the negation, but this  might be notable.  Still looks bad enough to warrant WP:TNT : Inertia damper .  Any thoughts on what to do with that one?  AfD, or is it passable?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Space travel in science fiction per Shooterwalker .   Secondary sources to establish notability are very thin.   What can be properly sourced is probably worth a paragraph in a broader article rather than it's own article.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 07:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eluchil404 What do you think about replacing it with User:Lubal/Inertialess ?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .   That draft is a significant improvement.   I am essentially neutral as to whether it works better as a separate article or a section in the broader topic.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 22:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Space travel in science fiction#Means of travel .  After seeing the draft article, I'm still not really convinced that it needs to be separate and not just part of the broader article on space travel.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Karin Vogel: A reporter did some OR and identified what he thought was the last in the line of succession.  In reality the lne of succession is almost infinite, if one whole line died out the rules allow succession to be tracked back to earlier monarchs and through wider family connections.  This is just trivial nonsense.  Was PRODed and dePRODded before, hence this AfD.  Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany .  Velella Velella Talk 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notability is established by all the media coverage already cited in the article, including an article in The Wall Street Journal .  Contrary to the nominator's claim, the line of succession is distinctly finite.  It consists only of descendants of Sophia of Hanover .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Interesting human interest story, but without much more, I don't see notability.  Medical therapist interviewed a decade ago with nothing since, I don't see sustained coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : 4972nd in line, if that helps.  Could be a one line mention in an article about the monarchy, but that's all.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Succession to the British throne , a sentence on the lines of ""In 2011 it was reported that some genealogists had stated that therapist Karin Vogel, from Rostoock, Germany, was then the 4,972nd and last in the line of succession."" with the various sources.  (The WSJ seems to be the core report, but is pay-walled so I can't see it).  Seems an encyclopedia-worthy snippet of reporting, but not enough to give her an article of her own.  Pam D 21:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking more carefully at Succession to the British throne I note that the list on which she appears is mentioned and referenced, as is the update  10 years later where she was again in last place, this time at 5,753.  I have added her name and a couple of her refs to that article.  I now think we can just Redirect to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession .  Pam D 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, the reporters were not ""doing OR"" as asserted by the nominator: they were reporting on a report by a notable genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner who had compiled what he asserted to be a complete list (and yes, it is a finite set of people because of the requirement that they be descendants of Sophia, although this list is over-inclusive as it doesn't check for ""in communion with the Church of England""!).  Pam D 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect .  WP:ONEEVENT .  DrKay ( talk ) 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect .  Stub with limited opportunity for growth.  66.99.15.163 ( talk ) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : while not the definition of WP:ONEEVENT , this person isn't notable.  They hold a spot in a line, that, because of it's position, has received news coverage.  Redirect is suitable as she is mentioned at the target: Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession , per PamD.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Terry Lee Miall: Sources are a database record on AllMusic, an article with name mentions, and a dead link.  BEFORE found name mentions but nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indeph .  No objection to a redrect to Adam and the Ants#Members where the subject is listed.  // Timothy :: talk 06:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , England ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Adam and the Ants#Members as suggested by the nominator.  All of Miall's notable accomplishments are as a member of that group.  A couple of magazine articles mention that he was later a plumber and joined a different band, but those are not notable or significant facts that merit a separate article.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 21:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Adam and the Ants . Clearly doesn't warrant a standalone article, but should certainly be retained as a redirect and there's content here that should be merged. -- Michig ( talk ) 15:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doubtful on whether there is anything worth merging.  He was later a plumber and joined a non-notable local band, neither of which is relevant to the history of Adam and the Ants.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 18:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Adam and the Ants#Members , per comments above.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 16:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Judge (2000 AD): I prodded it with the following rationale: ""The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.""  It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "" I think this needs to go to AfD"" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Comics and animation .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This looks like a rehash of the premise for the series.  Lacking reliable sources as is, but WP:BEFORE doesn't really distinguish between this and the series itself.  Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 04:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale ""I think this needs to go to AfD"" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale...  As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none.  As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen.  I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion.  Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial.  To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep BUT leave flags for improvement The page itself seems notable for the comic, video game and cinema universe but it's not realistic in my opinion to only provide print sources for the comic book itself plus Facebook to cite an article of this length.  Definitely needs improvement but I personally would keep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingHistoryFan ( talk • contribs ) 22:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2000 AD (comics) as WP:ATD-R — siro χ o 04:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Judge Dredd .  Richard75 ( talk ) 10:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: We have two different suggested target articles for Redirect/Merge.  Please settle on one.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to provide some context to my above suggestion.  I think 2000 AD (comics) is more appropriate as the work originating the concept.  Personally, I think redirecting from an idea to a fictional character is more WP:ASTONISHing than redirecting to the work originating the idea.  I am of course willing to hear alternative points of view.  — siro χ o 04:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ! voting delete above, I could support a redirect to 2000 AD (comics) , as suggested by Siroxo.  Following on their comment, I could also be convinced for another idea.  Further expansion and/or retargeting could happen through the editing process after the AFD is closed.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Firetalk: Couldn't find any other reliable independent sources to show notability.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Seems to be a band with this name and a blog from the Illinois Fire Service, nothing for this web portal thing.  One reference isn't enough.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to FireTeam (video game) : where it is already mentioned.  Owen× ☎ 01:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above as non-notable.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"News Central (Philippine TV series): The only source fails WP:RS , because [22] is tied to the admin or producer of the news cast (non-independent source).  Unless more sources that are reliable and unaffliated to ABS-CBN are found, this article fails WP:Notability and must be removed.  JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 10:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television ,  and Philippines .  JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 10:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Yet another outsourced and unnotable Filipino newscast.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Studio 23 --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 06:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs aired by Studio 23 : as WP:ATD .  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs aired by Studio 23 per nom.  CastJared ( talk ) 15:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Alicia Zaban: The subject has earned at least one cap for the Guyana women's national football team .  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Canada , Caribbean ,  and South America .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"List of Bewitched home video releases: Ajf773 ( talk ) 01:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Bewitched episodes and potentially merge some of the content there.  While it seems clear to me that this topic does not have standalone notability, I don't think it matters whether it is ""cruft"" or not.  jp × g 18:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per JPxG above.  FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 22:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete most of these “list of home video x” things have been deleted or are heading that way and I see no logic to a redirect, besides the general logic that Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap which doesn’t mean you should always redirect deletable material if there’s even the tiniest plausible excuse for one.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Textbook case of NOTCATALOGUE.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom.  There is not any content that is really suitable for merging to the proposed List of Bewitched episodes , and a redirect would not make a whole lot of sense, as I doubt this would be a particularly common search term.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Sleep Tight (Angel): This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid.  In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.  Previous REDIRECT was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Television ,  and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 18:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unreferenced and near-entirely plot summary, which are both no-goes on Wikipedia.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and above.  // Timothy :: talk 15:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Zoës and Zeldas: Tagged for notability since 2019.  PROD removed with ""de-prod, adding 1 source, coming back to this later currently travelling"" about a month ago.  Nothing signifigant added since then.  Donald D23 talk to me 12:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation ,  and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 12:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect , target BoJack Horseman (season 1) surely.   Do we need to be here for this?  Hiding T 09:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : to BoJack Horseman (season 1) , fails GNG, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to BoJack Horseman (season 1) , where the episode is mentioned.  CycloneYoris talk!  21:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Sports City Stadium (Doha): After opening Google Maps, it's shown the stadium isn't exists, that means it might be cancelled, so it's might be not relevant anymore.  Also this should be deleted too: https://football.fandom.com/wiki/Sports_City_Stadium Chuanchauau 01:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Football ,  and Qatar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup#Stadiums , where it can be mentioned.  Giant Snowman 20:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 08:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and Merge : per Giant Snowman Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above as plausible search term.  Fats40boy11 ( talk ) 08:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"TVP Info HD: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect to TVP Info .  Article attempt did not provide sources.  Jalen Folf (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to TVP Info The HD channel is just that now and the main feed.  Nate • ( chatter ) 19:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above, unreferenced substub, catalogue-entry level, no interwiki, nothing suggests this needs to be a stand-alone entry.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to TVP Info which is now the HD channel.  Rupples ( talk ) 21:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Classic Rewind: However, there have been multiple reverts of bold redirections in the last several years, and at some point an AfD discussion is necessary to have a consensus that can keep this.  Pinging the users who have made the reverts this year, PrincessJoey2024 and SouthParkFan65 , as well as Tdl1060 who restored the redirect in February 2023.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 02:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 02:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels § Rock — before all those restorations, it was pointing to that section specifically and not merely to the list alone — would appear to be the logical alternative to deletion here, as with many other Sirius XM channels without separate notability.  (I again must point out that even the pre-2021 version of the NRADIO essay, amidst its overpresumption of notability on the broadcast side,",redirect
"Canesadooharie River: The identity of this river has been disputed, but there were never two rivers (or anything else) called Canesadooharie.  Richard Keatinge ( talk ) 20:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions .  Richard Keatinge ( talk ) 20:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This article adds nothing new that is not already covered article at Canesadooharie .  It is a duplicate article that is best deleted.  Paul H. ( talk ) 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Canesadooharie , as a plausible title.  Pam D 08:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect if mentioned.  No need for a DAB with only 1 entry and there doesn't appear to be others.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Canesadooharie , since the page has existed for a while (not always as a disambiguation) and redirects are cheap.  Hatman31 ( talk ) 04:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Brzozowo-Kolonia: I also can't find anything on it besides a barn fire.  Ilawa-Kataka ( talk ) 05:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:GEOLAND only raises a presumption of notability for legal recognised populated places, not individual buildings (these fall under WP:NBUILDING ) or individual farms (those fall under WP:NCORP ).  The location given in the article is simply that of Brzozowo.  There is no evidence here that this is anything but a farm in Brzozowo.  Even if it were to be shown to be more than just a farm, the presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND is rebutable by showing that the place likely is not and never has been notable, and searching shows this to be the case - nothing exists describing this place.  Additionally WP:NOPAGE is clear that there is no need for this page even if some kind of coverage could be found - it would simply be redirected to Brzozowo.  This article is one of tens of thousands created by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired editor Kotniski.  There was no checking at all of the data before the article was created.  Many, many of these articles have the wrong name, wrong location, and wrong location-type in them.  FOARP ( talk ) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Colony/kolonia"".  Weird.  @ Stok @ Malarz pl Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Similar as Czarnorzeczka .  Brzozowo-Kolonia is standalone kolonia (one of polish types of localities, usually smaller then village), listed in SIMC database, PRNG database and Dziennik Ustaw (Polish Journal of Laws) .  So it's a ""legal recognised populated place"" as described in WP:GEOLAND .  Malarz pl ( talk ) 08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1) A Kolonia is not a ""standalone"" community but an extension of another community (in this case, very obviously of Brzozowo as indicated by the name).  It is also not a village, since that would be a wies .  2) The location given in this article is that of Brzozowo, not any other place.  Whilst an empty field some distance from Brzozowo is labelled ""Brzozowo-Kolonia"" in GMaps, the farms around this location all have postal addresses in Brzozowo.  Where is Brzozowo-Kolonia?  Who lives there?  3) ""Legal recognition"" is not simply being listed on a database.  It requires some empowerment, some status, being conferred on the populated place.  4) If the place is populated, then what is its population?  And if the Polish census does not collect population data for it, then isn't this a rather strong indicator that it isn't notable?  5) GEOLAND only gives a presumption of notability, it does not give automatic and unchallengeable notability.  In this case the presumption can be rebutted just by pointing out that its very name indicates that it is an extension of another community.  5) Even if GEOLAND is passed, WP:NOPAGE is clear about what to do with a locality about which we have essentially nothing to write - we would simply redirect it to Brzozowo.  FOARP ( talk ) 14:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka , as an AtD.  It's the name of a solectwo (a ward and/or a legally recognised settlement) with council representation and councillors per this list, so people live there: [60] .  Rupples ( talk ) 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Another possible redirect is to Brzozowo, Sokółka County , the neighbouring settlement, which is also listed as a solectwo.  Brzozowo, Sokółka County gives population figures.  If they include Brzozowo-Kolonia this may make for a better target, but do they?  Rupples ( talk ) 22:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples Yes, the population figures of Brzozowo contain the kolonia as well, I just need to correct the presentation of this on Brzozowo's page.  Because of how the census areas work (as mentioned in the Czarnorzeczka discussion ), it may be best to create a templated footnote.  Ilawa-Kataka ( talk ) 15:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  I'm seeing this as a rural hinterland to the village of Brzozowo, although the village itself is rural.  Better the two articles are tied together.  Rupples ( talk ) 00:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Consensus not clear on which article should get the redirect to or delete.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I still side with deletion as a more simple solution - I don't particularly buy WP:CHEAP in this case since for a mass-creation problem it turns out to be anything but cheap to redirect hundreds/thousands of articles rather than deleting them which is far more straight-forward.  Kotbot created tens of thousands of these articles without any checking whatsoever, it is misguided to think the solution to that is to redirect them one-by-one when that would take decades to complete.  However, like I said in my original ! vote, if a redirect is warranted, it should be to Brzozowo, Sokółka County which it is straight-forwardly an extension of according to its name.  FOARP ( talk ) 08:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FOARP , do you know for certain that the editor running Kotbot made no after creation checks?  Didn't the bot have to go through an approval process?  Rupples ( talk ) 03:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples - As far as I can tell there were no checks.  The entire thing was premised on the idea that the PL Wiki articles used as a source for the data in them were already correct.  As far as the approvals process went, it did not appear to involve any actual checking of the articles, merely people vouching for the bot .  Realistically speaking, the articles were created at such a rate that no-one could have been checking more than a tiny fraction of them.  In a 48-hour period centred around the creation-time of the article we're discussing here (18:43, 31 July 2008) Kotbot created more than 5,000 articles , does anyone really think Kotniski was checking these?  FOARP ( talk ) 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I think it makes most sense to delete this as it is legally distinct from Brzozowo, Sokółka County despite the name.  A redirect could cause confusion.  Ilawa-Kataka ( talk ) 23:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ilawa-Kataka you should strike the above ! vote because as nominator your ! vote is already counted as delete, so this is in effect a second ! vote.  How does the redirect cause confusion?  Surely, now it's been ascertained that the official population figure is the total for Brzozowo, Sokółka County and Brzozowo-Kolonia combined it makes sense to combine the two articles and put a note in the Brzozowo, Sokółka County article explaining that neighbouring Brzozowo-Kolonia is also recognised as a sołectwo and its population is included in the figures shown.  Rupples ( talk ) 02:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples Neither significant nor likely confusion, admittedly, but it is possible it could lead someone to believe they were legally the same entity (rather than just in the same census area).  Ilawa-Kataka ( talk ) 04:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to implement the proposed alternative to deletion would be helpful in achieving consensus here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 02:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be fine with redirect to Brzozowo, Sokółka County , per the usual 'part of the village' logic.  I do oppose deletion, however.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Trey Farley: Non-notable broadcaster.  SL93 ( talk ) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England .  SL93 ( talk ) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ATD : redirect to Live & Kicking , which covers his tenure on the show as well as his personal life (more so than Katy Hill , which is another possible redirect target).  Geschichte ( talk ) 03:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"St. Theresa's Boys High School: Despite the age of the school, no significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 10:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bandra , where the school is already mentioned.  Joyous!  Noise!  16:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : per Joyous! and my failure to locate additional non-primary material.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 16:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Udayana Cricket Ground: Propose restoring the redirect to Indonesia national cricket team#Grounds , as for other similar venues.  Bs1jac ( talk ) 09:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Indonesia .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect Per nom.  There's not enough coverage for a standalone article currently, so the redirect was the best solution.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restoring the redirect seems the best option until someone can show there's a substantial discussion about the ground somewhere Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 10:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect as per nom and other comments.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"University of Muhammadiyah Aceh: Hence, it likely fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Indonesia .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Muhammadiyah is a notable religious organization in Indonesia and it's also operate several universities, which some of them have dedicated article on WP.  However, due to its lower level of notability compared to other universities affiliated with Muhammadiyah.  So I suggest to redirect it to Muhammadiyah#Universities .  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 20:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Muhammadiyah#Universities .  Tame Rhino ( talk ) 18:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Kiuwan: ~ T P W 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Kiuwan is covered briefly at Idera,_Inc. #Subsidiaries , where the 2018 acquisition is referenced by a BusinessWire press release.  AllyD ( talk ) 20:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect : Searches find some announcement-based coverage, such as a product summary and time-limited offer ( SDtimes, 2013 ) and the later acquisition by Idera ( BusinessWire, 2018 ) but I am not seeing evidence that this tool attained notability in its own right.  However, a redirect to Idera,_Inc. #Subsidiaries could be a plausible WP:ATD outcome.  AllyD ( talk ) 07:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Stephen White (television writer): Can't find independent significant coverage.  Imcdc Contact 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television .  Imcdc Contact 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and doesn't otherwise credibly establish notability.  Note that there was a different person of the same name who was covered here and here .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Redirect option described below looks good to me too.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete possibly marginally notable under his assumed name since there appears to be a published book under that name, but I couldn't find any sources which would make this a definitive keep.  I don't mind if it's recreated with better sourcing I might have missed, though.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Barney & Friends , since this is the sole and only thing he is seemingly known for working on.  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Workers' Solidarity Alliance: Looking through Google Scholar , [7] I haven't been able to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.  Most of the sources found are from members of the organisation (i.e. Tom Wetzel), or authors connected directly to the organisation (i.e. Workers' Solidarity Movement) or are false positives (i.e. Emma Goldman).  Others only provide passing mentions to the WSA, in longer lists of other organisations (i.e. Gustavo Rodriguez, Robert Hlatky).  As I haven't been able to find evidence that this organisation meets our general notability guidelines , and as I can't see any obvious redirect targets (although IWA-AIT , Anarchism in the United States or anarcho-syndicalism are potential options), I'm proposing this article be deleted.  Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics ,  and United States of America .  Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Sufficient sourcing to meet GNG.  To say that Hlatky only provides a mention in a list is not the case.  There are a few paragraphs on both WSA and its Edmonton Chapter.  This along with Kinna seem to me to be sufficient.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails NORG.  The Hlatky piece is based on interviews and briefly describes that the Edmonton org existed, that it had a listserv, and that it failed, and it notes the basic facts of the existence of the main org.  Kinna is a very similar brief description of the organization.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Anarchism in the United States per Czar.  I do not think a merge is appropriate as summarizing this organization would be outside of the scope of that article.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Anarchism in the United States as an alternative to deletion .  In 15+ mins of searching books and scholarly sources, I did not find significant coverage in enough depth to write a dedicated article.  There is little independent sourcing about the org apart from that it existed, which means prime candidacy for a redirect.  I did find a number of mentions [8] [9] so we should cover it similarly, i.e., in a one-sentence list among other anarchist organizations in North America (incl. Canada but I think a US-article mention is sufficient).  czar 09:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep / Mege deletion is completely unnecessary. -- User:Namiba 13:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for me, but I wouldn't be mad about a redirect as suggested by other voters.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Anarchism in the United States looks like a good solution.  The target article already mentions the Workers' Solidarity Alliance a couple of times.  I did pause and wonder whether there might be other organizations with the same name in other countries (and perhaps there are), but a spot check of the article mentions in Wikipedia Library like this 2014 Fifth Estate article suggests it is indeed more of a US thing.  (Side note: Politico reports that they made a 2021 Pentagon list of ""extremist infiltrators"".)  Would recommend redirecting both ""Workers' Solidarity Alliance"" (with the apostrophe) and ""Workers Solidarity Alliance"" (without the apostrophe) to Anarchism in the United States .  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 03:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Anarchism in the United States per comments of Czar and Cielquiparle.  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 21:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Elizabeth Arcia: The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team .  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Nicaragua .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Fails GNG.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 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.",redirect
"Sihle Magongoma: JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG .  Suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Preston Public Library: Previously nom'd as a mass deletion.  In my review I'm not seeing how this passes WP:CORP .  I was looking and I may have missed it but I'm also not seeing a blanket GNG exemptions to libraries.  The coverage seems trivial when there is some.  Unbroken Chain ( talk ) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions .  Unbroken Chain ( talk ) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – I'd say GNG is the more accurate measure just because a library is a place and this isn't really about it as an organization.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd actually assume N:ORG applies as it does to other non profits.  I don't find coverage to indicate the library meets it, but redirect to Preston, Minnesota as a viable ATD.  Star Mississippi 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Previous experience has taught me that notability of organizations can be more muddied when they tick other boxes (e.g. a place).  The recent debacle I had about school districts is a good example of that ( Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 188#School districts and GEOLAND ).  Anyways, since no one has linked it yet, this is the link to the previous mass AfD linked in the nomimation.  I've searched for previous AfDs about libraries to see if there was any particular recurring argument that comes up during these and so far I've found: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutter County Library – no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library – mass nomination, merged to respective locales Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax North Memorial Library – redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catoosa County Library – kept, arguments were about GNG, not ORG Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huron County Library – deleted, arguments were about GNG, not ORG Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a little muddy with non city museums too, since they tend to get more coverage than your regular small town org.  And like libraries, they're an org in and of the place, especially local history ones.  To me it remains the best barometer since it's easier to address depth vs. x museum / y library hosts this event.  Star Mississippi 23:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you can still use GNG as a metric while discounting ""library hosts this event"", given the latter is very routine coverage.  I've never tried to use something of that nature as a claim to establishing notability.  Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Preston, Minnesota#Education .  I don't see this having independent sources showing notability meeting GNG or NORG.  Stub article so I boldly moved the sentence and added refs to the existing education section on the target article.  Even if it meets a guideline, not everything needs a stand alone article, as it stands, this is an unneeded CFORK of the education section on the main article; the content will be better at the target and provide a place it can be developed.  // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Preston, Minnesota#Education , now that it already has been merged.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita: ""Population figures are the current values, and the number of laureates is given per 10 million."" - why should it be?  How a population of today's Hungary relevant for Nobel prizes won by people who were born in 19th or early 20th centuries?  (The problem is the same for all countries, the example is about Hungary because out of few refs in this list multiple are about Hungarians.)  How does EU have 247 Nobel prizes?  Surely people who were born and dead long before EU was created shouldn't count.
 And like that, the whole list is unsourced OR that should be deleted.  Artem.G ( talk ) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Science ,  and Lists .  Artem.G ( talk ) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Using ""current values"" and then only using 2018 figures doesn't make sense either.  If the values are current why not just use the most recent population value available?  14 October 2019 also seems like an arbitrary cutoff date, especially when there's a column for ""Laureates in last 10 years (2014-2023)"".  If the article is going to be kept it should at least be semi-regularly updated properly.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but even the updated data would make little sense - why should a population of a modern country be used?  Population changed a lot in the last hundred years, but this list divides modern population by historical number of Nobel prize winners.  Modern Hungary is not Austria-Hungary, with very different population.  No serious source use such numbers, that's a pure OR.  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah that's also definitely an issue.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Nobel laureates by country .  My very best wishes ( talk ) 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] what exactly do you propose to merge?  The whole list is unsourced and OR.  Artem.G ( talk ) 06:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is actually sourced.  Well, if there is nothing to merge, that's fine.  One can just make it a redirect.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is basic division, not original research.  These are not baseless claims that others cannot easily replicate.  You can quibble about grouping EU countries, but it's not a basis for deletion.  In any case someone has already merged some numbers to List of Nobel laureates by country , so that can be completed, with discussion as appropriate.  Reywas92 Talk 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] well, by that logic you can divide current Egyptian population by the number of pharaohs and get 15.77 pharaohs per 10 millions modern Egyptians.  No sources, no OR, just division.  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the table in List of Nobel laureates by country#Summary is even worse, no sources, no population numbers or years, just mindless division...  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think we need coverage on pharaohs per capita, but yes, you could put that simple division in an article with a specific source and it would not be original research.  Reywas92 Talk 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's completely nonsensical.  WP:CALC says that Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources .  How on Earth could it possibly be a meaningful reflection of the sources?  It's not even a meaningful figure —the modern-day country of Egypt is not the same political entity as the one(s) that had pharaohs, and it makes no sense to use the population of the former to calculate a population density that relates strictly to the latter.  If anything, what would make sense for these kinds of calculations would be to use the cumulative population, not any instantanteous one.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or delete: to List of Nobel laureates by country .  Per 10 million people is a user-generated statistic -- it may be basic division, but its selection was made by the judgement of a user, which is in the direction of original research.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 15:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is still basic arithmetic ( WP:CALC ), presenting it this way rather than per 1 million people doesn't mean it's original research.  This is the most mundane ""selection"", and even if some source uses a different base it may still be an appropriate way to present the number.  You can argue this isn't a notable topic as a whole that needs a standalone article, but simple, routine calculations anyone can replicate without complex formulae are not forbidden, regardless how displayed.  Reywas92 Talk 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your point on ""basic arithmetic"", but maybe you can tell me why such calculation makes sense?  why should a Nobel prize winner, who was born and died 70 years ago (a hypothetical example), be used in a calculation of how many Nobel prize winners per capita are in a modern country with compeltely different population?  Is there any reliable source that gives such statistics?  This (now dead) BBC article is used in that list, but even BBC didn't divide number of Nobel prize winners by modern population.  Artem.G ( talk ) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a violation of WP:NOR with a dose of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization .  Yes, the arithmetic may be trivial, but the choice of which numbers to do arithmetic upon takes this outside what policy can support.  WP:CALC does not justify this.  The prototypical case for applying WP:CALC is taking a figure that a source reports in miles and converting that to kilometres.  This isn't that.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 03:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Contact electrification: The previous material is at [7] , and I don't think there's enough material not covered by Triboelectric effect that we can source and salvage.  Save for 1 and 2 all sources of that version are primary sources by a small group of people.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 14:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , changing to a redirect to Triboelectric effect .  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 02:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge anything useful and redirect to Triboelectric effect .  Or keep.  This is obviously a verifiable topic and a reasonable search term.  The article has been around since 2004, almost 20 years.  I'm neutral on whether the material here is better covered in Triboelectric effect or split out here into a separate article, but in any case deletion seems unwarranted.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 17:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops, looks like I confused AfD's D for discussion instead of deletion. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries. Merges and/or redirects are usually discussed on the article's talk page. But some consider a redirect a kind of soft deletion, and if that is controversial among editors, it's reasonable to bring it to AfD. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 18:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as Talk said MICHAEL 942006 ( talk ) 18:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"2002 Silverstone Superbike World Championship round: Fails GNG and EVENTCRIT.   Souces are all primary, stats, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject (this event) directly and indepth.  Unneeded CFORK of 2002 Superbike World Championship season .  No objection to a redirect, but Wikipedia is not a repository of sports stats, unless content has some context from IS RS content should not be merged.  I think all five articles currently in Category:2002 Superbike World Championship season are similar enough with this article to merit consideration of a group deletion // Timothy :: talk 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is the group nom: 2002 Kyalami Superbike World Championship round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2002 Monza Superbike World Championship round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2002 Sugo Superbike World Championship round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2002 Valencia Superbike World Championship round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports ,  and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect all to 2002 Superbike World Championship as they are not independently notable.  Frank Anchor 15:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport , South Africa , Japan , Italy ,  and Spain .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Offline sources (at least 1) exist which someone interested in purchasing/who already owns may use to provide in-depth coverage of individual events of this championship.  [20] .  They can probably be summarized briefly enough to all go into the parent article, so a redirect might be good for now until the parent is large enough to re-split, but I definitely oppose hard deletion .  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Rocky Hollow: Tagged for notability since 2022 Donald D23 talk to me 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation ,  and England .  Donald D23 talk to me 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , to Bumper Films per WP:ATD-R .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bumper Films .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"DXTE-TV: MarioGom ( talk ) 18:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines .  MarioGom ( talk ) 18:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network per nomination.  - Ian Lopez @ 12:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Ansley Common: I propose either a deletion of the article or it be merged as it has no real notability apart from on an OS map.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning delete From a US perspective this looks like a neighborhood, not a village unto itself.  As a rule standards for neighborhoods are high and they need to be notable in their own right.  At this point this place doesn't meet that.  Mangoe ( talk ) 00:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I initially thought Mangoe may have been right, but actually this appears not to be the case.  It has a council-erected nameboard , which simple neighbourhoods of other towns or villages do not have in the UK.  This indicates recognition as a separate settlement and it is therefore notable per WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete The source mentioned above It has a council-erected nameboard , is the strongest source for this subject and I trust Necrothesp did a complete BEFORE.  Fails GNG and GEOLAND.  // Timothy :: talk 03:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that this means it passes WP:GEOLAND !  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know and I agree its the strongest source for the subject which is why I !v Delete. // Timothy :: talk 10:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But if it passes WP:GEOLAND it is notable! It doesn't need any further coverage. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] according to WP:GEOLAND!  ""Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it."" - so in this case, Ansley Common is far from notable and would as said be best covered in Nuneaton as a suburb.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire .  I don't see the council sign as being sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND .  Ansley Common appears on Ordnance Survey mapping in the early 20th century as mining cottages associated with the nearby Ansley Hall Colliery.  Current mapping shows it to be conjoined to Nuneaton in a ribbon development.  However, it's officially in North Warwickshire Borough and part of Ansley civil parish as can be seen on the map download here.  [11] Rupples ( talk ) 22:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies.  The map shows it's in the North Warwickshire ward of Arley and Whitacre, which covers Ansley.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a link to Ansley Parish Council website which includes Ansley Common.  [12] Rupples ( talk ) 22:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire per above.  Mentions the subject already.  No sources for an standalone article, this is an unneeded CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk 22:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire because it is a suitable target where Ansley Common is mentioned.  The source cited in the article is not enough to establish notability.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Hive Games: The scarce articles I've read from reliable, independent sources that do mention it give it barely more than a few words.  This was a redirect until several days ago, and I believe it should remain one.  Not a debate on deletion, in my opinion, so much as redirecting again to Minecraft server .  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Minecraft server#Notable servers per nom.  Both of the sources are primary sources (one being an archive link to their forums and the other being a random bedrock edition server tracking website).  This does not meet the notability criteria for this to have its own article.  Deauthorized .  ( talk ) 01:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Minecraft server#Notable servers : the only sources used in the article are WP:PRIMARY and do not establish notability.  A search for sources does not find anything that is independent, reliable and has WP:SIGCOV , so it does not deserve its own article.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 08:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that this Wikipedia article may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, but it's worth noting that Hypixel, Mineplex, and WynnCraft have their own Wikipedia pages, they are similar to what Hive Games or The Hive offers.  I will instead try to note more information to the page as possible.  ClydeNoIQ .  ( talk ) 07:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  They may not be notable either, or they may have something notable about them this may not.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As it turns out, there was a previous AfD for this topic.  Deauthorized .  ( talk ) 03:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Caitlin Simmons: Let'srun ( talk ) 00:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Oklahoma .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA .  Other than one story from 2016 that's literally just covering a political Facebook post she made and doesn't even seem to be significant coverage usable for a biography ( [61] ), I was unable to find any sources indicating notability.  Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA as per DyInuge.  IncompA 20:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Miss Oklahoma USA , due to WP:BIO1E .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Mayapa: Another barangay article with questionable sources and scope.  Much of the content is too focused on its camp (Camp Vicente Lim), and majority of the sources do not back the notability of the barangay, but instead support the notability of the camp.  There is no inheritance of the camp's notability to the barangay.  The two other sources are questionable: non-independent source from the city government , and mere statistical listing from the Philippine Statistics Authority .  See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable?  (can we please have a consensus now?) .  At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays .  AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection.  JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines .  JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD .  HueMan1 ( talk ) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD .  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Macy's Central: Article is further unreferenced and could not find any RS's.  Recommending deletion or merging.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 19:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 19:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alabama , Kentucky , Louisiana , North Carolina , Ohio , Oklahoma , South Carolina , Tennessee ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Macy's, Inc.  : Previously separate articles for the company's other current divisions, Macy's East and Macy's West , were boldly redirected there earlier this year with no apparent objection, so this seems like a logical-enough alternative to deletion here.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Macy's, Inc.  : Unsourced article on a subdivision of a larger company.  Tagged since 2009.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 22:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Macy's, Inc. per all the above; this is just an operating division existing as an SEC report line and trademark holding company for stores gone by.  Nate • ( chatter ) 22:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Jakub Havlín: The closest thing is this news source on Tyden that seems to be a brief significant coverage (mentioned in the first paragraph); other sources I found were mostly limited to him taking part in bobsleigh tournaments (e.g. being listed/mentioned as a participant).  I can't explain much, and he also never had medal record.  This article should not be confused with the gunsliger of the same name.  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 11:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Czech Republic .  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 11:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh per nom.  FromCzech ( talk ) 08:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Barry Watson (producer): No IS sources.  Looks to be attempting notability via inheritance, which is not allowed.  Fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Television ,  and Anime and manga .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Illumitoon Entertainment per nom; seems not to pass WP:BIO .  Link20XX ( talk ) 14:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Illumitoon Entertainment.  Nothing to merge.  Charcoal feather ( talk ) 17:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Freewave (EP): It's just a tracklist with one random review as a source.  Locust member ( talk ) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I would advocate WP:MERGE but the majority of this article's content is already covered in Lucki's own Wikipedia article.  A search for additional coverage per WP:NALBUM yields few results: Stereogum , Complex , and Hypebeast are the most significant sources that covered the release of the EP but I would consider the write ups to be trivial and did not find any coverage associated with its legacy or impact, just the release.  Vegantics ( talk ) 13:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lucki : I found three brief articles covering the release which would be good for the artist's article, but don't provide enough to justify an independent article, and that's all I could find.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not necessary to have its own article.  Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 01:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Antigona Hyska: The subject has earned at least one cap for the Albania women's national football team .  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  I found minor coverage like 1 , 2 and 3 , as well as an interview .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Albania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect The subject is not notable enough to have an article of their own.  There is one or two interviews but nothing like in-depth coverage.  Ktrimi991 ( talk ) Redirect per nom - no SIGCOV to indicate notability.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 04:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 13:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - Fails GNG!  Redirect to the list mentioned above would be appropriate in my opinion.  Ekdalian ( talk ) 17:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Care trust (NHS): Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to NHS trust Unsure about how the term is used/applied for specific trusts.  NHS trust says care trusts were abolished in 2013, but this news article from 3 weeks ago shows one of the trusts mentioned in Care trust (NHS) ( Bradford District Care Trust ) is still active.  Think a redirect to NHS trust might be best regardless of the continued existence of the organisations, with severe updates needed to the article.  pinktoebeans (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with redirection to NHS trust Elshad ( talk ) 19:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to NHS Trust Entity does not seem to exist, and the only sources in the article are primary.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 22:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Joseline Rivas: The subject has earned at least four caps for the El Salvador women's national football team .  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and El Salvador .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 19:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Ezoza Sharipova: The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG .  All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2 .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Uzbekistan .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : searches in Russian and Cyrillic/Latin Uzbek turn up only passing mentions.  not yet notable.  Akakievich ( talk ) 21:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 19:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Leven station (Manitoba): – dlthewave ☎ 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation .  – dlthewave ☎ 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Some VIA Rail stops are notable so all of them should be blue links, with those that aren't individually notable being redirects to a list or some other appropriate target.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect would be the best, most constructive choice.  TH1980 ( talk ) 01:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train : each train station is not individually notable, although the whole train line is.  Several other stations on this line have already been WP:BLARed to that article.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"City Centre Mirdif (Dubai Metro): ~ A412 talk!  15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Saudi Arabia .  ~ A412 talk!  15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions .  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Blue Line (Dubai Metro) .  Web searches with several keywords have failed to find many sources with enough information to be cited in the article.  Redtree21 ( talk ) 07:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Shanelly Treminio: The subject has made at least five appearances for the Nicaragua women's national football team .  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Nicaragua .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Giant Snowman 13:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Getting to Know: I can't verify this Platinum album claim as PARI doesn't have this record.  Strongest claim for notability so far is a passing mention here but that's it.  Alternatively, redirect to Ariel_Rivera#Albums -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines .  Lenticel ( talk ) 08:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ariel Rivera : There's an AllMusic review, but that's all I could find and it's not enough alone.  If anyone has access to a Philippine newspaper archive then that would help immensely as I doubt this was reported on in the West much, if at all, but we can't keep this without that coverage.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ariel Rivera .  Fails WP:NALBUM per nom.  Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE aside from AllMusic presented above.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Nullsoft Scriptable Install System: The sources cited in the article are primary sources, moreover, lacking comprehensive and authentic coverage of the subject matter.  Additionally, the sources do not provide a thorough and detailed analysis of the topic, further diminishing the overall quality and credibility of the article.  At this point, no sufficient secondary sources are available.  Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 09:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Nullsoft : seems to fail NSOFT.  Owen× ☎ 15:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep used by a large amount of software, especially open source software.  Middleware like this may not be as well covered by traditional sources, but there are technical references out there and it's mostly developed outside of Nullsoft these days so a redirect would be misleading.  77.103.193.166 ( talk ) 14:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia requires in-depth and detailed coverage from third-party sources.  Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 15:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It would be difficult to find coverage about many widely used installation software like NSIS.  Installers are just uninteresting topics to report on.  Another similarly widely used installer, Inno Setup also has only 2 non-primary sources, one of which is a guide and the other is what seems to be a blog in French giving a comparison of various installers.  I could find similar sources for NSIS.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are hundreds of widely used installation softwares, but they don't have their own Wikipedia entries.  And as I see it, Nullsoft Scriptable Install System and Inno Setup also have limited coverage and do not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.  I believe that deletion or redirect would be the right decision.  Barseghian Lilia ( talk ) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to Nullsoft , easily possible to cover there.  IgelRM ( talk ) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Fortell Games: Even without looking at sources, it's pretty clear that they're non-notable; they've only developed two games, neither of which seem to be very special.  AriTheHorse talk to me!  14:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Ukraine ,  and California .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Their second game, Blocksworld , received millions of downloads from 2012-2020 so I don't see how it isn't particularly special.  Also, how do you mean you can't find any sources?  A simply google search brings up all the information you need.  If that isn't enough for you, then why is there many other articles relating to game developers that have even less information that still remain on this site?  Nintentoad125 Talk 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not even actually their game.  They bought it.  Not to mention that notability is generally not inherited.  AriTheHorse talk to me!  17:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Redirect to Blocksworld .  Blocksworld may be notable, though it requires cleanup and removal of unreliable sources.  Notability is not inherited and there is nothing demonstrating the notability of this minor studio.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sourcing to reddit and a gov't website aren't really helping notability.  I can't find anything else about this company, some PR stuff.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Blocksworld .  If this does not meet the notability criteria, then I don't see the harm in redirecting to Blocksworld .  It is their only notable product and currently all that they are known for.  Nintentoad125 ( Talk ) Redirect - per Zxcvbnm and Nintentoad125.  Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 11:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Keoney Demicoli: The subject has made at least four appearances for the Malta women's national football team .  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Malta .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Giant Snowman 19:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Demographics of Swords: I removed this POV , but I'm left wondering if the article is worth salvaging.  It's now two censuses out of date.  Will it realistically be maintained, and is it the level of detail suitable for Wikipedia?  I don't see a benefit in mirroring the CSO data tables for a given town for this level of specific demographic detail, when pertinent ones can be referenced and footnoted on the Swords, Dublin page.  Iveagh Gardens ( talk ) 07:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With appreciation to the nominator for fixing the NPOV issue and raising the quality concern, Keep as a reasonable WP:SPINOFF as the combined articles would be well over 7000 words including the tables.  As for out of date, it's marked as 2011 and verifiable, and we can consider WP:PRESERVE .  I'm not sure at what point I would be willing to ignore all rules with such an article, but I don't think deletion would improve the encyclopedia at the moment so I'm not there yet.  (Also keep in mind deletion removes history, a WP:BOLD merge that improves the main article by linking effectively would be preferable for future editors who might want to remake this article, but for purposes of AFD I'll just stick with my keep !vote above) — siro χ o 10:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Swords, Dublin .  This is barely an article, it's an infodump of mostly irrelevant numbers that belong in a government census, not Wikipedia.  Permanent private households by sewerage facility ?  Number of households with a personal computer ?  Really?  〜 Festucalex • talk 10:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ireland .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS .  I would recommend linking to the cenusus websites and merging the most significant datapoints, but this is not the sort of statistics we need to compile here, let alone in a stand-alone article.  Reywas92 Talk 12:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS .  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 15:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS , are we going to have an article like this for every town in Ireland?  Spleodrach ( talk ) 17:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR .  I do not see the argument for having a page/""article"" on Wikipedia which is effectively a republication of a table (or set of tables) from the CSO census records.  As noted by Festucalex above, the granularity of a majority of the raw data ("" Carers by sex and number of unpaid hours per week "", "" Number of households with a personal computer "", etc) is entirely unsuited to the project and its scope.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 18:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Swords, Dublin , it would make a good demographics section.  However, per the immediately above, we shouldn't merge every single part of it.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 18:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per siro .  Too much good info to merge, no urgent reason to get rid of the article.  Last1in ( talk ) 19:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia isn't a repository for a massive stat-dump like that.  Joyous!  Noise!  19:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Southern Pacific 3100: All publicly available references used in article do not directly address ""Southern Pacific 3100"" in anything more than a passing way from my analysis.  I would suggest that GE U25B is the notable topic and that this should be first deleted and then set to redirect to that.  TarnishedPath talk 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation .  TarnishedPath talk 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Southern California Railway Museum .  Not independently notable, but a useful redirect to the museum.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 01:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the museum per nom.  Does not meet GNG.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Isn't notable enough to warrant an independent article.  BigSneeze444 ( talk ) 16:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as not inheritable notable.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 15:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Oman Arena: JMWt ( talk ) 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America .  JMWt ( talk ) 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Tennessee .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Jackson, Tennessee , the location of and former owner of this building.   Another possible target is Jackson-Madison County School System , the current owner of the arena, however it is only mentioned in the city’s article making it my first choice.  Building is not independently notable based on a complete lack of references, but a 5,000+ seat arena which hosted some NAIA basketball games could be a reasonable search term.  Frank Anchor 01:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Alien Intelligence (Palladium Books): Their reason is ""Long time, no sources nor proof of notability. Long WP:OR in-universe essay.""  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete abandoned unreferenced cruft.  - Altenmann >talk 16:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my earlier PROD and now this AfD.  Article was created in 2007 as WP:OR and has never enjoyed the support of a source.  2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk ) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete completely unsourced cruft article.  It's existence for 16 years baffles me.  Industrial Insect (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This isn't much better.  I've prodded it, too.  Feel free to AfD it, as well.  2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk ) 17:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rifts (role-playing game) which aleady has coverage of the topic, as WP:ATD-R .  — siro χ o 18:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Completely unsourced, in-universe plot summary.  No coverage in reliable sources indicating that this is a topic that passes the WP:GNG .  I suppose I wouldn't care that much if it was used as a Redirect as suggested above per WP:CHEAP , but I honestly don't see this being a useful or likely search term.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 22:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rifts (role-playing game) per siroχo.  BOZ ( talk ) 12:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia is not Wikia.  Not a believable redirect either.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rifts (role-playing game) per WP:ATD -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, London: Fails WP:GNG .  No secondary sources, single source is government list of diplomatic missions in London.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Organizations , Bosnia and Herzegovina ,  and United Kingdom .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina–United Kingdom relations .   There is functionally no information to merge.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 16:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per IgantiusofLondon although List of diplomatic missions in London would also make a good target (I'd be happy with either).  Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"List of prime ministerial trips made by Lawrence Wong: See WP:MERGEPROP .  Mccapra ( talk ) 12:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Lists ,  and Singapore .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dude just do it, obviously these are the exact same topic and don't need a discussion to fix the second creator's mistake of not seeing the first page.  Reywas92 Talk 18:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw proposal.  This was clearly the incorrect forum.  Gjs238 ( talk ) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Sorani Kurdish Wikipedia: That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.  Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing?  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Internet , Websites , Iran , Azerbaijan ,  and Turkey .  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R — siro χ o 06:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect.  No need for a separate article.  Athel cb ( talk ) 12:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: Un-closed discussion per User:Oblivy .  Please also see this article and this article .  -- Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 07:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Although I did mention this AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tatar_Wikipedia , I didn't vote here.   I'm convinced by the arguments and happy to follow @ Siroxo 's proposal for redirect.  For avoidance of doubt, I also would be fine if this was withdrawn (per comments on nominator's talk page).  Oblivy ( talk ) 08:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions .  L iz Read!  Talk!  20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Omer Dadi Aur Gharwale: — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Nadeem_Baig_(director)#Television - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Nicholas and the Higs: It's also an unpublished failed attempt at a book whose contents haven't survived beyond a short synopsis, making it highly unlikely to ever achieve proper notability.  Content could be placed into authors main article instead.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 11:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 11:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Philip K. Dick , and merge in the content to the latter page, as the OP noted.  I'd say that's the least we can do for this article, as a quick search on this topic only finds a couple sources here , here , here , here , here , but that's it, as most of the results from a ""Nicholas and the Higs"" Philip K. Dick Google Search don't seem to bring up reputable sources. -- Historyday01 ( talk ) 13:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT #5: ""The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable"".  I admit there's not much to say about it (there's a little more info here ), but this information ought to be on Wikipedia somewhere.  Merging to Philip K. Dick doesn't make sense to me; I don't see where the content of this article would fit into the main biography.  I wouldn't be opposed to merging into a hypothetical "" Lost works of Philip K. Dick "", along with A Time for George Stavros and Pilgrim on the Hill , but that's a discussion for the talk page.  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to not-yet-published books"".  Nicholas and the Higs was unpublished (and never will be), and has no ISBN or catalogue in a national library, therefore Bookcrit #5 is irrelevant.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 13:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough.  It's still my opinion that even the unpublished works of an author of PKD's standing should be considered notable, but I see now that the notability guidelines don't exactly back that up.  In that case, redirect to Philip K. Dick bibliography , at least for the time being.  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sojourner in the earth : If we assume that WP:NBOOK does not apply to an unpublished work, I think we can fall back on WP:GNG .  I have described below why I have the opinion this more general guideline is fullfilled and this article should remain, in case you would like to consider that.  Daranios ( talk ) 17:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 12:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 12:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Hopefully this relist will yield more discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 07:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or redirect at minimum.  I am having trouble finding great sources to rescue this, but it is a valid redirect and probably we can find enough to rescue this.  I'll ping User:ReaderofthePack and User:Daranios who IIRC both has a good track record digging some interesting sources for this kind of stuff.  PS.  Sources: self-published sadly , I only get snippet view but it may have something (I see mentions in several pages?); this book , also reliable, seems to have at least a paragraph (but snippet view again...); another book mentioning this (in a footnote or a list? is [3] ).    -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two of those are available on Open Library: To the High Castle is the one I linked to in my comment above; this is the best source I can find.  Only Apparently Real includes the book in a complete list of PKD novels, with some info on the history of the manuscript.  The snippet you're seeing from The Selected Letters is from the same letter of PKD that is partially quoted in the article.  I can provide the full quote if requested, but it doesn't provide a great deal more information.  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 07:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found mention of it here , in an online magazine calsed ""LBV Magazine"".  Unsure how usable that actually is, though.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to the significant treatment in the listed To the High Castle and a number of other mentions where I don't currently have an overview of significance (and Divine Invasions already in the article), Philip K Dick is Dead, Alas , Philip K. Dick by Andrew M. Butler , and The Book of Lost Books each have a paragraph and a bit on Nicholas and the Higs .  That's enough for me to believe notability requirements are fullfilled and a full and referenced article can be written on this topic.  While we will never see this story (and therefore indeed WP:BOOKCRIT #5 may not apply), according to those sources the manuscript has been reviewd, and they provide us both with commentary on it, and some influence it had on other works of Philip K. Dick and his career.  Daranios ( talk ) 10:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : About how many lost novels or other works are there of Philip K. Dick?  The reason I'm asking is that there does seem to be quite a bit of coverage as a whole about his lost works.  I can't help but feel like this could be its own article, with it broken up by time period or genre, depending on how it plays out.  I can help compile sources for this but I don't have the free time I once have and this feels like it would be a pretty big project.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think there are that many lost works, to be honest.  Since PKD's death, every scrap of paper that anyone can find with his handwriting on it has been posthumously published.  There are only three novels for which no known manuscript exists: Nicholas and the Higs, A Time for George Stavros (recently redirected at AfD) and Pilgrim on the Hill .  I don't know how many lost short stories there might be; I know there's one called ""Menace, React"" which only exists as a fragment, and there may be others.  And then, I suppose, some works are lost in the sense that they were never written; The Owl in Daylight , Fawn Look Back .  If you've found any good sources on this topic I can help work on it.  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried finding them again, but didn't find much.  I added what I could to the talk page.  I feel like there's at least enough for a section somewhere, at least.  I could swear I saw more meaty sources out there, though.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Philip K. Dick , agreed with OP's decision.  CastJared ( talk ) 15:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Historyday01 and CastJared : In case you still think a redirect is the best option in spite of the found secondary source, wouldn't Philip K. Dick bibliography be the closer topic as compared to the Philip K. Dick article itself?  Daranios ( talk ) 15:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, Philip K. Dick bibliography would be a better redirect target.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 15:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uh, yeah, the redirect target is Philip K. Dick bibliography .  Agreed.  CastJared ( talk ) 16:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect seems ok, I'm not seeing much else about the ""treatment for the book"".  Someone might eventually finish the work or rewrite it or what have you.  Now, nothing we can use for GNG found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Who knows, a lost copy might turn up somewhere.  The author's been gone for 40 some years, still a while before the copyright expires anyway.  If and when, we can re-create the article then.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : ""nothing we can use for GNG found"": But what about the secondary sources which have been found and discussed so far?  Daranios ( talk ) 15:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd prefer a redirect.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect There's enough here for something, but not a stand alone article.  -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 18:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Indochina Production: Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Article is misnamed.  It should be at",redirect
"Shuckey Duckey: Given the prominence of the catchphrase, I would've thought there'd at least be more discussing its originator, but I didn't see anything.  Without that, I think this article mostly falls under WP:NOTDIC and I don't see much point in it staying.  Unless someone else finds all the coverage I somehow couldn't.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Texas .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The claim of notability is tenuous at best and there is hardly any coverage to suggest that WP:GNG is met.  -- Kinu t / c 06:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete dosen't meet WP:GNG requirements 1keyhole ( talk ) 16:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  There is one publication which has some coverage of him according to its index, Darryl Littleton.  Black Comedians on Black Comedy: How African-Americans Taught Us to Laugh .  Applause Theatre & Cinema Books.  p. 316.  , but unfortunately that page is not available for viewing in google books and it is impossible to assess the quality of that coverage.  I did find one review from James Madison University 's paper dating back to 1996.  I would imagine that there are more reviews in magazines and newspapers from the pre-internet era.  Has anyone looked at newspaper.com who has access?  I did find that some of his artifacts (programs, posters, etc.) are part of the collection at the University of North Texas Library .  I suspect that this person is notable but that the majority of evidence to prove it is going to be either offline or behind a paywall.  Anyone with subscription access or access to the archives of the Dallas Morning News or Dallas Observer or Fort Worth Star-Telegram would probably be able to find some good coverage, and I would think other newspapers from his touring would have reviews.  To be clear I am not offering keep or delete opinion here; but a general comment on where sources are likely to be found.  Best.  4meter4 ( talk ) 17:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Passes WP:SIGCOV .  Here are reviews from the Boston Globe , Hartford Courant , North Dallas Gazette , and Buffalo News all relating to his work as the ringmaster/comedian of the UniverSoul Circus.  The coverage is more than in passing.  I voted weak keep because other than the JMU review above, the reviews are of a larger production and not just him.  4meter4 ( talk ) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - based on the sources found by 4meter4 , I'm leaning a keep.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  03:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  After assessing the above sources, my ! vote remains unchanged.  I'm still not seeing enough about Armstrong himself outside of mentions in context of the circus to be able to justify a BLP article.  On another note, some of those sources would be useful for improving the article UniverSoul Circus .  -- Kinu t / c 05:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My stance is the same. There's only so much being said about the man in these pieces. I would be fine if they were used for a brief profile in the UniverSoul page though. Just doesn't seem like you'd get more than a paragraph total out of them all. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 10:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ QuietHere and Kinu Perhaps, a redirect to UniverSoul Circus per WP:ATD ? There is certainly enough coverage in these sources to add some coverage of him into that article as Kinu stated. 4meter4 ( talk ) 14:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that works. Could always be split back off if more coverage is located later. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think a redirect is a reasonable outcome as well. -- Kinu t / c 15:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"OSAMI-E: Couldn't find reliable sources with significant coverage.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Spain .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to OSAMI or delete, depending if the OSAMI article is deleted or not I know that this article isn't notable enough for this Wikipedia, maybe the OSAMI one is okay, but this one definitely isn't.  Toketaa talk 15:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Eureka_(organisation)#Significant_projects : the organization running the project.  Not enough notability for a standalone article.  Owen× ☎ 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Jill Carnes: Boleyn ( talk ) 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Elephant 6 : No sourcing found [22] is simply a confirmation they exist.  Notability seems to be around the Elephant 6 group/collective/thing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Classic Hip-Hop: Let'srun ( talk ) 20:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC) z [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Radio ,  and United States of America .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to classic hip hop An utterly generic description of the format, and no regular listener is even able to tell if this is a satellite format in the first place, or they will immediately judging from it being utterly unremarkable HD Radio filler.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , couldn’t find much in search — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 ( talk • contribs ) 22:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : I would redirect it to Westwood One , since it is one of their 24-hour formats (but that's just me).  - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Classic hip hop ; there is no separate notability for the syndicated national feed, the network name is too generic that any coverage it could (but probably doesn't and never will) get would be difficult to distinguish from the overall format, and given how it is a bit too common to capitalize every word in a format name a redirect to Westwood One rather than the format itself could be misleading.  (Note that Classic hip-hop redirects to Classic hip hop , so it would not be a redirect target itself.)  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to classic hip hop per Wcquidditch.  Fails GNG and the name is too generic for a redirect anywhere else. -- Tdl1060 ( talk ) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to classic hip hop .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Hannah Gutierrez-Reed: OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP .  She was the lead weapons master on two notable films that filmed within a year ( The Old Way , Rust ), then played a major part in a fatal shooting .  -- Rusty2rusty2rusty ( talk ) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — Rusty2rusty2rusty ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Redirect back to the incident.  This is practically the definition of WP:1EVENT .  Yes, it's gotten lots of coverage because of the industry and Baldwin, but that doesn't make this person notable.  Valereee ( talk ) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue she meets WP:PERP #2 given the sustained news coverage, death of a notable figure, effect on a well-known actor ( Alec Baldwin ), and injuring another.  Then, separately, working on two notable films, both of which had safety issues because of her actions.  -- Rusty2rusty2rusty ( talk ) 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not seeing it.  There's another article this can go into (Rust shooting incident) and there are no concerns about article size; we know very little about this woman to build a biography around.  Literally we know her approximate age and the name of her dad.  Baldwin wasn't the victim, and Hutchins doesn't qualify as a ""renowned national or international figure"".  And no one has suggested an unusual or noteworthy motivation for this crime, it was a horrible accident.  Valereee ( talk ) 16:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rust shooting incident , but add categories including something which is a parent cat of the nonexistent Category:Film armorers (can't see a valid subcat of Category:Film people by role , but there must be somewhere appropriate).  Pam D 07:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rust shooting incident per WP:BLP1E .  Subject does not meet the criteria defined in WP:CRIMINAL .  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect back to Rust shooting incident .  She's not notable outside this event and any biographical information would be better served in said article per the first sentence of WP:CRIME .  Uhai ( talk ) 10:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rust (upcoming film) : When I created the redirect under the subject's name, it was to aid in searchability (if it ever needed).  There may be enough materials in the future for the subject to have a BLP, but at the moment, it is as what the nom stated, BLP1E, and should not be a standalone article yet.  – robertsky ( talk ) 08:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rust shooting incident —It is within the purview of the New Mexican judiciary to dispense sanctions for criminal misconduct, not us.  Gutierrez-Reed was grossly negligent in carrying out her duties as armorer, and it lead to her receiving an 18-month prison sentence.  We don't need to further punish her by giving her an entire Wikipedia article.  Other than the shooting, she has done little of note.  Kurtis (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Rust shooting incident .  In WP:CRIME it states that a criminal who is notable for a single incident already covered by another article (in this case Rust shooting incident) does not require a separate biographical article about the person themselves.  Jon.yb093 ( talk ) 9:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 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.",redirect
"Lithuanian Wikipedia: That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.  Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing?  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Internet , Websites , Europe ,  and Lithuania .  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R — siro χ o 06:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect.  No need for a separate article.  Athel cb ( talk ) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions .  L iz Read!  Talk!  20:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Lack of notability but does merit inclusion in a list of Wikipedias.  #prodraxis connect 01:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Cumbria Men's League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Owen× ☎ 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep if sources can be found.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  21:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Cumberland League .  This league was fairly short lived and appears to no longer exist.  [3] J Mo 101 ( talk ) 12:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So the Cumberland League is the league refered to as ""Cumbria Rugby League"" on the RFL website and not this one?  Mn1548 ( talk ) 14:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the top division of by the looks of it [4] .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 14:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"UGC 224: I suggest to turn it to a redirect Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies#Material ejected from nuclei .  C messier ( talk ) 14:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : it is discussed on a couple of web sites, but nothing that I'd consider sufficiently reliable.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect : That section heading feels a bit like undue promotion of Arp's nonsense views, even though it was the original catalog section name.  I suppose a redirect is reasonable here, since it's in Arp's catalog.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 19:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 01:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Chris Motionless: Fails WP:SIGCOV .  scope_creep Talk 07:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Motionless in White , see WP:BANDMEMBER -- FMSky ( talk ) 12:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per FMSky.  HorrorLover555 ( talk ) 02:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Bitsaeon: The article was typically based on M.O.N.T including if not all the sources.  The article didn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO .  I AFD it to he WP:TOOSOON and per WP: MUSICBIO may need to be redirected to the article M.O.N.T .  For WP:PRESERVE , Like the singing competition may be fixed variably and optionally, though he may not meet.  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 09:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Music .  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 09:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok i agree with the nomination.  Aidillia ( talk ) 09:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support per nom.  98 𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 09:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support per 98Tigerius. -- Eastern Anatolia ( talk ) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dratify per nom.  — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 13:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"William Radenhurst Richmond Lyon: The attempted notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town that has long since been eaten up as a city neighbourhood, which is not ""inherently"" notable in and of itself -- a mayor would have to pass WP:NPOL #2, which hinges on the depth of substance that can actually be written about his political impact and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it.  But this is strictly on the level of ""he is a mayor who existed, the end"", and has been tagged as unsourced since 2009 without ever having any new references added to it.  As well, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED , so he isn't automatically entitled to keep an unreferenced article just because some of his family members have articles.  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as ATD.  The subjects father is in the Canadian DNB and has an article where this subject is mentioned, so redirecting to George Lyon (Canadian politician) might be ok.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"List of Monégasque films of 2014: References section is empty.  Does not meet WP:NLIST AusLondonder ( talk ) 08:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Lists ,  and Europe .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 08:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect all There's a lot of these, please just merge/redirect where appropriate since I don't think individual discussions are necessary.  Reywas92 Talk 13:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List_of_European_films#Monaco .   I search for ""List of Monégasque films of"" and again without the e not an é, and only this list shows up, so not enough to make an entire article for.   If any are notable enough to be mentioned put them at List_of_European_films#Monaco .  D r e a m Focus 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List_of_European_films#Monaco.  The three films listed are not notable, if the reader is looking for significant Monégasque films, we can redirect them to a place to find such.  Samoht27 ( talk ) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Flames Central: But I would like to know what a national hybrid entertainment restaurant is.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Entertainment , Business ,  and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I notified WT:HOCKEY Wracking talk!  05:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note A possible action here is to rename to Palace Theatre (Calgary) to expand the scope to the building itself, which is registered as a historic place .  [50] [51] Wracking talk!  05:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If secondary coverage can be found, I’d be inclined to support this.  The Kip 18:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not too much coverage to meet notability.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 06:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to newly-created Palace Theatre, Calgary (where Flames Central was located), which mentions Flames Central.  Jiffles1 ( talk ) 17:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Palace Theatre, Calgary , which has a paragraph about Flames Central.  Persingo ( talk ) 01:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Tiger (2007 film): Pinakpani ( talk ) 18:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This should be redirected per previous nomination yesterday.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , India ,  and West Bengal .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance: This is an older duplicate of Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance .  As this award was divided into two categories from 2014 to 2023, the article is also partly a duplicate of Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Male and Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Female .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 16:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Film ,  and Awards .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A redirect (and merge, if necessary) to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance seems quite uncontroversial (as the edit summary of the person who dpD the page stated, if I remember well).  I had thought about it and deproDd it before reverting myself but on second second thoughts, redirects are cheap.  I don't even think an Afd was necessary but thanks for taking the trouble. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep then merge Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Male and Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Female into Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance .  If we delete Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance we lose the 2003 through 2013 awards which were not divided by gender.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2003 to 2013 awards are already covered in Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance .  The article here is practically an older copy of that, hence the nomination.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance per WP:CHEAP and numerous incoming links and attribution purposes.  Sorry I misunderstood the proposal and am casting a new ! vote here.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 22:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Uganda national under-23 football team: Nothing but routine sports coverage.   Fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 14:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : it is sad and unfortunate that WP's existing guidelines are unable to accommodate articles like this.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Uganda .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I think NSPORT still (if it is the N guideline I am thinking of?) permits articles for international teams more or less just for existing, but since this team doesn't seem to have played any competitive international games, that would be a real stretch.  Kingsif ( talk ) 15:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Federation of Uganda Football Associations , per WP:ATD .  There seems to be nothing with which to build an encyclopedic article here, and we don't need stats dumps and squad sheets, which is all this is ever likely to become.  wjemather please leave a message... 16:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  It's not that the team has never played any competitive international games, it's that they haven't managed to qualify for their continental championship (and that championship is, for some reason, the only event listed in this article).  They have entered and played in the qualification rounds for the U-23 Africa Cup of Nations but not made it into the main tournament.  See 2011 African U-23 Championship qualification , for example.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Uganda national football team .  Under-23 teams can be notable, but the lack of coverage kills this for now.  Giant Snowman 12:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per GiantSnowman.  Govvy ( talk ) 13:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per GiantSnowman. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Scott Spiker: Contested WP:BLAR .  ( NPP action )  Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wisconsin .  Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note There is active disruption going on where the article is being redirected to Scott Speicher , which is not a plausible redirect to the subject of that article.  With that said, delete , as subject is not a real known politician in Milwaukee politics as-is.  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It was a redirect to Scott Speicher since 2006 before being repurposed to the current page a few days ago.  It's a plausible redirect because Speicher is pronounced Spiker so someone only hearing the name may guess at that spelling.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the clarification on the page history, did not see that.  I would support restoring the redirect in this case.  Nate • ( chatter ) 19:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the one that created the page, I agree with the deletion or restoration of redirect and I would like to apologize that i was edit warring, I'm new to this and this was the first page I made and wanted to keep it as a trophy, again i agree in the deletion of this page, Good day.  WTBgaming ( talk ) 14:38, 28 February 2024 (CST) Restore redirect , but no prejudice against recreation if someone can write something more substantial and better-sourced.  Milwaukee is a large and important enough city that its city councillors potentially could have sufficient media coverage to meet NPOL #2 — but an article about a city councillor still has to be more substantive and better sourced than this before it can actually be kept.  At the local level, city councillors aren't all ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and need to have content about their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their time in office had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.  I don't know nearly enough about Milwaukee's local politics to know whether that's possible here or not, so I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can expand the article, but this isn't sufficient as written.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect -- I wanted to save this article but sadly there are literally no sources and city councilmembers don't satisfy WP:NPOL automatically.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 19:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Kabar (TV program): No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng.    Has zero sources other than their own website, and has zero content on the subject other than a program schedule.  North8000 ( talk ) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't find coverage of this TV program, and what's used now for sourcing are TV Guide-type listings, not enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to tvOne (Indonesian TV network)#News One .  Hansen Sebastian Talk 03:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per the above, as it lacks notability as a standalone article.  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 09:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to TvOne_(Indonesian_TV_network)#News_One : is treated there.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Chelsea King: The attempted notability claim here is regional music awards, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but are in no way ""inherently"" notable enough to hand her an instant notability freebie without proper sourcing -- but the article is referenced almost entirely to bad sources that aren't support for notability, such as her songs being referenced to their own presence on Spotify, the regional awards being referenced to their own self-published websites about themselves rather than media coverage to demonstrate the notability of the awards, Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person, and promotional bumf on PR blogs -- there's only one source here ( American Songwriter ) that counts as a legitimately WP:GNG -contributing source, but that isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself.  It also warrants note that this is a newly created article that hijacked a redirect that already existed to represent a different person of the same name, which is not acceptable Wikipedia practice -- and for added bonus, the creator left the categories that represented the other Chelsea King on the finished article, so that this living musician was being categorized as a 2010 murder victim, and all of the inbound links to this title are still expecting the original murder victim.  So, in all likelihood, the original redirect should really be restored: if and when the musician can actually be demonstrated and properly sourced as notable, an article can be created at a disambiguated title, and then we can reconsider who should be the primary topic and use page moves if necessary, but the creator is not entitled to arbitrarily commandeer a title that already represented somebody else without following Wikipedia's process for dealing with title conflicts.  Nothing stated here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore original redirect .  even without the glaring sourcing issues, this article is a mess and would need a substantial rewrite to fix.  Darling ( talk ) 15:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California , Massachusetts ,  and Tennessee .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore to the last version about the murder victim, as of 12 September 2023.  For this singer, I don't think the situation is as dire as implied in the nomination, but she does not qualify for an article here per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTPROMOTION .  One problem is that she has worked under several different names.  She has a songwriting award/scholarship under her birth name Chelsea Gilliland ( [23] ), her early band The Harder We Fall got some minor social media notice, and her current band CHLSY has some reliable publications ( [24] , [25] ) but they don't get too far beyond basic introductions.  I can find no other reliable sources and the rest of this article is fairly desperate self-promotion and refbombs .  In the future, it may be possible for the current band CHLSY to achieve notability, but if so the article should be titled after them.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"WBQR-LP: Fails WP:SIGCOV ~ ฅ(ↀωↀ=) neko-chan nyan 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Wisconsin .  ~ ฅ(ↀωↀ=) neko-chan nyan 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin : this alternative to deletion as an {{ R to list entry }} is about the best that can be done with an unsourced, never-sourced article about a relatively-new radio station.  How this lasted nearly five years before finally being taken to AfD is beyond me (an identical creation today would, at best, probably be shipped to draftspace/AfC within weeks); even",redirect
"John C. Sigler: A search turns up no novel citations.  Subject was President of the NRAoA (not notable in itself unless he was involved in some major reform/event).  Subject also unexpectedly resigned as Delaware GOP Chair (again, no prior notable work or achievements other than ""Being Chair"". Can't find a source for his appointment/election to that post!).  He was not an elected politician/office holder per WP:NPOL.  It is unclear how he is notable or that the article can be improved to meet GNG, unless some major achievement or scandal has been overlooked.  WP:PROD was posted and removed on basis that all NRA Presidents have an article, however the user was mistaken - they were looking at a list of NRA Presidents which only included those with a page(!) There appeared to be no other objections to deletion.  Hemmers ( talk ) 09:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Law , Military , Firearms , Delaware ,  and Michigan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect >>>> List of presidents of the National Rifle Association at viable ATD.  Djflem ( talk ) 17:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per previous vote.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 03:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No significant, in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability.  Being president of the NRA obviously does not confer automatic notability.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 19:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Daniel Tonkopi: Little-to-no non-trivial coverage of him as a person rather than the company.  Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 19:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Ukraine , United States of America ,  and California .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 19:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the company.  It's notable, he isn't, independently of it.  Llajwa ( talk ) 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Llajwa.  SomeoneDreaming ( talk ) 03:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Like a Star in the Night: May be sources in Japanese I couldn't find, but the Japanese version doesn't cite any.  Rusalkii ( talk ) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Rusalkii ( talk ) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to album as ATD.  Ben Azura ( talk ) 21:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is some minor coverage available at a glance but most coverage of this type of material in 2002 will not be online in the case of Japan.  The song charted at number 2 nationally, so it almost certainly satisfies WP:NM , but redirection seems like a viable alternative until sufficient sourcing is found at some point.  Dekimasu よ!  03:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Stevens Derilien: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Giant Snowman 19:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  I also couldn't find substantive coverage from reliable sources (besides general directories of football players).  Enervation ( talk ) 07:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - plausible search term, no WP:SIGCOV Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Gallon smashing: Therefore, in hindsight the fad seems short-lived and confined to that time period with little impact ( WP:IMPACT ) beyond that.  An alternative way to proceed could be a broader article about criminal ""challenges/pranks"" directed against grocery stores/food places, as gallon smashing seems closely related to ice cream licking [40] etc.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Crime , Internet ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Already has a well-sourced entry at List of internet challenges , which goes into more than enough detail.   All sources cited (and all sources I can find outside social media) are from 2013, making this a textbook failure of WP:10YT .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator).  I take the opposite position as above.  I think there's sufficient secondary coverage about this trend and the page is an appropriate fork from List of Internet challenges .  The list merely defines ""gallon smashing"" without providing any additional context about the trend's history or impact.  I'd prefer to see this entry expanded, not merged or deleted.  I've added additional in-depth coverage by Bloomberg News, ABC News, CBS News, etc, and I've shared more refs on the talk page.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""the trend's history or impact"". What impact? Geschichte ( talk ) 14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Charges filed, arrests, injuries, etc. Many trends don't result in these things. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of internet challenges.  I looked at the titles of the sources and thought that an Internet challenge still getting media coverage eleven years after the fact might indeed merit its own article, but then I checked the sources.  The articles listed as being from 2024 are actually from the mid-teens, merely archived in 2024.   Possible mislead but also possible NBD.  Given that, the entry in ""List of Internet challenges"" seems sufficient to me.  Would reconsider if there is in fact analysis of this challenge from 2020 or later.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Dennis R series: WP:GNG NHPluto ( talk ) 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No mentions of this particular bus, only this [62] .  Nothing we can use to write an article here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to a short sentence at Dennis Specialist Vehicles#1977–2000 .  Given that some other of their vehicles are notable this is a plausible search term, and the content would enhance the list at the target.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Complex / Rational 00:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"DAM (Palestinian rap group): LusikSnusik ( talk ) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Palestine .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources used in the article seem fine, al Jazeera is of course going to be biased, but we can rewrite that out of the article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep: The current sourcing is already almost entirely international sources, many of them reliable.  Dam have also been around for decades - long enough to have entered scholarship , and plenty of books , so there is absolutely no notability issue here, and article quality alone, unless the state of play is truly abominable, is not a good cause for deletion.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 19:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect: Actually, this went in a weird direction when I was working to improve the page only to realize that it is a recent creation that duplicates DAM (band) (where it's actually a level-5 vital topic, so again, no notability question, though the point is now moot).  I've now merged the content from this page to that page, so this page can now be redirected there and become a 'redirect with history'.  @ Zero0000 , FYI.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 09:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] great to fine a way for this page.  I opt for redirect too Mozzcircuit ( talk ) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : FYI (should have pinged you too) Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect doesn't bother me.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep: for the same reasons as Iskander323.  I'll also note that the OP is non-extended-confirmed and this article (by OP's own words) is related to ARBPIA.  Therefore, per WP:ARBECR , OP is not allowed to even comment here let alone initiate the AfD.  Zero talk 04:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Iskander323.  Zero talk 10:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Sam Williams (record producer): Maybe a redirect to Supergrass is in order?  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 00:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United Kingdom ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fwiw, this was until very recently a Mark_Gardener#The_Animalhouse redirect.  Maybe a little better, idk.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 07:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've looked for WP:GNG -decent sources, and this Billboard [65] is the closest I've come, though I've seen him mentioned in more WP:RS like [66] .  Someone added this [67] from Music Week , but I'm not sure trade magazines are good for WP:N , and I don't have access, so I can't say how in-depth it is.  Currently I'm at redirect again, but decent sources may help.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 08:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I am editing this article to bring it into line with Wikipedia's community standards.  I'm not sure if I've done everything correctly, and will continue to make changes in order to ensure that it's all in line with Wiki's requirements.  If I've got anything wrong in terms of links/citations etc, please let me know and I'll go back in and make the necessary changes.  Hari Teah ( talk ) 10:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You did not do everything correctly, see [68] .  You're welcome to present the best WP:GNG -good sources you know of here, if they are good enough, the article may be kept.  WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing may be of interest.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 10:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have posted a number of sources of Sam William's Talk page.  There are many more.  The ones I have posted purely related to the proposed changes to the opening two sentences of the article.  Would it help to post all the sources available here?  Or would it be better to wait for feedback on the article's Talk page?  Hari Teah ( talk ) 04:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Proposed sources can be seen here: Talk:Sam_Williams_(record_producer)#New_Article_Content_Establishing_Notability .  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I couldn't find anything in my BEFORE search.  Ping me if a load of sources are found.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 10:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lee Vilenski , not a load, but maybe 1/4 of one.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 09:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This [69] by Sound on Sound probably counts for something too.  Much is interview, but not all of it.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thatd be fine, but it's probably all there is.  We'd need a significant more.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 10:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or re-direct to Supergrass .  Being co-producer of a band is not inherently notable, being in a non notable band with no album produced is not notable and notability cannot be inherited from a notable brother.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN .  Theroadislong ( talk ) 09:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Mentioned a few times in this book [70] ( Biteback Publishing ), afaict, mostly the sentence on page 230.  This [71] by NME is more than passing mention.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 09:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"KAMP-LP: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Alaska .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as outlined in nomination.  Fails WP:GNG .  Sources only indicate that the station existed, not that it was notable.  Only source that points to notability is about the ""other"" KAMP, unrelated to the subject of the article proper.  Bgv.  ( talk ) 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of radio stations in Alaska per established consensus WRT this topic area.   Yet another tone-deaf nomination from this editor.  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AOBF .  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"DWTE-TV: Given the age of the article, there are a few thousands Wikipedia mirrors, but no significant coverage in reliable sources.  MarioGom ( talk ) 15:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines .  MarioGom ( talk ) 15:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network It's a full-power translator of the main Manila station and its history after joining 5 is duplicative.  Nate • ( chatter ) 19:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network : Fails GNG and NCORP.  Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 12:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Lionel Tromp : Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Netherlands ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom, most helpful outcome for the reader.  Also the best outcome for the project: it's highly likely that Aruban sources exist that just aren't readily accessible, so we'll be doing future editors a favor by preserving the content for future restoration.  Notability is about whether we should have an article on a subject, not about whether we should have any coverage at all, so where a reasonable target exists it isn't a sufficient basis for deletion.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Algeria at the 1993 World Championships in Athletics : Article is entirely unsourced and was draftified because of this.  No improvement has been made in this regard.  Would support draftification naturally.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 23:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Algeria .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 23:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per other similar articles (see Clyde note below) Support noms suggestion to draftify .  I added one specific ref, but it still needs a bit of work before move to mainspace.  Presumably same for Algeria at the 1991 World Championships in Athletics .  — siro χ o 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consider draftification : However, if it is considered that this will simply be moved back to Main space then delete 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting the much better attended discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Algeria_at_the_2022_World_Athletics_Championships which I closed as snow redirect.  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did nothing wrong. .  All my articles are correct and they all contain reliable international sources and you can be sure of that.  Nassimohr ( talk ) 00:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By any chance, can you provide the names of the sources?   Other editors can help you write the citations if you can provide as much detail as possible?  Denaar ( talk ) 15:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect since the rest of the articles were at: [1] .    I don't have a strong feeling of when we should keep/delete this type of article, but consistency if beneficial too.  Denaar ( talk ) 15:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect same as the other articles, the only reason this one was treated differently is because this AFD predated that one.  Would be wildly inconsistent to do anything except this, as Algeria at the 1993 event doesn't have demonstrably different levels of coverage to all the other events.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Argnesa Rexhepi : I was unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG .  The only thing I found that comes close is this 2023 interview.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Kosovo ,  and Switzerland .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Bambino cat : There are many Munchkin derived breeds and I do not believe that they meet notability without the recognition as there's nothing special about them, other issues in the article include poor sources such as generic pet care websites and many of the references are about the Munchkin itself (as health issues and legal issues relate to the breed) To add on to notability issues the breed doesn't even seem to be mentioned on TICA's website.  Have mentioned deletion on Wikiproject Cats too.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 02:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Improve and expand as needed.  Do not delete.  It appears to be an interesting, referenced article.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to remove it from view.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 11:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The above user is an AFD spammer with non-policy based arguments.  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] “Spammer” is an insult that should probably be avoided.  My comment stands.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 00:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments that do not touch upon policy at all, but instead are in breach of WP:INTERESTING , WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOTEVERYTHING , may ""stand"" but they don't carry much weight when the discussion is closed.  You seem to misunderstand or to not have read many policies.  Geschichte ( talk ) 19:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect to Munchkin and include a short section about derivatives there.  Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 21:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I've added the mention of the couple being warned to stop breeding it in Munchkin#Welfare concerns and have added details about the derivatives to the article as well.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 03:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To expand on my above ! vote, this article suffers from sourcing issues, and WikiProject Cats strongly recommends only having articles for cat breeds fully acknowledged by a major cat registry.  Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 20:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect per SilverTiger12 PianoDan ( talk ) 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"La que se avecina (season 1) : Unsourced and is just a cast list and a table of episodes.  Karnataka ( talk ) 22:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Spain .  Karnataka ( talk ) 22:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of La que se avecina episodes .  WikiVirus C (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of La que se avecina episodes .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"XX (organization) : 2605:B40:1303:900:CAD:8F6F:33AA:50BF (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to XIII (comics) as WP:ATD-M — siro χ o 02:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to XIII (comics) .  No referenced content, fails GNG.  But redirects are WP:CHEAP .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above.  Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article.  Expansion can take place at the target, through editing.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to XIII (comics) .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Manic Dream Pixie : Please see the article's talk page where the editor who contested the redirect admits there is not enough in-depth sourcing to warrant an article.   Fails WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 01:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep What?!  I did not say there wasn't enough sourcing - I said that everything in the article was sourced.  This is genuinely ridiculous.  Also another source was just added to the article - there is no reason why the article isn't considered notable, when NME is a severely notable and reputable news source in the U.K. when it comes to media and entertainment.  Additionally, it wasn't contested - you reinstated the redirect without having a formal discussion about it first, which is again not how you handle these things.  I severely diagree with the mere creation of this AfD.  And another thing: the EP literally releases in 3 weeks.  There will be more media coverage of the EP then.  Therefore I say keep, because the artist in question is notable enough, and the EP will more than likely garner a lot of media attention when it fully releases.  - Evelyn Marie ( leave a message · contributions ) 01:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music ,  and Australia .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Probably TOOSOON, but it's all press releases at this point, nothing in RS. I'm even wondering if the singer is notable, her article appears to be largely social media posts used for sourcing.  I'll have a look at her article soon enough, will probably get an AfD deletion discussion notice as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She's got coverage in Rolling Stone and Billboard, weakly notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the singer is notable - she has millions of listeners across apple music and spotify, and over 2 million on TikTok.  Obviously she isn't no Taylor Swift, but she does have a listener base.  - Evelyn Marie ( leave a message · contributions ) 05:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Listeners on streaming sites can be bought, aren't an indication of notability here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : is there valid evidence of this though?  because i've never ever seen spotify have artifical listener gains.  - Evelyn Marie ( leave a message · contributions ) 01:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] yes, google streaming farms.  We don't accept their numbers here as they aren't audited like newspaper circulation numbers are.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : She has had a top 40 and gold-certified song in Australia (""Josh""), multiple other chart entries in both Australia and New Zealand, as well as radio play on Triple J (and has featured in the Triple J Hottest 100 ), as well as received fairly wide coverage in Australian music media.  There is no way her article would be deleted after having all of that.  Fine, her EP may not warrant an article yet, but she is definitely notable.  Ss 112 03:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's what I said.  No need to repeat it.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except that isn't what you said at all?  You only mentioned Rolling Stone and Billboard, not about any of Peach's media coverage in any Australia journalism or her top 40 / gold certified song.  - Evelyn Marie ( leave a message · contributions ) 14:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ok, we don't need to discuss it further.  I've ~voted below.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Draftify I feel it's TOOSOON as well.  XtraJovial ( talk • contribs ) 04:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify and redirect as TOOSOON but promising.  As is, the coverage here is close but not quite enough, especially for a prerelease article.  Let the article get built up however much it can in draftspace and get judged after its released when hopefully enough coverage is available.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have opted to move the article to draftspace - its the best option instead of having the article be deleted.  This isn't routine AfD protocol, but i can already assume that people will vote for draftify or delete.  - Evelyn Marie ( leave a message · contributions ) 05:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify and redirect this article is TOOSOON but I do believe that in a few months it'll be fine.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's against policy to move articles to draft while still at AfD.   I've moved it back.  Onel 5969 TT me 09:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Evelyn Marie should we take this as a vote from you to draftify as well?  And @ Oaktree b @ XtraJovial would either of you be interested in changing you votes?  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes - after thinking a bit I think draftification would be more appropriate than outright deletion.  XtraJovial ( talk • contribs ) 16:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  I vote to draftify.  - Evelyn Marie ( leave a message · contributions ) 01:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  No point in moving to draft, just redirect it until/if it gets coverage and/or charts after its release.  Ss 112 06:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect either until it gets better coverage or is released.  ""Should be notable"" isn't notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Amy Eden : They have to pass WP:GNG to qualify for a standalone entry.  This is currently not the case here as this subject fails GNG as a matter of fact.  The current sources, with the exception of Cairnes Post, do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV .  This is supposed to be simple for someone who understands WP:NPOL works.  Cairns as a city is not significantly large based on population census.  Overall, mayors should simply not be kept if they do not pass WP:GNG all in the name of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  Just to be fair, a WP:BEFORE did not return anything useful also.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Women ,  and Australia .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV .  4meter4 ( talk ) 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete From what I can see, only the ""Who is Cairns' likely mayor Amy Eden?"" article is SIGCOV.  I couldn't find anything else online.  Toadspike ( talk ) 11:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NPOL .  3 of the sources are from the Electoral Commission that don't establish notability.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - again, one of these marginal situations that, if there were better sourcing, I could go with a keep.  Cairns is a big regional city in the northeastern side of Australia.  Right now, I don't see any secondary sources.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just added a number of additional sources if that helps Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 12:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  NPOL is simply for presumed notability—not meeting the blanket presumption does not mean someone is not notable.  The nominator concedes that the Cairns Post meets SIGCOV, and the ABC obviously meets it too.  More broadly, and at the risk of opening a larger conversation, I think the presumption of notability needs to be reconsidered insofar as we apply it to Australian mayors.  I readily acknowledge we are in a grey zone: mayors of microscopic rural WA councils are not inherently notable, but I contend mayors of significant population centres are notable—not just lord mayors of capital cities but also those of significant population centres like Cairns, which is the main urban area for a vast geographical region.  For mine, any mayor of an LGA acknowledged as a city in Australia should be presumed notable; Australia does not abuse the ""city"" designation like, say, the US does, where a place with 10 people will be ""X City"".  The idea Cairns is not a significant population centre is ludicrous; it is a major tourism destination and has one of the busiest airports in Australia (the second-busiest non-capital airport, busier than 3/8 state and territory capitals).   It seems absurd to me that Wikipedia has pages for individual episodes of TV shows but would delete the profile of a mayor of a Queensland city.  We lose nothing by including an article on a mayor of a major population centre.  Axver ( talk ) 11:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping.  Comparing mayors to TV shows is far fetched.  The fact that Cairns has a busy airport somehow relates to the notability of the Mayor?  LibStar ( talk ) 09:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Axver : "" ...I contend mayors of significant population centres are notable... – If that's your belief, one which I don't believe is widely held, then you should propose an amendment to WP:NPOL .  As of now, that's simply not how it works.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Issues with the article needing more sources can easily be addressed without the page needing to be deleted, Cairns is a notable city and notable LGA Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 11:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Vanderwaalforces , if the Delete vote wins (as it appears it might) can I suggest the page is instead just redirected to List of mayors of Cairns ?  Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Totallynotarandomalt69 Perhaps, that is doable.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only suggesting in the (non-impossible) event that Eden meets wider notability in the near future, plus as the mayor of a significant city I wouldn't be surprised if her name is searched a notable amount by other wiki users Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 00:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Every local politician doesn’t get their own Wiki article.  In any case, this one doesn’t meet WP:GNG guidelines and this article should be deleted.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 14:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does not meet WP:GNG .  Tar nis hed Path talk 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : this issue has occured before with other mayors, see https://w.wiki/9gw7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane ( talk • contribs ) 08:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom.  Doesn't meet WP:NPOL & WP:GNG .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  20:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails to meet WP:GNG and the coverage available appears to be run of the mill and routine.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : 7 of the 14 references are not avialable for many to view as they are behind a News Corp paywall.  Makes it difficult to assess the article as a whole.  Teraplane ( talk ) 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Sudhanoti : I can't find references to ""Jassi Khan Siddozai"", ""Sidhnuti"" [24] , Sudhanoti combined with 1407 [25] ...  The same applies to other creations by same editor or around same topics, e.g. in First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 , I checked the first two and the last sources, and neither mentions Sidhnuti or Sudhanoti.  Fram ( talk ) 08:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Also nominated: [ reply ] First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 If these creations are indeed problematic, then the relevant edits to other articles like Sudhan and Sudhanoti District need to be reverted as well, and their other edits checked.  Fram ( talk ) 08:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility ,  and Pakistan .  Fram ( talk ) 08:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Respected, as I have quoted in this article Pirzada Irshad Ahmad's book (Handbook on Azad Jammu and Kashmir) from Nawab Jassi Khan's capture of Pounch to establishing his government near Bhan and this  The details of naming Sidhnuti are available from pages 150 to 156.   See the link https://www.google.com/search? q=Nawab+Jassi+tribe&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=4f6f0c95dc8e20e4&biw=384&bih=714&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn08rZ_BeRhSG4C71rsfhcYwgdN5S_A%3A1706953110807&ei=lgm-ZY_pMNHnxc8P-d-hiAk&oq=Nawab+Jassi+tribe&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAiEU5hd2FiIEphc3NpIHRyaWJlMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESN89UKsJWPA0cAB4AJABAJgBvQagAdAfqgELMi0yLjQuMC4xLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGKAhltb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwLW1vZGVzwgIEEB4YCsICBBAjGCeIBgE&sclient=mobile-gws-serp Second, the first government of Azad Kashmir was established in Palindri tehsil of Sudhanoti District and it was the area that first became independent from the Dogra continuum in present-day Azad Kashmir.   As mentioned in this article, Siddhavanti was a district of Jammu province of Jammu and Kashmir from 1940 to 1947.   The first capital of Azad Kashmir was established here.   For references, see the book Prospects for Peace in South Asia https://books.google.com.sa/books? id=TwO9zmj6aQ0C&pg=PA115&dq=What+is+the+old+capital+of+AJK? &hl=ur&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEwaH8iI-EAxWYcvEDHUyWA7A4FBDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=What%20is%20the%20old%20capital%20of%20AJK%3F&f=false مشرا ( talk ) 12:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That first source doesn't even mention Sidhnuti [26] or the year 1407 [27] , so it's hardly a good reference for an article about a country supposedly established in 1407.  The second source doesn't mention Sidhnuti or Sudhanoti .  There is no evidence that reliable sources ever call this the ""First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir"" or that any entity is called ""Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir"".  There is also no evidence that a government was established on 4 October, the source you provide gives the date 24 October for the establishment of the Government of Azad Kashmir (page 115).  Fram ( talk ) 08:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Book Pakistan-1967 World Historian Ian Melville Stephens The movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the movement of Sidhnuti, which after the Sidhnuti rebellion, this movement changed into the movement of Azad Kashmir Page 200 link book 👇 https://www.google.com/search? q=Sudhnuti+revolt+-+which+later+evolved+into+the+%27+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movements+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+. +At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29+of+. &client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=714&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn0-hxoUu5w455Bz4NldMyxjyNnYYbQ%3A1707149297086&ei=8QfBZd_sBNiBxc8PytuckAs&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt+-+which+later+evolved+into+the+%27+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movements+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+. +At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29+of+. &gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAi7gFTdWRobnV0aSByZXZvbHQgLSB3aGljaCBsYXRlciBldm9sdmVkIGludG8gdGhlICcgQXphZCBLYXNobWlyICcgbW92ZW1lbnRzIGhhZCBzZW50IG1lbiBhY3Jvc3MgdGhlIEluZHVzIHBsYWluIGludG8gUGF0aGFuIHRyaWJhbCB0ZXJyaXRvcnkgdG8gc2VlayBhcm1zIC4gQXQgdGhpcyB0aW1lICwgYW5kIG9uIGludG8gTm92ZW1iZXIgLCB0aGUgZnV0dXJlIHBvbGl0aWNhbCByZWxhdGlvbnMgKCBpZiBhbnkgKSBvZiAuSP0iULsJWK0ZcAB4AJABBJgBngOgAdQQqgEFMy01LjG4AQPIAQD4AQGKAhltb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwLW1vZGVzqAIAwgIEECMYJ8ICBRAhGKABiAYB&sclient=mobile-gws-serp مشرا ( talk ) 16:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first thing is to check this article again Because in this article First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 It is clearly written that no government was established in Sidhnuti on October 4, 1947.   Rather, on October 4, 1947, Siddhnuti, when all the areas of present-day Azad Kashmir were the first to be freed from Dogra continuity, the Azad Kashmir government was announced in Siddhnuti on October 4, 1947.  The government was established on 24 October 1947 at Chonjal Hill town of [Pallandri Tehsil] of Sudhanoti District .  The main reason for this was that on October 4, 1947, there was no parliamentary house in Siddhnuti from which the system of government could be run.  Therefore, this temporary government structure was started from Moti Mahal in Rawalpindi.  After which this rebel revolutionary government prepared a 40-room Parliament House at Sidhnuti Chunjal Hill within twenty days.  Subsequently, on 24 October 1947, the same government was shifted from Moti Mahal in Rawalpindi to Sidhnuti Chonjal Hill.  If you want more information then on October 4, 1947 the government announced in Sidhnuti And on October 24, 1947, a whole book has been written on the government that was established in Palindri of Sidhanuti, you can visit it by opening the link.  https://www.academia.edu/43135608/Azad_Kashmir_is_it_Azad _______ Secondly, the movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the movement of the Siddhnuti state because Siddhnuti has been an independent and independent state for many centuries.  That is why people believed in his independence.  I am not saying this, but all this is found in the history of world intellectuals.  For references, see British historian (Ian Melville Stephens) book (Pakistan) 👇 https://www.google.com/search? q=Sudhnuti+ revolt&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=714&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn08shxb3dVqOHMG6pvwM9yfbqJf7KQ%3A1706901368404&ei=eD-9ZZKZGOrBxc8Pn4O4iAM &udm=&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAiD1N1ZGhudXRpIHJldm9sdDIEECMYJ0jqTFD-M1igQHAAeACQAQCYAY0GoAH1HqoBCTMtMy4xLjMuMbgBA8gBAPgBAYoCGW1vYmlsZS1nd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAtbW9kZXOIBgE &sclient=mobile-gws-serp In which he writes that the movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the Sidhnuti rebellion and the movement of Sidhnuti which later turned into the Azad Kashmir movement.  Such is the founding president of Azad Kashmir Sardar Ibrahim Khan He also writes in his book The Kashmir Saga.  See the link👇 https://www.google.com/search? q=Sudhnuti+revolt+--+which+later+evolved+into+the+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movement+--+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+Plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+. +At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=770&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn0_0hEbhy4AYGoiLbint4SaCWdPv2g%3A1707146269720&ei=HfzAZe-2K4-A9u8PrdSF2Ak&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt+--+which+later+evolved+into+the+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movement+--+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+Plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+. +At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAi6gFTdWRobnV0aSByZXZvbHQgLS0gd2hpY2ggbGF0ZXIgZXZvbHZlZCBpbnRvIHRoZSBBemFkIEthc2htaXIgJyBtb3ZlbWVudCAtLSBoYWQgc2VudCBtZW4gYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBJbmR1cyBQbGFpbiBpbnRvIFBhdGhhbiB0cmliYWwgdGVycml0b3J5IHRvIHNlZWsgYXJtcyAuIEF0IHRoaXMgdGltZSAsIGFuZCBvbiBpbnRvIE5vdmVtYmVyICwgdGhlIGZ1dHVyZSBwb2xpdGljYWwgcmVsYXRpb25zICggaWYgYW55IClI9hNQ9wpY9wpwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEBigIZbW9iaWxlLWd3cy13aXotc2VycC1tb2Rlc6gCAA&sclient=mobile-gws-serp مشرا ( talk ) 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion about Nawab Jassi Khan's rule in Sidhnuti has been answered by Pir Irshad's book.   I have no more time to work on this free project.   Do with this article as you see fit.   Thanks, this is the last discussion from me.  مشرا ( talk ) 09:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Academia.edu is not a reliable source, anyone can post there, and even then the source you give [28] doesn't even mention Sudhanoti/Sidhnuti...  Your source about the Sidhnuti revolt [29] doesn't mention e.g. 1407, so I guess it is about the 4 October government?  The quote you give at least mentions Sidhnuti, but that's it.  Your second book, ""The Kashmir Saga"", literally repeats the first book.  Do you have any reliable source for the independent kingdom founded in 1407?  Fram ( talk ) 08:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the guide, there is an article on State Siddhanoti on Urdu Wikipedia.   How about linking this article to the Sudhanoti article on the English Wikipedia?   Link to article on State of Sudhnuti on Urdu Wikipedia👇 سدھنوتی ریاست https://ur.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA مشرا ( talk ) 04:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sudhanoti District#History : The page as published is not ready for mainspace, it is mainly unreferenced original research.  I think the combined info from all the sources make this a two paragraph summary in the target article, not a stand alone article.  There is nothing properly sourced for a merge, but no objection to someone merging RS they think useful into the target.  re: First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 not ready for mainspace, a lot of words but very little information, and sources do not demonstrate notability for a stand alone article.  This should Redirect to History of Azad Kashmir .  There is nothing properly sourced for a merge, but no objection to someone merging RS they think useful into the target.  No objection to a consensus redirect(s) to another target.  // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree, redirect to Sudhanoti District.  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 21:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 .  I could support a redirect of the second article per commenters above, but I consider the article title to be so implausible as a search request as to be of no benefit.  As best I am able to determine these central assertions of these articles are unverifiable.  I am no subject matter expert, and certainly could be mistaken, but the links to Google book searches are unhelpful as there is often no way to know whether any given user will see a specific page.  In my case, nothing relevant to the discussion was shown.  I tried my own search, but was unable to locate an Kashmiri kindom in 1407 that in any way matches the article.  There may be a notable topic that can be written about with foreign language sources, but we will have to do a much better job of establishing that they comply with WP:V.  Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District#History and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 --between the ultra-specific title and the typo in the date (no space between the comma and 1947), I agree that this is not a useful redirect.  signed, Rosguill talk 15:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Soda Springs (near Burbeck), Mendocino County, California : Non-notable flag railway stop with no population.   This is one of dozens of mass-created articles on non-notable California locations made only from GNIS coordinates, by the same user during a few-week period in 2009.   No evidence that this site was ever populated, failing WP:GEOLAND ; another user added two references after my PROD but both are passing mentions just confirming that there was once a railroad stop with this name.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How did we miss this one?  delete as everything says this was nothing more than a flag stop (except maybe Durham? but we need to see exactly what he said, given how often he is misrepresented in these articles).  Mangoe ( talk ) 19:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as any landmarks in the vast ""empty"" (but not really) wilderness of western North America are notable and useful; barring that redirect to California Western Railroad jengod ( talk ) 19:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your first claim is simply your opinion, but it goes against a great deal of consensus.  We have deleted any number of such GNIS-based landmarks because of misidentification, and we have quite consistently taken the position that a named spot on the railroad is not notable per se .  Neither is it ""useful"" to simply enumerate places about which we know essentially nothing except their name and location; such entries are simply clutter.  As far as redirecting to rail lines, we have done that on occasion.  I am generally opposed because, again, we can't say beans about these places, and if the railroad article doesn't mention them, it's a bad redirect in any case.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In this case, our California Western Railroad article mentions this stop.  That article would make a good redirect target if a redirect is desired.  We have redirected mass-created station stop articles in the past to their associated rail lines.  Most recently were a number of flag stops in the Manitoba wilderness.  See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station I'm not recommending a redirect for now - I'm just saying that redirecting to the railroad article is not a bad idea in this case.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not mortally opposed to a redirect, but the problem is how unlikely it would be that someone would search for this term.   ""Soda Springs"" is a pretty generic name, and California has a much better-known Soda Springs near Lake Tahoe.   Even the name of the article has to specify ""(near Burbeck)"", as if that helps.   This place is so non-notable I can't imagine anyone ever thinking to look for information on it, and if for some reason they did, they would probably start with California Western Railroad anyway.   A redirect is pointless clutter, as Mangoe said.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Zack (Battlestar Galactica) : It is framed as a disambiguation page, but neither character has an article.  Additionally, it has zero sources.  There is no reason to keep this.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not enough reliable coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV .  A bare stub with no hope of expansion that meets our policies.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters .  There is no reason for the (albeit very little) information to be lost, so merging would be good.  Also, redirecting means that it on the future someone could potentially start the page again with lots of sources and real world info.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 22:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge.  I'm surprised this article has even stuck around this long.  Surprisingly, he's not listed in the original continuity there, so that might be worth adding, but aside from that no information is really being lost here from removing it.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or delete .  Weird, I thought I did a pass of BG's articles few years back.  How did I miss this?  Haven't seen an article that bad here for quite a while.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not even a single wikipedia article links here .  Orphaned, aparently insignificant even in-universe.  – sgeureka t • c 13:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"May Moustafa : Hmee2 ( talk ) 19:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Egypt .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Fencing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's épée per WP:ATD-R .  Pawnkingthree ( talk ) 23:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems a good approach to me.  Thank you Hmee2 ( talk ) 14:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , i'd support suitable WP:ATDs when offered, but in this instance I don't see value in redirecting to the above proposed, or any article.  If the results data on the above linked article is correct, this individual finished last of every participating athlete and little to no known coverage exists to assert notability.  I am unsure what encyclopedic value there is for a reader searching for this person, if they are then redirected to the event article.  As with many of these articles by the author, it shouldn't have been created and numerous similar AFDs have ended with delete.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 21:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  On reflection, I agree, contrary to my earlier comment above.  Hmee2 ( talk ) 22:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Fencing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's épée .  Completely plausible search term and there is encyclopedic information about this person at that article that someone searching for them could definitely be interested in.  Jenks24 ( talk ) 22:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"William Clouston : Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage.  He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR.  Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election.  Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Politicians , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of his activities demonstrate much notability, from leading a minor party to serving as a councillor.  Sourcing is not great, mostly primary sources, such as election results and his own tweets.  Can't find much better.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders if notability cannot be established at this point in time.  May pick up coverage in the forthcoming general election.  Rupples ( talk ) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  He hasn't held office at any level that would confer ""inherent"" notability under NPOL, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and thus fails to get him over WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL.  Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to already get him an article now.  Bearcat ( talk ) 18:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Robinette Ramírez : The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team .  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , El Salvador ,  and California .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 19:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Edre Elskamp : One appearance for the Aruba national football team .  No indication of notability.  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Netherlands ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  No SIGCOV.  〜 Festucalex • talk 07:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Pseudamphicyon : This is definitely confirmable because in a 1950 bulletin source , the two Pseudamphicyon species P. cayluxensis and P. crassidens are listed, with Cynodictis being considered species synonyms for the two, and they were attributed to Filhol in 1876-1877, and the 2020 sources state that Filhol erected those species of amphicyonids, considering them Cynodictis cayluxensis and Cynelos crassidens respectively.  Additionally, the amphicyonids are well-researched, so a distinct lack of mentions of the genus in modern day academic research is pretty telling as well.  PrimalMustelid ( talk ) 17:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagging @ FunkMonk and @ Hemiauchenia for some input on whether the page should be deleted or made into a redirect based on discussions by other users.  PrimalMustelid ( talk ) 23:34, 20 May 2023 (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/2023 May 18 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  You don't have to delete an invalid taxon's article.  You can redirect it to the correct taxon, or you can edit the article to say that the taxon is invalid and has been replaced with the new taxon, and have a link to the new taxon.  As an example, Bos americanus , an invalid old name for the American bison, redirects to American bison .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just so.  Reclassification should generally result in redirection since it tends to generate a valid synonym (barring edge cases like the Hoser herpetology rampage).  Redirect to Amphicyoninae and add a note about the reclassification there.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 10:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Amphicyonidae per nom.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - synonyms should always be redirected, as they are still possible search terms.  FunkMonk ( talk ) 08:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Amphicyoninae per Elmidae and per the talk page discussion.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 15:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not comfortable redirecting to Amphicyoninae.  If it is a synonym, it should be redirected to the genus that it is a synonym of, not the subfamily.  But I haven't had any success figuring out which species is the type species, which is necessary to determine whether Pseudamphicyon is a synonym of Cynodictis or Cynelos .  Plantdrew ( talk ) 19:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Autry Technology Center : Originally sent to draft and then abandoned & deleted.  No more notable now than then, no SIGCOV in RSes presented and none on search - all self-referenced or super-local sources.  Tagged for advertisement, and with reason.  Redirect to List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma or Delete and SALT - your choice, folks...  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 09:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , United States of America ,  and Oklahoma .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 09:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I genuinely don't understand the complaint that somehow this educational institution is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.   It has 22,724 students this year alone; and, since it has been around since 1967, I would guess it has a few hundred thousand alumni.   Yes, it's a technical school, so the graduates aren't winning Nobel prizes-- although I did find one New York Times best-selling author-- and are instead doing things like fixing air conditioning, repairing cars, and providing nursing services-- in other words, the kind of jobs the rest of us depend upon someone else doing.  I can find plenty of educational institutions on Wikipedia (high schools, small colleges, etc.) that have less of an impact, but which nevertheless seem to merit a page.  I also don't see how you can find fault with the article itself.   It runs several hundred words-- certainly not a ""stub""-- and cites 19 different sources, only 3 of which are from Autry itself.   I can provide a list of existing pages on educational institutions that are stubs and/or contain 3-5 references, and do not understand why a much-harsher standard is being applied to Autry.   Further, the complaint that it reads like an advertisement is something the prior deletion caused.   The page certainly didn't read like an advertisement when it was deleted the first time, on the purported basis it wasn't ""notable"" enough.   So, now, after material has been added to show how innovative and extraordinary the institution is, we get the complaint that it reads like an advertisement.   Feel free to delete whatever material you believe ""unacceptable"" as the price for keeping the rest of the page in place, but please do not create a ""Catch-22"" where the institution is not ""notable"" enough to have a page unless it can be shown to be extraordinary, and then complain that the material showing it as extraordinary must cause its deletion as an advertisement.   Sorry, this sound like casting around for an excuse, any excuse, to delete a perfectly legitimate page.  If I sound a little frustrated here, that's because I am.   Enough is enough.   I'm sure Wikipedia has appeal procedures, and I will certainly be utilizing them if this page is deleted again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TulGuy ( talk • contribs ) TulGuy , it would be much more helpful if you could point to WP:THREE sources that make your case for meeting the general notability guideline .  The above keep rationale reads like a case study in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and is unlikely to persuade as-is.  signed, Rosguill talk 20:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the input; but, as I understand the complaint, it is not about the quality of the article or whether it is properly documented-- it's about whether the subject is worthy of a page.   Anyone can read the facts stated and, finding any of them convincing, look at the associated citations to make sure they support the statements made.   The problem is the reviewer has looked at the facts and still isn't convinced this is a worthy topic, and nothing seems to be changing his/her mind.   So no, with reference to the article you cited, I have no reason to believe this reviewer is trying to meet me halfway, which is why this will end up on appeal.   But let's say I'm wrong.   If the reviewer would like to indicate what the problem is, I will be more than happy to make changes to the article.   Think it reads like an ad?   The material about the innovative programs and the winning of awards (all true) was added specifically to address the complaint that the subject wasn't notable enough; so, that material can be easily removed if that fixes the problem and gets the page published.  If you ask me, it is sufficient to show notability by saying this is an accredited institution of higher learning [1] with 22,724 students this year alone [2] and which has even been specifically cited by a 500-person employer as the reason they chose the institute's hometown for their location of their business.  [3] That shows a substantial institution which is doing its job and is per se notable.   I have been around Wikipedia for years, and we all know that many, many subjects which are far, far more trivial have nevertheless ended up with a page.   That's why I'm frustrated.   (Perhaps the solution is to assign another reviewer, who can give me some useful feedback and we can get this resolved?)  References ^ ""Autry Technology Center"" .  Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services.  7 September 2013 .  Retrieved October 29, 2022 .  ^ ""Tech Center Profiles"" .  Oklahoma.gov .  Retrieved April 3, 2023 .  ^ ""SW Bell planning new site in Enid"" .  AP Wire Service (assessed on TulsaWorld website) .  Retrieved April 3, 2023 .  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discussion territory Bearing in mind that Autry has 22,724 students, and the article in question has 19 citations, only 3 of which are from Autry itself, I invite anyone interested to check out these existing Wikipedia pages for comparison: Kennebec Valley Community College 2,500 students, No citation of any sources, 1 external link to the official college website Davis Technical College 6,000 students, No cites, 1 external link to the official college website Aiken Technical College 13,400 students in credit and non-credit courses, No cites, 1 external link to the official college website Tillamook Bay Community College Student population not indicated, No cites, 1 external link to the official college website Lake Area Technical College 2,600 students, No cites, 2 external links including one to the official college website Utah State University Eastern Student population not indicated, 1 cite Northeast Community College Student population not indicated, 1 cite (from the college) Great Falls College Montana State University Student population not indicated, 1 cite (from the college) Hazard Community and Technical College Student population not indicated, 1 cite (from the college) J. F. Ingram State Technical College 543 students, 2 cites (inc. 1 from the college) Mid-State Technical College Student population not indicated, 2 cites (inc. 1 from the college) Wiregrass Georgia Technical College Student population not indicated, 2 cites (inc. 1 from the college) Southern Arkansas University Tech Student population not indicated, 2 cites (inc. 1 dead link) Community College of Rhode Island Student population not indicated, 3 cites Western Dakota Technical Institute 1,324 students, 3 cites (inc. 1 from college) Tarrant County College Student population not indicated, 3 cites (inc. 1 from college) Orion Technical College 300 students, 3 cites (inc. 1 from college) Northwest College Student population not indicated, 3 cites (inc. 1 from college) Motlow State Community College Student population not indicated, 4 cites (inc. 1 from college) Community College of Aurora 10,000 students, 4 cites, (inc 1 archived from the college and 1 dead link) Southeast Arkansas College 2,200 students, 4 cites (inc. 2 dead links) Pierpont Community and Technical College 3,000+ students, 5 cites (inc. 2 from college) McDowell Technical Community College Student population not indicated, 5 cites (inc. 2 from college) Truckee Meadows Community College 13,000 students, 5 cites (inc. 3 from college) And these are just what I found from a casual search.   May I therefore be forgiven for believing a completely different standard is being applied to the Autry page?  Further one might assume, given the fact that we have been thrown into a discussion of the notability of higher education institutions, that lesser garden-variety educational institutions like high schools don’t get Wikipedia pages—right?   Actually, let’s pick a state at random, like Ohio.   Ohio has a List of high schools in Ohio (just like all the other states do) that immediately lets you know that garden-variety high schools do indeed get pages—lots of them.   I didn’t count them up, but Ohio has 37 high schools listed from just the counties in Ohio that begin with the letter “A”.   Here are the first 12, being all the high schools listed for Allen County: Allen East High School Bath High School (Ohio) Bluffton High School (Ohio) Elida High School Delphos Jefferson High School Lima Central Catholic High School Lima Senior High School Perry High School (Lima, Ohio) St. John's High School (Delphos, Ohio) Shawnee High School (Lima, Ohio) Spencerville High School (Ohio) Temple Christian School (Lima, Ohio) Only 3 of the list even mention enrollment, being Delphos Johnson (303 students), Lima Senior (1,500) and Temple Christian (226).   My favorite listing is Perry High, which states in its entirety, “Perry High School is a public high school located just southeast of Lima, Ohio. It is the only high school in the Perry Local Schools district.”  Informative.   The average number of citations for this group is 4.25.  To be clear, I’m not dumping on Ohio high schools, but I am saying that applying this to get a sense of the general standards of Wikipedia reviewers on the subject of notability, Autry with its 22,724 students is unquestionably notable, and the article written about it is more than adequately informative and documented.  Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 12:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 08:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Just being around for a long time isn't notable here in Wiki.  I can't find anything beyond routine listings of stuff happening there, the normal goings-on of this type of institution.  ""Semi-modern"" institution, it's not even 100 years old yet.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma.  Many of the other Oklahoma vo-techs are redirected so this seems to be the consistent option.  The advertisement tag is appropriate and the article seems to violate WP:NPOV .  The message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma which alerted me of this discussion is even more non-neutral.  That being said AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP .  However, as other editors have suggested it needs to have adequate sourcing that meets WP:GNG .  No objection to recreation if article can meet this threshold, some apparently do .  I would argue against salting as of this time, but maybe a page protection for the redirect. - UCO2009bluejay ( talk ) 00:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Since the standards are not being applied fairly to all schools, I vote to keep the article.  I'd love to see what rubric is really being applied here that allows so many other schools to stay up, but this particular one is nominated for deletion.  The advertising style language could certainly be rephrased for a more neutral tone.  If dead colleges, such as Phillips University for example, which also served the same community can have a page, why can't an active educational institution have one?  Many public libraries have pages on Wikipedia as well.  I come from the inclusionist perspective, and long established educational institutions seem inherently notable.  As to the number of students and so forth, just because it serves a smaller community doesn't mean it isn't notable.  This is a bias in favor of large cities that I have seen a number of times on Wikipedia which is used to delete articles.  Thousands of people have passed through this vocational technical school even if the students may not have been particularly notable themselves.  Kiddo27 ( talk ) 01:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note Tulguy is WP:Canvassing other users.  [18] , [19] , including this line ""I don’t know if he hates Oklahoma or what"" on WT:Oklahoma. - UCO2009bluejay ( talk ) 03:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He also asked me here User_talk:WhisperToMe#Autry_Technology_Center WhisperToMe ( talk ) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'd have to look at the secondary sources to see if they are independent of the subject.  I would imagine that there would be enough but I'll need to spend some time to do so first.  And as stated above Tulguy requested that I look at the matter.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 17:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a source here: ""Aviation Training Classes Canceled"" .  The Daily Oklahoman .  Oklahoma City, Oklahoma .  1995-05-16.  p. 8.  - See clip .  This discusses a set of classes, funded by a grant, that ended up being canceled.  I want to see if I can find more sources like this.  Also, this source is from the state capital, Oklahoma City , and also I believe ""super-local"" sources are generally acceptable to source content about non-profit educational institutions.  I also notice the Newspapers.com references for Oklahoma newspapers covering this topic seem to only date to 1995.  I could contact the Oklahoma City newspapers to see if they had 1970s and 1980s articles discussing this institution.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 17:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I sent a message to The Oklahoman and hopefully they'll find 1970s-1995 archives about this institution.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 21:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - to the list article cited previously.  Institution fails WP:NSCHOOL and per ATD , a redirect is better than deletion.  Note the keep ! votes here are overwhelmingly WP:ILIKEIT votes that conflate perceived importance with notability .  69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 13:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I think that the ""Aviation Training Classes Canceled"" shows a real possibility of notability.  I just need to wait to hear back from the newspaper to see if there are more sources which can develop this angle.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 21:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The newspaper sourcing looks fine to me.  Yes they're local sources, but they're normal newspapers and should meet WP:RS .  The rest of the sourcing is less than ideal.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 07:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG.  Also, poor form by Tulguy to be WP:CANVASSING votes here.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Michel Hne : Seven official appearances for the New Caledonia national football team ; no indication of notability.  Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , France ,  and Oceania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 08:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Giant Snowman 18:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"MNC Entertainment : Not sure if MNC Channels would be unbalanced by a merge/redirect there.  Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to MNC Vision who is the provider of the channel.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Święte, Pomeranian Voivodeship : Not a village, nothing but trees at the specified location .  The Polish regulation on place-names lists this as ""part of the colony of Lesiaki"" ( część kolonii Lesiaki ) - see p. 1636 here .  We already have an article about Lesiaki, Pomeranian Voivodeship .  Nothing to merge as there is nothing accurately sourced in the article (yes, that includes the location for which we do not have a source).  Święte literally means ""saints"", of which I'm sure they have many even in just the Pomeranian Voivodeship, so a redirect makes no sense.  This is simply a location, with no evidence of inhabitants or ever having been inhabited.  TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND , WP:GNG , WP:NOPAGE .  FOARP ( talk ) 07:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  FOARP ( talk ) 07:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Lesiaki, Pomeranian Voivodeship which it is a part of and which should mention that fact.  Not seeing enough GNG to merit keeping it as a stand-alone article.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon : I tried the Wikipedia Library, OpenBooks, Google News, and Newspapers.com.  No review or in-depth coverage.  The best source I could find was this piece in ScreenRant , which covers a few snippets of the plot.  I don't think the article could be built on such a source, and doing so would not get us into compliance with WP:NBOOKS#Articles that are plot summaries and WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 15:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 15:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Blade Runner (franchise)#Books - I am only finding very brief mentions of the book, such as the ScreenRant fluff piece linked to in the nomination.  For example, this article , which goes in depth on the first of Jeter's Blade Runner books, briefly mentions this sequel at the end, but it does nothing more than state that it exists.  Likewise, this article , which is an overview of the various spinoff media of the franchise, mentions it, but has no actual coverage or discussion about it beyond that.  From what I can see, only the first of Jeter's Blade Runner books, Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human , actually got any significant coverage.  That said, the Blade Runner franchise article has a section for these books already, with a quick plot summary, so redirecting there would be preferable over deletion.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Great suggestion.  Please consider me a redirect ! vote also.  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Merge .  I tried Booklist, Kirkus, and Publishers Weekly for reviews, with no luck.  I suggest ""merge"" because it would be nice for the plot synopsis at Blade Runner (franchise)#Books to spell out the ending (more spoilers and less ""hook""), so drawing on the very long plot summary in this article could be useful to add two more sentences to the franchise page.  In general redirect is the right alternative to deletion.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 07:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Blade_Runner_(franchise)#Books per above editors' findings -- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Blade Runner (franchise)#Books : reviews online are merely in context of the franchise.  Password (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Hasmik Yeremyan : JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Armenia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Agreed.  Per nom.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Green Dragon Canyon : Qwirkle ( talk ) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Owyhee River : Does not meet WP:NATFEAT as it does not have information beyond location and name.  The single source included in the article is not reliable.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Luxembourgish Wikipedia : That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.  Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing?  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Internet , Websites , Europe ,  and Luxembourg .  Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 03:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R — siro χ o 06:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect.  No need for a separate article.  Athel cb ( talk ) 12:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions .  L iz Read!  Talk!  20:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Soane Asi : Doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina ( talk ) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople ,  and Rugby union .  Shinadamina ( talk ) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The only reliable information for him is on this ESPN page , that provides a mediocre amount of information.  Other than that I couldn't find any reliable sources on him.  The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found some more information KoreanDragon ( talk ) 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : ESPN is about the extent of coverage.  Some unrelated linkedin posts, nothing else for notability I can find.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Linkedin profile stated that it was him, as seen in the info.  ""My name is Soane Asi being working as Lab Technician for Winstone for 23 years migrates from the Kingdom of Tonga 1987 after the very first Rugby World Cup where I represent Tonga I play as an Utility Backs from 2nd Five eight to Full Back but I play my first game on wing against Canada. Back Home I work for the ministry of Works as a Technical Officers for 8 years. Graduate with a Civil Engineering Diploma on Road Constructions 2 years Study on Ministry of Works Courses.""  KoreanDragon ( talk ) 10:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players Some sourcing exists, but difficult to judge whether it would pass WP:GNG with offline coverage, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Battle of Mullihambato : (in terms of the victor), and ""unknown"")  – and they are totally unverifiable.  Spanish version of article also doesn't inspire confidence, as it suggests that this battle is also called the ""Battle of Ambato"", the ""Battle of Chimborazo"", or the ""Battle of Nagsichi"" – and it's doubtful that any source actually links all 4 of them as one and the same.  (Newson  (1995), Life and Death in Early Colonial Ecuador , mentions a major battle in Ambato, but that doesn't exactly match the description here, either. )  Perhaps a new article could be created in the future called ""Battle of Ambato"" or equivalent, but if so, it would need to be backed by reliable sources.  (N.B., a separate article on Battle of Chimborazo already exists in English Wikipedia.)  Article as it has stood for 16 years is essentially original research  ( WP:OR )  and should be deleted on those grounds.  Cielquiparle  ( talk )  11:56, 28 May 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military ,  and Ecuador .  Cielquiparle  ( talk )  11:56, 28 May 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 May 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mccapra  ( talk )  19:02, 28 May 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Redirect to Battle of Chillopampa per Maria Rostworowski de Diez Canseco , History of the Inca Realm , 1999, p. 116: ""The two armies had their first encounter on the plain of Chillopampa, with Huascar's troops defeating those of Atahualpa. Nevertheless, Atahualpa's generals, reacting quickly, regrouped their scattered troops and, with fresh reinforcements from Quito, were able to recover. According to Cabello de Valboa, this first encounter took place in Mullihambato, near the river, and in a second battle, luck favored Atahualpa's captains. Cieza maintains that only one battle took place. In this fighting...Atoc was taken prisoner and fell victim to the cruelty of Challcochima, who, according to some versions, had a gold-incrusted chica cup made of his skull.""  There is no clear source that says that this battle occurred independently of either Chillopampa or Chimborazo, and through Rostworowski the suggestion is made that Mullihambato is Chillopampa, with the second battle, if it occurred, being Chimborazo.  A redirect to the Chillopampa page would allow mention of the possibility of this name to be made there.  I do not recommend a merge because the article is uncited and would require a complete rewrite to be useful in any article.  Pickersgill-Cunliffe  ( talk )  14:38, 29 May 2024  (UTC)  [ reply ] Comment .  @ Pickersgill-Cunliffe Interesting find...but then why not simply redirect to Inca Civil War and have some corresponding text there explaining the historians' disagreement?  In general I'm wary of the entire set of individual battle pages – it's almost like the Wikipedia ""wars/battles"" structure is driving a certain type of framing of the Inca Civil War that may not be warranted, given that there is disagreement among historians about which battles even took place to start with, and the depth of information available about a few of the battles is quite thin for many.  (Even the broader Inca Civil War article itself tells a different story from what the individual battle pages and template seem to suggest.)  As an example, there is yet another framing in Enduring controversies in military history: critical analyses and context  (ABC-CLIO, 2017)  which explores ""Did the Inca Civil War play an important role in the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire?"" which suggests that the main battles occurred in Tumebamba, Ambato, and Quipaipan.  On Wikipedia now we have the following pages, some of which only cite one source, and present information as though it's uncontested: Inca Civil War Battle of Chillopampa Battle of Mullihambato  (subject of current AfD discussion)  ""Capture of Tumebamba"" (soft redirect within the template to main Tumebamba page) Battle of Huanucopampa Battle of Quipaipán If you go through the sequence of individual battle pages, it feels like a rather breezy creation of a bunch of articles for the sake of building a narrative that fits the template.  (Not suggesting we need solve the whole problem here, just pointing out the context.)  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cielquiparle : Agree there seems to be some confusion about the civil war, but as you say we'll stick to this article.  I think that redirecting to Chillopampa is most appropriate because it appears that we do have historians mostly agreeing that this battle occurred, and that if Mullihambato existed (as the same battle or a different one) it was directly connected to it.  People searching for these events are more likely to go to Chillopampa, which isn't actually mentioned in the main article!  Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Inca Civil War : I just don't see why this should redirect to another battle, this would confuse readers who are looking for information on Mullihambato and end up on a different battle.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I'm not opposed to the redirect instead being Inca Civil War , I would note that the point of my vote is that this battle is considered the same as, if not interconnected with, Chillopampa.  I'm not just voting to redirect to a random battle.  Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Alternative versions of Wonder Woman : References are 100% comic books (primary fiction sources).  The topic fails WP:GNG and is nothing but a plot summary.  At best, we can consider SOFTDELETE by redirecting this to Wonder Woman (no objection to merging a bit of plot summary if anyone thinks it is relevant).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Comics and animation ,  and Lists .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Wonder Woman#Other versions .  Does not appear to meet LISTN, and also fails NOTPLOT.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   I could have sworn this was nominated for deletion a few months ago and kept, but I don't see any mention of that on the page.   Either way, there are some problems with this nomination: firstly, issues with sourcing are not a valid reason for deletion.   Sourcing can always be improved; and the argument about ""plot summaries"" actually shoots the sourcing argument full of holes.   It's well-established in Wikipedia policy that works of fiction are valid sources for their own contents .  That means that if anyone with access to the works themselves can readily verify what they say, then identifying those sources in the article text—with or without inline citations to them—provides valid sources.   It might nonetheless be a good idea to cite them and find additional sources that mention some of the relevant details, just in order to demonstrate that valid sources exist to editors who aren't aware of this, and to improve the article in general.  But as long as sources for the contents of the article are in fact present—i.e. the names of the works identifying what they consist of—a lack of citations for many of the entries does not mean that there are no sources!   Not to mention that WP:BEFORE requires the nominator to make a good faith effort to find sources before making this argument in the first place—and that cannot have been done if the nominator failed to consider the works themselves as sources for their own contents.   Poor sourcing is not a valid argument for deletion—it is an argument for improving an article by adding sources.  Merely asserting that a topic fails the general notability guidelines isn't an argument—it's a lazy claim that something isn't important enough to cover because the nominator doesn't care about it.   But mass-market fiction is usually notable, and the subject of this article is something read by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, as part of a media franchise several decades old that includes notable film and television productions arising out of the same comic book series, known to hundreds of millions of people.   The argument, which the nominator failed to state clearly, runs along the lines, ""it's bad enough that Wikipedia has to have articles about comic book characters—it shouldn't allow topics too large to be conveniently or comprehensively treated in those articles to be split off into separate articles.""  But that would make articles about comic book characters different from all other articles on Wikipedia; splitting is ordinarily appropriate in order to cover topics—such as alternate versions of characters treated in different versions of a franchise and associated media—in sufficient detail.   It would be valid to argue that some of these versions are covered in excessive detail and could stand to be trimmed; but that is an argument to improve the article, not to delete it.  The argument about ""plot"" is clearly wrong.   If the article consisted of one plot in one work , then it would clearly be excessive.   But because each individual work treated has its own plot, and it would be necessary to explain how the character is treated in each work, some degree of plot summary is probably required for each entry.   Again, it's quite likely that some of these could be trimmed.   But that's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it.  Merging the article into the main one on Wonder Woman is not appropriate, as this article, even with substantial and appropriate trimming, would be excessively long and detailed to be folded into a section there.   In fact that article already has a very long section on this topic, that doesn't—and probably can't—begin to cover the subject comprehensively.   That's why it's split off into its own article.   It's a valid reason for splitting—and precisely what Wikipedia guidelines on article size recommends doing.   The arguments for merging come down to, ""this isn't an important subject, therefore it can't have its own article,"" and that conflicts with Wikipedia's guidelines for article size and splitting large topics, which should prevail in any argument for merging.  We don't care that an article was written by ""fans"" of a topic—most Wikipedia articles are!   The topic is evidently notable, and while the article could probably use a lot of trimming—of details, not simply trashing whole sections on the grounds that they can't be worth covering—and better (and more obvious) source citations, it is clearly possible to improve it, and it is not a candidate for merging into the main article about Wonder Woman, so it should be kept where it is.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 13:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Works of fiction are indeed valid sources for their own content in the form of pure plot details, but (1) they do not establish notability, especially not in a case like this where they would be examples of an overarching topic rather than themselves the subject of the article, (2) they do not establish weight, and (3) policy explicitly prohibits basing entire articles on primary sources.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 13:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main topic here is Wonder Woman, who is unquestionably notable.   If a topic is notable, subtopics that are large enough to be split off from the main article are presumptively notable.   An argument could be made that the subject of this article is not sufficiently notable when treated separately, but the nominator hasn't overcome the presumption of notability merely by calling it fancruft.   Plot points of notable literature tend to be notable, and don't cease being notable merely because they're split off due to size.   Weight of course goes to how the article should be trimmed, but that's not an argument for deletion; even if the article needs to be substantially trimmed, it should be kept.   As for secondary sources, I happen to know that they're available—I've seen articles about the evolution of Wonder Woman over the decades on the New York Times , and I haven't even been looking.   Some of the plot lines in this article are definitely documented in other sources.  But AfD isn't based on whether the article already has good sources, but on whether suitable sources exist.   The nominator does not appear to have looked for them, and therefore failed to carry out WP:BEFORE.   This nomination is fatally flawed because it is based on the present sourcing—much of which is acceptable, if inadequate—and much more of which exists and could be added to the article.   It is explicitly the responsibility of editors wishing to delete articles to search for reliable sources—not the responsibility of editors who don't think deletion is warranted to find and incorporate them in order to avoid the articles being deleted.   I know that's how these discussions often turn out—nominators creating mountains of work for other editors because they couldn't be asked to follow WP:BEFORE—but that's not what AfD policy says.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 14:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the topic here is Alternative versions of Wonder Woman , not Wonder Woman .  It is not the case that subtopics that are large enough to be split off from the main article are presumptively notable ; notability is not inherited like that.  Even if it were, that still would do nothing to address the issue of this article being completely based on primary sources in direct violation of policy and primary sources not doing anything to establish weight.  The size argument also doesn't make a whole lot of sense absent proper sources—how on Earth would one know if this actually is large enough to be split off from the main article without surveying the relevant literature to assess the proper weight in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject ?  What's more, you're asking the nominator to prove a negative when you say that the nominator hasn't overcome the presumption of notability .  Finally, I put it to you that the person who creat[ed] mountains of work for other editors is whoever added a bunch of material based on primary sources in the first place, because at best it will all need to be done once over again based on secondary sources to make sure it properly reflects them in terms of relative weight of different aspects and so on.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 16:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of these are arguments for improving the article, not for deleting it.   And it is absolutely the responsibility of someone who nominates an article for deletion due to a lack of citations to reliable, independent sources to undertake a reasonable search for them.   The nominator does not need to prove that such sources do not exist ; but if the nominator searched known or available sources that might be expected to contain some of the relevant information, and found nothing, that would be sufficient to support the nomination.   The sources do not need to corroborate all of the details of individual plots; for that the article may cite the works themselves.  What is not acceptable is to claim that the article should be deleted because it is fancruft about a comic book character and cites only primary sources—the first is a subjective judgment by the nominator about a notable body of fiction, and the second can be remedied by searching for and citing independent sources for at least some of the article—something which is certainly possible, since such sources are known to exist.   The nominator cannot be forced to search for or incorporate any sources—but if he does not, then the nomination must fail and the article should be kept .  P Aculeius ( talk ) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the article contains no properly-sourced material (as is the case here), redirecting is a perfectly cromulent WP:Alternative to deletion —and was suggested in the nomination, as you can plainly see.  Arguing that it should be kept without even entertaining that option is a ridiculous absolutist position.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, AfD policy clearly states that the question is whether sources exist , not whether they are presently cited in the article—and as I've said multiple times, I know that sources for this exist, because I've seen and read some.   WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable search for sources before an article can be deleted for lack thereof—if sources can be located with a reasonably diligent effort to find them, then the article should not be nominated for deletion, irrespective of whether anyone has bothered to cite them in the article.   Since the nominator failed to do so, and no attempt to find or incorporate sources is shown in either the nomination or the subsequent discussion, this article is not even a candidate for deletion.   And you yourself admitted that the article contains valid sources for most of its contents—just not independent ones.   It doesn't take a lot of them to support the article, but AfD policy is clear, and this nomination fails to comport with that policy, so it must be kept .  P Aculeius ( talk ) 11:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like I said, a ridiculous absolutist position.  If you have the means to turn this into a properly-sourced article, great—do that.  But until that happens, there is no reason to retain this version that would need to be remade completely from scratch.  You have presented no argument whatsoever that would preclude redirecting this to Wonder Woman#Other versions until such a time.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 11:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Wonder Woman#Other versions - While a few of the individual versions of Wonder Woman may have some reliable sources discussing them, and should be covered in prose format on the main Wonder Woman article, the overall topic of every ""alternative"" version of the character does not have the sources to pass the WP:GNG as a distinct topic nor WP:LISTN as a valid list.  This list does not contain a single non-primary source and the vast majority of the entries here are extremely minor variants of the character that only featured in single Elseworld style stories, so a simple Redirect would be sufficient as an WP:ATD .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 04:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As already stated, WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable search for sources to support an article before it is nominated for deletion.   That has not been done.   There are most certainly independent sources for some of the article's contents.   Not every item in a list needs to be individually notable, as long as the overall topic is, and just a few independent sources would demonstrate that.   But the present state of sourcing is not relevant to AfD: it's whether suitable sources exist , not whether they've been cited or incorporated into the article.   AfD cannot proceed until a good faith effort has been made to locate independent sources to support it.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 11:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not every item in a list needs to be individually notable – no, but per WP:PROPORTION they do need to be covered in sources on the overarching topic.  Is that the case?  Then cite those sources and present the various aspects with a relative weight corresponding to their treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject .  Until that is done, there exists no case against redirecting this to Wonder Woman#Other versions in the meantime.  I'm sure you know that even notable topics do not always warrant a stand-alone article, as per WP:PAGEDECIDE .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 11:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""There are most certainly independent sources"".  Asserting WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES several times is not going to make you argument stronger.  If there are sources, cite them.  And if there are for some aspects of the article, then the problem of this being improperly framed remains.  IF you find said sources, they can be used to expand the target article.  Little of the fancruft here is encyclopedic, I fear.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:LISTN , a stand alone list may not require every item in the list to be individually notable, but does need to have been ""discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"".  I have yet to find, nor see anyone present in this AFD, evidence of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that demonstrates the notability of the topic of alternate versions of Wonder Woman.  And yes, despite your repeated assumption of bad faith that obviously WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and thus if no one has found them then they obviously did not perform a WP:BEFORE search, I have searched for sources, and found nothing except a small handful of the typical churnalism ""top ten"" lists that are generally not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability.  As I alluded to in my initial comment, any specific version that actually has any sources to show that they are slightly more notable than the multitude of one-shot versions that make up the majority of this list can be included in the appropriate section on the Wonder Woman article, which, per WP:NOPAGE , is a perfectly acceptable way of presenting that information.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Wonder Woman#Other versions which, if the plot summary was pared down to manageable levels, could definitely support all the notable parts of this list and more.  Going back to the initial creation of this article, it was definitely not made with notability in mind.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Fiction can be sourced for its own story details, but WP:NOT tells us that articles must be more than WP:PLOT summaries.  This cannot meet that standard because there isn't enough reliable reception, and so it fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I can't find any in-depth coverage in Reliable sources about the topic ""Alternative versions of Wonder Woman"" (the only coverage I can find is from low quality listicles).  Since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED this article needs to prove its own WP:GNG , which I can't see it doing.  Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I have held out for the purported usable sources to be cited as part of an effort to improve the article or at minimum be identified with enough specificity to enable somebody else to improve the article with them, but we're approaching five days since they were asserted to exist and that hasn't happened.  As it stands, we have a perfectly reasonable redirect target in Wonder Woman#Other versions and none of the current content at the article under discussion is properly sourced.  Turning this into a proper article based on secondary/tertiary sources on the overarching topic— Alternative versions of Wonder Woman —would be great, but it would necessitate starting over from scratch due to the fundamental problems with the current version.  Until somebody takes the time to actually carry that out, redirecting is the way to go.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think for most of these ""Alternative versions"" articles, where there isn't any reliable secondary coverage of the grouping, merge is the right solution, an WP:ATD both preserving history, and moving an appropriate amount of missing information into the main article.  Redirect may be fine here as well.  — siro χ o 01:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"X (automobile) : I am unable to find any other sourcing, and the given source is only a listing that says ""X (France) (1908-1909).""  The article went unsourced for 18 years and the text has not been expanded upon since its original creation.  Even given the age of this, it does not seem to have any claim to importance or historical significance since it existed for a year at most and ""little is known about the marque.""  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Technology , Transportation ,  and France .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  No evidence of notability.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 22:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Convert to disambiguation page for X-branded cars The three hatnotes at the very least justify that use and we can retain this make as part of it.  Nate • ( chatter ) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Convert.  MrSchimpf's proposal seems good to me.  My understanding is that the Tesla will likely be referred to more commonly as ""Model X"" than just ""X"", and as for the other two their readership counts are both below 200 per day , which to me is not sufficient to decide the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC .  S5A-0043 Talk 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Works for me.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like a good alternative to me.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, there should be a disambig for X-branded cars but usually disambs are just a list of links to other pages and there will be no other page for this 1908 automobile.  But, in the spirit of incremental improvement, I'm happy to accept this proposal and do the best we can with it now and assume there will be further improvement in the future.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Paciano Rizal, Calamba : Virtually unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article, with a one but non-independent citation (Calamba city government).  The article primarily serves as a directory, with listings of their establishments, government offices, and industrial sites.  A breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable?  (can we please have a consensus now?) .  At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays .  AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection.  JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 02:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines .  JWilz12345 ( Talk | Contrib's. ) 02:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete being legally recognisable isn't enough.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 08:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very hard to search for because it was named for Paciano Rizal.  There's definitely some scholarly hits talking about schools, but would need to search a local paper in order to be sure.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD .  HueMan1 ( talk ) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD .  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Cloud9 Entertainment : Feels promotional though use of peacock wording, but without any direct advertising.  Has numerous references, though some of dubious quality.  May possibly be saved if notable and copy-edited.  Listing to gain consensus.  Os ari us 14:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Os ari us 14:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Thailand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Os ari us 09:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Vachirawit Chivaaree .  There is zero coverage of the company that is independent of its owner and (as of now) sole artist; the company itself is simply not notable on its own, yet.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 11:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Charles Gaylord : Ref 2 is not WP:IS , and refs 3&4 are questionably lacking in independence as well.  So, fails WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sports , Martial arts , United States of America , California ,  and Hawaii .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] COMMENT It looks like he was one of the three pioneers who brought kajukenbo to the US, [6] he may also have introduced a notable technique/method called ""the Gaylord Method of Kajukenbo"", [7] more research for sources is needed as this is all quite old but if more found a {{ Sources exist }} template might work otherwise I would recommend a merge with the kajukenbo article.  Lewolka ( talk ) 11:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The art was created in Hawaii.   The article says he was one of the first to bring it to California.   The Gaylord method was his self-titled version of the the art.  Papaursa ( talk ) 20:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes should have added continental.  Lewolka ( talk ) 19:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No indication of significance of the subject.  Completely fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG .  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 13:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Kajukenbo .   None of the references can be considered significant, independent coverage from reliable sources.  However, he is mentioned multiple times in the article on the art and that article contains all the significant information that is in his personal article.   Therefore, I'm advocating for a redirect.  Papaursa ( talk ) 20:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] REDIRECT to Kajukenbo .  not enough for standalone article.  Lewolka ( talk ) 19:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Chandler Lawson : Let'srun ( talk ) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Tennessee .  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Miss Tennessee#Winners as an alternative to deletion .  The subject has not received sustained coverage and the subject is also only notable for one event .  ~ Tails Wx 02:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"15 (Phatfish album) : They don't pass WP:NALBUMS #1.  BEFORE search: 15 : review , short news snip In Jesus : review , short news snip , passing mention Anthems for Worship : review , short news snip , passing mention SWinxy ( talk ) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also nominating: In Jesus ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Anthems for Worship ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs ,  and Music .  SWinxy ( talk ) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to - and unlink from - Phatfish , rather than delete.  Thanks to nom for doing a WP:BEFORE search, helpful.  Agree that it fails WP:NALBUM / WP:SIGCOV .  Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 20:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Phatfish per nom, although after looking through that article I'm not too confident in the group's notability either.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect all (three albums) to Phatfish .  Some of the band's other works got some notice, but these three albums seem to have been generally ignored by the reliable music media, and the articles are dependent on minor fan trivia.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Tufts Blue : Currently sourced only to Tufts' brand identity guide.  Oxford Blue this is not.  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tufts University as nom.  (There's currently Shades of blue § Tufts blue , but given the lack of sourcing, I think that section should be removed.) {{u| Sdkb }} talk 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , Advertising , Education ,  and Massachusetts .  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also related AfDs for UCLA Blue , BISU Visual Identity , and RISD Blue .  I tagged Carolina blue for notability, as it's a little more borderline.  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 01:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above as a likely colloquial term.  The primary source provided doesn't fully support this article, and a more modern version eg [2] does not either.  Without any sourcing a merge of any kind seems inappropriate.  — siro χ o 01:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect: as above.   Never mind without sourcing, what kind of actual content is there to merge?  That the university's marketing department has its own color codes for the shade of blue they prefer?   Heck, I used to live in Medford, and I've never heard this turn of phrase.  Ravenswing 04:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Friedrich-Dessauer-Gymnasium, Frankfurt : The German article also does not seem to contain much in the way of notability per English Wikipedia requirements.  - Asheiou (they/them • talk) 13:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Appears to be sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point out some of these sources for me?  I cannot find them.  > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 12:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a few pages of results when searching through Google News.  33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of these sources from Google seem to be referring to the school in Aschaffenburg rather than the one in Höchst .  > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Quite a lot of sources on the school, seems to meet WP:GNG.  33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Source evaluation, anyone?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of schools in Germany .  I checked and translated all the articles on the Google News link given above [22] .  The 7 non-paywalled sources had no WP:SIGCOV .  The 3 paywalled sources, judging from their titles and first paragraphs, had various problems.  One article talked about how the school was fighting school bus accidents by sending pupils to a ""bus school"" for safety training (not sigcov of the gymnasium).  One article talked about appointing a new headmaster ( WP:ROUTINE ).  Overall, I'm afraid I am not convinced these sources meet WP:GNG .  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 12:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reluctant redirect per Novem Linguae.  I would be happier about this if we had a better target; the List of schools in Germany entry contains no information not already present in the page title.  Once again we are victims of our success in driving away the dedicated content editors who could have maintained better coverage of schooling and education on the regional/city level.  But keeping a free-standing article doesn't really seem to be in the cards; there just isn't much to work with here.  Notably, the DE article on the school is much more substantial but mostly uncited (and the sources it does cite aren't really SIGCOV material), so doesn't provide much help here.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Allyn Walker : They have been solely covered within the context of a single episode of backlash in late 2021 following comments they made in an interview, following which they resigned from their university, with pretty much no coverage following the incident, failing WP:SUSTAINED .  Their citation record is a clear fail of WP:PROF .  It's a reasonable proposal that the article could be transformed into one about their book A Long, Dark Shadow instead, per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Shrier .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Redirect to A Long, Dark Shadow per below.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 03:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Sexuality and gender ,  and United States of America .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very trivial coverage after the individual got fired, one from the Daily Mail confirming they were hired by a new university; this is about the only other thing I can find [9] and it's a trivial mention from 2022.  No sort of sustained coverage in what we have as RS; it boils down to ""person says something controversial, gets fired, then gets another job"".  We've moved on it seems, no longer interested in the story.  Very much a WP:BIO1E.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  With an h -index of 4 according to Scopus (much lower than the Scholar figure of 10 ), this is not a notable academic and does not pass WP:NPROF .  The Long, Dark Shadow book has been cited a total of 10 times according to Scholar, so is unlikely to be notable enough to justify having a page on it here.  Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 23:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It passes NBOOK as it has been the subject of at least two academic reviews [10] [11] .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition to those, I found [12] .  I think the book can qualify as wiki-notable.  If there had been no controversy, this would be a mundane case where we refactor the page about the author into a page about the book.  See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Deomampo , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Fox (musicologist) , and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alam Saleh .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 00:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per BIO1E and the lack of coverage following the individual's firing.  Cheers, atque supra !  Fake scientist 8000 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with a redirect, but please purge the history per WP:IAR and WP:DENY .  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like this application of IAR needs more justification than a link to DENY.  Is the concern that people might read the content in the history, and use the information and sources cited on other articles, contaminating them with the aura of POV?  small jars t c 14:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  With it being such a highly sensitive topic area, the POV which the creator was blocked for pushing needn't and shouldn't be anywhere on the website.  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It also seems to me like a 1E.  I probably would change my stance to keep if it was shown there was some in-depth thing about them other than this.  SWinxy ( talk ) 04:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this is part of a sustained campaign by a blocked user and several WP:SPAs to legitimize the WP:FRINGE euphemism “minor-attracted person”.  WP:TNT and WP:DENY apply Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : This caused several impact by a blocked user and several WP:SPAs to cause a WP:FRINGE .  Agreed with Dronebogus, WP:DENY and WP:TNT applied.  CastJared ( talk ) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to A Long, Dark Shadow : per WP:ATD-R .  TJMSmith ( talk ) 03:40, 18 May 202 3 (UTC) Redirect to the newly created book article, per above.  — Alalch E. 08:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per 1E to the newly created article for the E in question.  We might as well be rewriting the same article from scratch, but I guess doing it under the title of the book allows for the psychological distance necessary to WP:DENY 22spears' efforts.  small jars t c 14:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Seems like this is a slam-dunk but just in case, there is an attempt being made at off-wiki canvassing to keep - Tweet .  Zaathras ( talk ) 14:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting.  The Twitter account is followed by a friend, so idk.  A generous interpretation would be to say they're trying to get the article improved .  SWinxy ( talk ) 18:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Ann Gloria Daniel : Perhaps redirect to the pageant?  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Florida .  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Draft No solid sourcing for the article.  I believe notability might be established, but there is just not the sourcing to back this up.  PickleG13 ( talk ) 09:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Miss Florida as insufficient sourcing found for separate article.  The image is already on that page.  Rupples ( talk ) 16:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Know Our B-Sides : Restore Redirect to Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays .  Muhandes ( talk ) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Muhandes ( talk ) 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - this single stands out as one of only 2 ever released exclusively in Japan.  The discography is also incomplete without it.  Also, there is an article and a discog template entry for Further Away as well as Life Becoming a Landslide and this has never been nominated for deletion.  So, by the same logic - both Nobody Loved You and the Know Our B-Sides EP should both be kept.  This track isn't some unofficial, non-authorized 12"" whitelabel, it's an officially released single - but according to some Wikipedians, it doesn't count because it was only released in Japan. Should we remove the tracklistings of the Japanese album versions because they don't count too? Wikipedia specifically aims to not solely focus on the English speaking world as reiterated in . Finally, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music) , "" Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.  "". This has been satisfied because it appears on reputable Japanese sites. Furthermore, "" the recording has appeared on any country's music chart "". This single has, so it has satisfied two conditions where only one is required for notability. Finally, @ Muhandes : stated above ""...just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography. "". Why are you making statements that aren't true? None of this article was merged into the above, other than the title of the EP and the year. Your point is null and void because it's just not true Apeholder ( talk ) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Note to closing admin : Apeholder ( talk • contribs )  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD . @ Apeholder : The title of the EP and the year are all the relevant material. If you find that offending, I will strike it out as it is immaterial. The material part is WP:NALBUM which is not satisfied. Muhandes ( talk ) 16:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Muhandes : the title and year is clearly not enough to satisfy your ""it's contained elsewhere"" assertion. Where does it say that those two pieces of info are enough? This EP has satisfied various conditions of the criteria you specified Apeholder ( talk ) 16:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Apeholder : I'm not sure what you are repeating this, I stroked out that ""assertion"" because it is an immaterial part of the nomination. The nomination is due to WP:NALBUM not being satisfied. Show that it is satisfied by editing the article, and I will be very happy to withdraw this nomination. Muhandes ( talk ) 16:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Muhandes : I have read WP:NALBUM that you keep referring to: "" That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.  "" By this logic, none of their singles should be included on Wikipedia. Also, I have read the First deletion discussion you referenced, but again nobody was able to describe why this article should be deleted but that the rest are notable enough to keep. One person even says ""I Googled it and couldn't find much"".  It's a Japanese only release and Google shows you English articles!  Of COURSE they wouldn't find much!  There are also far more references to notability for this release than most other Manics articles.  The release is notable enough to be included on WP as any others are, and it does not make sense having an incomplete discography on here because someone is being over-zealous when it comes to interpreting WP guidelines.  I would love to hear an explanation.  If this can be satisfied, then yes the article should be deleted.  Apeholder ( talk ) 17:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Apeholder : WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  Muhandes ( talk ) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Muhandes : It's also nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the examples given all take unrelated articles as justification for an article to stay up.  The existence of Further Away shows this EXACT type of article exists already, not similar or totally unrelated as your example shows, but the EXACT same.  The fact you offered this as a counter argument suggests you are either being very disingenuous or don't know the first thing about the subject matter.  Also, have you noticed how I'm giving you extensive replies, and yours are pretty much one-liners with stuff that's not even relevant?  So far you have said things that are clearly false and other things totally unrelated.  Apeholder ( talk ) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP if the other single mentioned above is also the same thing as this single is, then why is that somehow accepted but this isn't?  We need a complete discography.  Keep.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.147.104 ( talk ) 13:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — 109.78.147.104 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Needs more substantive input.  Previous relist failed to actually transclude this to the July 20 log so it got lost Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirct per nom.  ArcAngel (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  A WP:BEFORE search shows little to no sources, and if the article is to be kept, then the unreliable references (Discogs, Rate Your Music, etc.) need to be removed, but I'm inclined to redirect.  Tails Wx ( they/them ) ⚧ 08:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Celeste Maloy : The closest thing to in-depth coverage is an article recapping a presentation she gave at a planning committee and two articles solely about Chris Stewart endorsing her.  If she wins the election then obviously she'll be notable, but until then this page seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:1E BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women ,  and Utah .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Possible WP:ATD would be a redirect to 2023 Utah's 2nd congressional district special election .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True, a redirect could work (or even a move to draftspace to hold the page until the election is over).  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 19:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I am the article's creator.  First, I want to thank you for providing this feedback.  I am sincerely trying to learn and get better every day.  I am a very casual editor, as you can probably see.  But I want you to know that I did consider the lack of coverage as mentioned in BottleofChoclateMilk's reasoning, however, I simply had a different opinion.  I did not find them to just be ""mentions in passing.""  I thought a few of them were quite detailed and even included quotes that directly related to the subject's position at the time.  And I did remove the directory listings, which were not included to prove notability but rather to provide citations in claims made in the article.  I am not trying to start a war here.  But I think two people could look at the same articles and come to opposite conclusions.   I think the article as it stood at the time of creation was already enough to pass the WP:GNG threshold.  However, now especially, I think there has been more than enough in-depth coverage to push her over.  By a long shot.  Here are just some examples of recent coverage.  ""Robert Gehrke: How Celeste Maloy went from long shot to a front-runner for Congress"" .  The Salt Lake Tribune .  ""Celeste Maloy registered as a Utah Republican voter three days after filing to run for Congress. Here's why it matters"" .  The Salt Lake Tribune .  ""GOP sticking with Celeste Maloy as convention winner after delegates question eligibility"" .  www.ksl.com .  ""Celeste Maloy wins Utah Republicans' nomination for special congressional election"" .  The Salt Lake Tribune .  This will be a very major election and have huge implications for the national stage.  Although personally, I find it inappropriate to speculate that the article's subject is going to win the election, a lot of media outlets certainly have been making such speculations.  This is reflected in coverage.  Certainly, now that she is the official nominee of her political party, that alone is enough to push her over the threshold.  DrSangChi ( talk ) 00:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:1E , being involved in one event is not necessarily enough to establish notability.  There seems to be absolutely no in-depth coverage of Maloy outside of this election.  Being a party's nominee for Congress does not establish notability.  If she wins the election then of course she will get a page, but until then you have not proven notability.  The argument of ""media outlets speculate she'll win"" is irrelevant and and fails WP:CRYSTAL .  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 01:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Creator has done a good start job, but the notability is on hold until the election is over, at which point this can be evaluated against wp:npolitician.   Time will tell.  Lamona ( talk ) 04:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the election that she's running in, if it exists.  She is not currently notable and we cannot assume she will win the election.  Being the official nominee is not enough for enduring notability.  SportingFlyer T · C 09:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Utah's 2nd congressional district special election .  Per the article Celeste Maloy is an attorney and a land rights advocate.  She is also a candidate for Congress.  Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:POLITICIAN .  However, nothing is so distinct about her candidacy (especially at this point) that she herself warrants an article.  The materials provided in AfD that are posted to support GNG are run of the mill coverage of a candidacy expected to arise in any election.  The candidacy does not rise to the historic levels of candidates like Christine O'Donnell , Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson) , or Lar ""America First"" Daly .  The article makes no mention of land rights advocacy so I cannot determine if Celeste Maloy would meet GNG for any activism.  An attorney can qualify for a Wikipedia article.  While not an official policy, I find Bearian's standards for attorneys to be a good guide to determining if enough sources can be found to meet GNG.  Maloy does not meet any of these at this time so establishing GNG is unlikely. -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 18:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Without assuming bad faith, I am going to leave this essay here.  Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing .  Mpen320 ( talk ) 18:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True, we shouldn't say anything without proof, though it is worth noting that the professional headshot of Maloy on her article was uploaded 11 minutes after the article was created by user ""CelesteMaloy2023"" and tagged as ""own work.""  Either way, I think there's a strong case (and consensus) to redirect.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins.  People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in future elections — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either  (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have earned them an article anyway, or  (b) they can show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies, such that even if they lose people will still be looking for information about their campaign ten years from now anyway .  Neither of those things in evidence here, however — and since all candidates in all elections always get some degree of campaign coverage during the election, the existence of such coverage does not automatically translate into ""campaign coverage = GNG, ergo NPOL not applicable"", because if that were how it worked then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would become meaningless.  So if she wins in November, then the campaign coverage will certainly become usable to help expand the article that she'll be entitled to at that time — but the existence of campaign coverage is not sufficient grounds for an article about an unelected candidate before the election is over.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Utah's 2nd congressional district special election as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for the US House (see WP:POLOUTCOMES .  Verifiable biographical and campaign information can be summarized on the page about the special election.  -- Enos733 ( talk ) 17:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"List of forts in Artsakh : Originally prod'd the page tho per User:RadioactiveBoulevardier , I'll put this up to AfD.  As an WP:ATD, I'm also open to turning this page into a redirect though I think the article title leaves room for confusion (I think its just as likely that a user would search for a list of forts in the ancient Artsakh empires/entities as for a list of forts in the soon-to-dissolve Republic of Artsakh (both topics are also not co-extensive).  Dan the Animator 17:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists .  Dan the Animator 17:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions .  Archives908 ( talk ) 17:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Most are non-notable.  Orientls ( talk ) 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect -- Now that the Armenian republic of Artsakh has been conquered and dissolved, there is no merit in the existence of this article.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 11:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of castles and fortresses in Azerbaijan .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 15:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Green Gully Reserve : The current sole working external link is four sentences and insufficient for SIGCOV ; other ref has a 404 error.
 Of the sourcing I can find: A highly brief listing and entry from the city council, which is non-independent and non-SIGCOV IMO.  4 sentence non-SIGCOV coverage from an unreliable source.  Its about us shows no staff expertise or editorial policies.  An ongoing project entry of unclear reliablility covering this briefly along with another location.  <5-sentence non-SIGCOV entry mentioning this reserve while noting a case study that has since been removed .  <5-sentence announcement on the creation of a new car park.  Overall, I am unconvinced that any of the sourcing meets GNG , and am surprised this passed NPP.  I am also fine with restoring the previous redirect target, but because the BLAR was contested, AfD is the next logical step.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Sports ,  and Australia .  North America 1000 08:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 08:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable.  TarnishedPath talk 10:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Green Gully SC - I'm not seeing any independent notability, but it is a likely search term. Giant Snowman 13:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Redirect and Merge to Keilor Downs, Victoria , Green Gully SC is named after the Green Gully Reserve area, its a multi-use area. And not solely used by Green Gully SC. @ GiantSnowman : Did you even read the prose on the article? Govvy ( talk ) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, you mean the article which opens 'Green Gully Reserve is the home of Victorian Premier League team Green Gully' and which does not mention any other notable occupants?  Don't be such a mardy bum.  Giant Snowman 14:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two things to point out, There is one ground right next to the Green Gully training pitches, but it does not belong to Green Gully, it belongs to the Keilor Wolves Soccer Club.  From the prose and from the infobox, owner is City of Brimbank and not the football club.  Now where do you want to go?  City of Brimbank or for more accuracy Keilor Downs, Victoria ??  Govvy ( talk ) 14:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Green Gully SC per GiantSnowman.  The other tenant is not notable, and a brief mention could be added if necessary.  - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Seriously, whats wrong with people, Green Gully Reserve, is a reserve (a park area) [25] , all the pitches are in the reserve, along with other sports pitches.  Housing multiple things [26] , the article is so wrong.  I suggested a redirect, but hey it needs a total rewrite, GiantSnowman , really, your suggestion on the redirect is so wrong.  @ Presidentman : Did you even have a proper look?  Govvy ( talk ) 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur with VickKiang's assessment of the sources in both the original nomination and their response below.  Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Presidentman : Is it your intention to ignore the whole nature reserve, park, play area, other sports solely to have a redirect??  Govvy ( talk ) 15:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being rude to people is no way to encourage people to change their mind...  Giant Snowman 18:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Unsurprisingly, after doing a proper looking, what we have is a massive reserve (park) under the name of Green Gully Reserve .  The article needs a total overhaul, clearly the above and nomination have no interest in doing proper research otherwise they would know that the article should easily pass WP:GEOFEAT .  Green Gully is a national park.  [27] .  Govvy ( talk ) 08:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article you linked above shows this being a track in the Werrikimbe National Park, Oxley Wild Rivers National Park in North Coast, Country NSW .  Whereas this is a Victoria park, a different state compared to NSW.  This edit you made claimed that this reserve in Melbourne , Victoria and another track part in a NSW park are possibly related.  This is incorrect- if you want to refactor this to be about a track in a completely different national park, then nothing here should be retained and you should start a new article anew.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, [28] , Proludic was engaged by Brimbank City Council to provide the main attraction of the new playground at Green Gully Reserve: a landmark play tower with two thrilling slides that integrates into the natural reserve.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, [29] , Discover this 5.3-km loop trail near Keilor, Victoria.  Generally considered an easy route, it takes an average of 1 h 13 min to complete.  This trail is great for birding, hiking, and mountain biking, and it's unlikely you'll encounter many other people while exploring.  The trail is open year-round and is beautiful to visit anytime.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, [30] Green Gully Reserve is a wonderful adventure playground for families located in Keilor Downs, north of Melbourne.  The playground highlight is the huge three story tree house tower with two connecting slides that the kids will just love exploring.  Other play equipment includes swings, balancing beams, climbing ropes, nature play areas, native bird sculptures, basketball court and fitness stations.  The kids will be so entertained at this park, they’ll want to fly back soon.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, [31] , Brimbank City Council is restoring Green Gully Reserve, a former tip site located above Taylors Creek to native vegetation.  Building on the previous years successful revegetation of 3,000 seedlings at Green Gully Reserve, Brimbank city council enaged Anglopac Environmental in Spring 2011 to install 6,000 seedlings on the site.  The hill side has now been transformed into a forest of tree guards.  The native species planted there will establish over the next 6 months and flourish with the amazing growth already witnessed from previous years seedlings.  The friable and nutrient rich soils will help the seedlings to out compete the weeds and provide soil stability for the steep slopes and provide habitat for the flora and fauna in the area.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These references indeed are about the same reserve, unlike the link to the NSW national park.  But I've analysed this in my nomination, whereas these two encompass IMO non-reliable UGC content (the articles include reviews by users with no subject-matter-expertise, and is akin to sites like TripAdvisor, that IMO doesn't help in notability).  Finally, this website has a basic about us page but insufficient editorial control (i.e., staff page, editorial policies, and the like) to be a reliable source.  I understand that we disagree in whether the materials here are sufficient regarding whether they are reliable and meet significant coverage.  I have already commented enough to make my case, and will leave it for other editors to the opine.  So I will abstain from commenting further.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Btw, @ VickKiang : Did you look at the map?  See where the pin is, that is the grounds and sports area, then to the right on the map you see all the green space, so the reserve runs from Keilor Downs all the way to Keilor East.  You should understand the scale of the reserve from that.  So all that area redirected to a football stadium makes no sense to me.  Regards.  Govvy ( talk ) 08:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But the problem is that the other green is not part of the Green Gully Reserve but part of the Brimbank Park .  Yes I agree that the latter is notable, but it is not part of the Green Gully Reserve.  It is true that I have not been to there (I do not live in Melbourne), but I have carefully inspected the map, and have researched this, with no sourcing treating this reserve and the other park separated by a road as the same.  In the other AfD, you say that I've never been to there.  That is completely true- I do not live in Melbourne, but it is unpersuasive and unrelated to notability.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The link you provided is for a place in the state of New South Wales.  The article we are currently discussing is about a reserve in the state of Victoria.  Two completely different parks in different states.  TarnishedPath talk 07:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting but just because some online sources attest to Green Gully Reserve being a great place does not constitute SIGCOV of this article subject.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify that as a nom I still support a redirect to either Keilor Downs, Victoria or Green Gully SC .  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - User:Govvy - I wasn't involved in this AFD until you mentioned it on my user talk page.   I haven't yet reviewed the article or its sources.   But what is clear to me is you, User:Govvy , are insulting other editors.  Did you even have a proper look?  and Did you look at the map?  are disrespectful to other editors.  Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 20:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect - A review of the sources shows that they are all tourist information sites, and as such are not independent sources .   Tourist guidebooks published by independent publishers are independent secondary sources contributing to notability , but these are not tourist guidebooks.  Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 anglopac.com.au Web site of a conservation group that has restored the park No Yes Yes No 2 alltrails.com Description of a hiking trail at the park No Yes Yes No 3 melbourneplaygrounds.com.au Description of facilities in the park including dog runs No Yes Yes No 4 play.com.tennis.au A guide to tennis courts and clubs in Australia No Yes Yes No The article as written does not establish general notability because it is does not establish independent coverage .   Not expressing an opinion at this time as to whether to redirect to the football club or to the town.   Maybe Govvy's arguments are based on sources that they have read that are not listed.   If so, adding the sources and tying them into the article might be the Heywood criterion.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 00:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Have rebuilt the article, added more citations, added citation ideas to talk page.  Changed info box over to Infobox park.  Please review.  Govvy ( talk ) 10:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Sorry to comment again.  Of the talk page sources, ref 1 is a submission from Brimbank City Council on a proposed change to the park.  Because they played a large role in constructing and updating the park, I do not believe it is independent.  The other three new refs are clear trivial mentions.  So I still support a redirect to either of the two mentioned targets.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"2003 International Songwriting Competition : This particular year of the annual competition fails GNG and NCORP.  As a list of awardees, this list also fails NLIST.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Delete (Sooner The Better) - Per Nomination PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 18:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PaulGamerBoy360 , which of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion do you think apply here?   (Or maybe you meant something like ""this is a very obvious case""?)  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sooner The Better 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 20:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Events ,  and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to International Songwriting Competition .   There's no actual need to delete it, and it's just barely possible that someone would want to look at the old revisions if they were creating a ==Winners of the grand prize== section in the main article.  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 19:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"W15EB-D : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I knew this was coming and I strongly advise keeping this article because of its considerable station history prior to being part of Innovate Corp. I have recently made some updates by expanding the history section and trying to overall better the article, would appreciate some assistance.  This is also one of the few stations Innovate Corp. has made efforts to improve upon, adding HD channels to it.  -- WashuOtaku ( talk ) 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Certainly any HC2/Innovate station that has any prior history has a leg-up on the stations they built from the ground up in the 2010s, but it's still hard to see how a station that appears to have only ever carried national services with little-to-no local content could attain the necessary significant coverage (its longest serving pre-HC2 owner was 3ABN).  Most of the sources are databases (not considered SIGCOV), and one of those its its HC2 Broadcasting listing (definitely not independent coverage , also required for notability); the mid-2010s ownership changes, which are relatively routine business transactions, probably don't quite fall under SIGCOV either.  To the extent this still matters, this is another survivor of last year's bulk nomination .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a lot of stations that carry national services with little-to-no local content in the United States, does that mean they all need to be deleted?  This seems to be a rather high bar.  The ref from HC2 Broadcasting can easily be replaced if that is deal breaker, there are a couple of third-party articles, already beating out a lot of other articles on Wikipedia.  Yes, it survived last year's purge for good reason and should be the same for this year too.  -- WashuOtaku ( talk ) 21:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.  Only history has been translating networks without a minute of local content outside station IDs, and this one has a worse problem of 'revolving door networks' where nothing stays on a channel for very long, and it claims for the purposes of E/I programming, its fourth subchannel is its main channel (carrying either paid programming or Cozi TV's Spanish sister and certainly not watched by a regular viewer).  If this group doesn't want to run stations seriously, it's not on us to indulge that fantasy with full-scale articles about what seems to be a shell game of multiple unwatched and unmonitored stations using the public airwaves.  Nate • ( chatter ) 02:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your response does not particularly talk about the article, but the company that currently owns it.  What if tomorrow this station is sold to someone else, would you then suddenly find it relevant again?  There are notability in this article despite @ Mvcg66b3r saying otherwise at the top.  Please consider the merits of the article and not the station's parent company, thank you.  -- WashuOtaku ( talk ) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's just not much to say about the station, which in the past rebroadcast 3ABN without any local shows, and now a rotating list of networks chosen not to fit the demographic, but based on what barter deal a private equity group in New York hammered out across the country (if anything, to an area oversaturated with religious networks already as-is, which Vision Latina and Universal Living Faith are).  It would be one thing if there was actual management in the area that programs to the community; there has never been a person with this station or most of Innovate/HC2's other licenses.  For this station, its documented history is effectively a number of moves of the transmitter or construction permits, all of which before HC2 were between 3ABN's main office in Illinois and DC, and now the domain of a paper pusher at 450 Park Avenue in New York who couldn't tell you what HAAT is, much less anything about this station beyond the calls and city of license.  Nate • ( chatter ) 04:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your candor regarding the station.  Thank you.  -- WashuOtaku ( talk ) 04:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.  : Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG .  The current sources are either FCC data (#1 and #4), RabbitEars (#2 and #3), routine business transactional reports (#5 and #6) another database (#7) and a press release (#8) Let'srun ( talk ) 01:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Quacula : The article has no good sources, and I couldn't find any from a Google search.  If we don't want to delete it, redirecting it to The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle is also an option.  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation .  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect There are no reliable references cited in this article, and searching the internet turned up nothing.  So redirecting it to The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle sounds like a better alternative.  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 06:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Nothing in the article suggests this is notable .  Ping me if sources are found to suggest otherwise.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or very very weak keep I found some coverage in books ( [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] ) and [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] .  ★Trekker ( talk ) 14:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect/Light Merge to The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle .  The sources available upon searching, including those linked to above, are very brief, with many of them being nothing but acknowledgements that it existed, which is not enough to show notability for a separate article.  Redirecting to the main The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle is an obvious WP:ATD , though.  And while the character is mentioned already on that page, there is absolutely no information there explaining who/what it is, so a couple of sentences should probably be merged over to at least give some context.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per all.  This is mostly a recap of episodes that the character appeared in, without any reliable reception of its own.  The sources verify the existence of the character and perhaps a brief summary is appropriate at the main article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"List of leaders of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council : Fails WP:SIGCOV , WP:NLIST .  scope_creep Talk 04:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scope creep, don't you regard World Statesmen.org as a source?  Mbakkel2 ( Talk ) 05:27 (UTC), 19 June 2023 Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Politics ,  and Australia .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  One source is the council's website, and the other is a deprecated source.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Mbakkel2 : There is only one blue link on the article and references are very poor.  The first reference is non-rs and the second is a website, which is WP:PRIMARY .  scope_creep Talk 07:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For those wondering, WorldStatesmen was deprecated following this discussion .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 08:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be a shame to lose this information, but there's no source which specifically covers the entire list that I can find online.  The topic clearly meets LISTN I think, we just need to source it properly.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands discusses the local government, but for a shire of around 500 people, its leaders are not notable.  If not deleted, it should be merged there, but we don't typically compile names of non-notable individuals leading small places.  Reywas92 Talk 02:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands as WP:ATD - agree with Sportingflyer that it would be a sham to lose this information, given external territories of Australia have less coverage overall on Wikipedia.  Other local government areas in Australia have a list of mayors on their page - I don't see why this can't.  Please don't delete this.  Deus et lex ( talk ) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I always wonder if these lists of elected leaders should be judged through the lens of WP:NLIST or WP:SPINOFF .  Assuming the information is reliable and verifiable, NLIST looks at the notability of the list as a unique article entry, while SPINOFF suggests when the conditions exists to create a stand-alone article (with the assumption that the information would be acceptable within the parent article).  I think that these lists of elected leaders should be seen as valid spinoffs and judged accordingly.  -- Enos733 ( talk ) 17:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"George Cole (musician) : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The nominator should suggest which band to redirect to, as this musician has been in several.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 12:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I count two: Beatnik Beatch and David Grisman Quintet.  However, he does not appear on the list of 20 members of the latter on their page or in the credits for any of their albums.  So, since he is listed as a founding member of Beatnik Beatch, I propose that this page redirects to that band's page.  Blockhead14 ( talk ) 01:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Beatnik Beatch .  That's the band for which he seems to have gotten the most coverage as a musician in his own right.  He is described in some publications associated with Green Day as their longtime instructor, but those are fan-based.  Otherwise I can only find him listed in the credits for various albums by other people in which he was a session hand, and his solo albums received little notice.  I suspect that this article started out as an attempted autobiography .  It looks like he has made a living as a trusty associate for many notable people, but he just hasn't gotten enough reliable coverage in which he is the focus.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Beatnik Beatch .  Not notable enough for own article as poor (primary) sourcing therein indicates.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 08:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"KZPY-LP : No secondary sources at all.  No significant coverage.  Fails WP:GNG .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Organizations , Companies ,  and Oklahoma .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Searching through google yields results that boil down to either listening to the station or information already included in the article.  mwwv (converse) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct where it is already listed as preferred WP:ATD .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 17:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct : this is another remnant of the looser inclusion ""standards"" still in place in this topic area as late as 2020 (a year before the 2021 RfC that made it clear that GNG and its requirements for significant coverage are the inclusion barometer).  Outright deletion is not being outright opposed either; there simply isn't much to retain here, and it has only ever been sourced to the FCC database (which only establishes potential existence, which is neither notability nor the establishment of same ).  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct : Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:GNG .  Redirect as a WP:ATD .  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Albert Gauthier : Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 19:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and France .  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 19:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's foil and maybe include a note that he officiated at the epee event.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, keep per Kingsif.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess redirect to the new article, though shouldn't that one mention that he competed at the 1900 Olympics?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's foil , I couldn't find enough with a WP:BEFORE search to show notability.  Suonii180 ( talk ) 06:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Okay, I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't the same person as the comte Albert Gaut(h)ier Vignal, who was president of the International Fencing Federation and would later be the Monegasque Olympic Committee representative.  The fact we don't have an article on him , who I think would be undoubtedly notable (especially being friends with Baron de Coubertin and part of the early modern Olympic movement), is making me wonder even more if they might be the same person.  And one source I found in searching mentions Gauthier as the Cote d'Azur fencing federarion president, something which Olympedia attributes to Gauthier Vignal.  In any case, that search was just for ""albert gauthier escrime"" (there's also a politician of the same name) and it brings up quite a few results in French, though a lot are of old newspaper scans uploaded to file-sharing site of dubious safety.  At least one seems to be in-depth just from what is available in a preview – a library search may be needed but it seems that he is notable.  Of course, determining if the two French fencers of the same era with the same name and the same job are the same person will need to happen first.  Kingsif ( talk ) 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding, here at Google Books is the 1894 source linking (just) Gauthier with the various positions.  Based on how it talks about him and his promotion of the sport, and the potential he was Coubertin's friend (looking likelier having read that full source), it is possible this person is the reason that fencing is in the Olympics.  It's going to need more examination, but hard to say such a person isn't NOLYMPICS...  Kingsif ( talk ) 22:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This source (archive collection, Google Books) mentions that (translated from French) Fencing is one of those noble sports which allow the occasion to defend a threatened honor and duels are frequent, the practice of the ""jury of honor"" aiming to avoid duels by negotiation is fiercely discussed and refused by the more ardent.  The most notorious of weapons rooms was that of Albert Gauthier, brother-in-law of the prefect [Léon-Paul] Lagrange de Langre.  – it does seem he was preeminent.  Kingsif ( talk ) 22:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My comments are a bit train-of-thought, so I'll piece it together.  The 1894 report seen here mentions that M. Albert Gauthier (note no comte , and the single surname*)  1. has a villa in Nice,  2. fences with Coste, their esteemed captain.  This appears to be Émile Coste , who won gold in the foil at the 1900 Olympics for France (the same event), so it seems safe to say the source is talking about the man who would be the Olympic fencer, based on his teammate.  The villa in Nice, and being a great sponsor of the sport hosting events there, connects the man to the comte, who did the same .  *The French government notes (among many things) that Albert Gautier Vignal added the ""Vignal"" himself at some point, from the name of a castle he owned in Contes.  He received the title comte from the Pope in 1895.* Based on the 1894 source's details, I think the two are the same, and there are copious sources on the comte.  Kingsif ( talk ) 01:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My very dears here is the article on Albert, Comte Gautier-Vignal at Olympedia, the two seem to be different people for Olympedia, could they also be this for wikipedia?  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Paradise Chronicle : Olympedia isn't perfect, and if they're taking competition information from 1900 and then officials information from 1908-1930s, if a slightly different name is written they might not have considered the possibility.  Of course, I already looked at Olympedia, and the photo for just Albert depicts the same person as Monaco fencing 's website on the comte.  I didn't want to use photographic evidence in my spiel, but if it helps convince you against Olympedia having two profiles...  If the people database collecting for Olympedia don't chat about finding people with similar names, I won't hold it against them.  (And the source I believe Olympedia use doesn't even give a first name for the Gauthier in the fencing...)  Kingsif ( talk ) 02:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, good.  I can follow your rationale, but if there exist two Olympedia articles for the same person, that's an interesting precedent for the articles that are only sourced to Olympedia.  Then also I prefer that the credit (such as the notifications like for DYK or AfD) go to someone who also deserves (is interested in the subject) it, and  I'd say Kingsif does deserve it.   Could you create an article (also a stub) with the the correct name and we redirect this page to that one?  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 08:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I can see why there's concern; I have reached out to Olympedia on the matter, just asking their sources.  FWIW, there should not be any articles that are only sourced to Olympedia (DATABASE).  Ha, I was thinking of proposing that myself - an article for Gautier Vignal with this name as a redirect - nice that we had the same idea!  For the purposes of the AfD continuing, as you suggest, I'll make it as a stub for now.  Kingsif ( talk ) 20:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See: Albert Gautier Vignal .  Kingsif ( talk ) 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Albert Gautier Vignal per the discoveries from Kingif.  Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 21:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Albert Gautier Vignal per above.  // Timothy :: talk 14:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"You Must Remember This (House) : Nothing found in a BEFORE.  Tagged for notability since 2020.  PROD removed with ""deprod; all House episodes have articles"", which is not true.  Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep arguement.  Donald D23 talk to me 19:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 19:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable episode of the series, all I can find is the House of Hammer mentions.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure how you missed the ones I found below, but I found the first two with the straight up Google link, and the third adding ""M.D."" after house in the Google news search string.   Cheers, Jclemens ( talk ) 01:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [1] , [2] , [3] RS summaries/reviews, GNG is met for this particular episode.  Even if for some reason it's not kept, ATD would be to merge to the season or show: there is no policy-based rationale for deleting this article.  Jclemens ( talk ) 01:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  It's not a valid keep argument, but it's a valid argument against prodding, which is only for uncontroversial deletion.  Something which many editors seem to fail to understand.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  22:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of House episodes .  Episodes may not be individually notable, but the series is, and deleting episode articles outright isn't particularly helpful.  - Sumanuil .  (talk to me) 01:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of House episodes , episode does not have sources showing notability.  // Timothy :: talk 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Eugene E. Stone III Stadium (Greenville, South Carolina) : No references, one link to the stadium's page on the University's site.  Does not seem to meet WP:RS or WP:N .  glman ( talk ) 14:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions .  glman ( talk ) 14:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found in any independent source.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 19:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Furman Paladins as possible search term.  Giant Snowman 13:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Furman Paladins , as the subject does not meet the GNG for a standalone article User:Let'srun 02:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect However it should be redirected to Furman University and not Furman Paladins, as the stadium belongs to the university and can be multi-purpose if need be.  Govvy ( talk ) 06:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Bad Gumaan : — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Momina Duraid#Television : Producer - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"20 August 1955 Stadium (El Oued) : I have redirected it to the parent club US Souf where all the info already exists but the creator objects.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria .  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to US Souf as it is primarily a football stadium; it is not even mentioned at El Oued .  Giant Snowman 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Billy Keikeya : QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters .  Fails WP:GNG .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly I did not finish my pass of BG characters as I thought I did a while back.  Yes, of course, redirect this GNG-failing plot summary.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Piotrus.  Does not pass WP:PLOT or WP:GNG without more coverage in reliable sources.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , unless some decent sources can be identified.  Josh Milburn ( talk ) 07:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Deepthi Higher Secondary School, Thalore : Maliner ( talk ) 11:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Thalore#Educational Institutions .  All the sources in the article are directory listings, with the exception of the football report.  Seems unlikely to pass sourcing requirements of GNG.  Reliable sourced facts such as pupil numbers, date founded, management, affiliations can be added on the target page.  Rupples ( talk ) 21:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or else Redirect per Rupples.  I think drafitify may be a better option in this case as the page is a new creation, having been started on 13 January.  Indian schools can be vexing - I have said it elsewhere - as it can be hard to find the level of sourcing required in English language sources.  Nevertheless, per Rupples, the sources on the page do not pass muster and neither can I find much elsewhere.  I did, however, discover a bit more by also searching for ""Deepthi HSS"" and ""Deepthi HS, Thalore"".  Still no secondary sources, and what is on the web is all quite recent.  I wondered if the foundation date was right, and found this page [48] which suggests it is not.  That gives a date of 2002 for the establishment of the school.  Also the numbers seem inflated, as sources I found suggested 300 students.  It could have grown though.  All the same, as it stands, there are significan concerns both about notibility but also about the reliability of the information.  As such, this is not ready for mainspace.  It may just be TOOSOON for the school, although if it has been around for 20 years (at least) and is really as large as claimed, it may be secondary sources will come to light and an encylopaedic and accurate page can be written.  As such, I would encourage the page creator to develop it in draft space.  Alternatively we can redirect it until such a time as information comes to light to fix and expand it.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy : I had earlier tried to draftify this article before taking it to AFD.  But it was of no use, as the article creator had reverted it.  Maliner ( talk ) 10:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for letting me know.  In that case updating my ! vote to redirect per Rupples.  AfD can still specify draftification, but in view of the fact this would likely be ignored again, and the page moved back to mainspace, let's go straight to redirect.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Adam Klein (Survivor contestant) : He also finished 12th in Survivor: Winners at War , but I doubt that makes him also notable.  Furthermore, he hosted only one local TV program and no other.  I've yet to see his notability outside Survivor .  WP:PAGEDECIDE should apply if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E does.  Moreover, appearing at least twice on Survivor doesn't make the person notable.  George Ho ( talk ) 09:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Television ,  and California .  George Ho ( talk ) 09:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost forgot: it should be redirected to Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants .  George Ho ( talk ) 09:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete agree with everything George Ho says... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheeseistalking99 ( talk • contribs ) 16:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as George says.  GNG not met Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 23:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I also agree with George.  It is not very notable.  Shadow 345110 (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Do we have a target for redirecting the article?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 10:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom's comment - @ Shadow345110 , Belichickoverbrady ,  and Thecheeseistalking99 : How about Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X as the page's redirect target?  That's what I'm going for primarily (or by default if no objections).  -- George Ho ( talk ) 16:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds good as it seems like that's more relevant than the entire list if he was the winner.  Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 16:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sounds good to me.  Shadow 345110 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"MD Anand : Sources reveal nothing about the individual.  The creation seems to be a part of a series of additions by the User: Sajantext to promote a single, low-key movie.  Neutral Fan ( talk ) 15:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : one low-key film will wait untill 3 films he do and willl make it live Monhiroe ( talk ) 16:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 16:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : not notable till now ... atleast, artist should have work in three movies Worldiswide ( talk ) 09:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge with Marijuana (2020 film) , his only notable film so far.  Rather opposed to delete as both pages have sources. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 13:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Raydon Franklin : The only source is a statistical database that says he played in one first-class cricket match.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 02:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and South America .  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 02:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Guyanese representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG , however there's a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect The debut and last match dates are also not known, a statistical source only says that he played one first-class match.  Doesn't contain significant coverage to meet WP:GNG .  RoboCric ( talk ) 17:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A redirect as above seems sensible here.  Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 10:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Aberystwyth University Students' Union : Searches reveal very little else.  Plenty of social media and the occasional local paper mention when things get exiting in town but nothing that stacks up to notability.  Only a few students Unions do make the grade for notability.  The claim that it one of the oldest might make the notability threshold but that would need good sources which I couldn't find.  There is a chance that there are good sources in the Welsh Language but even searching through the Welsh medium press output did not immediately reveal anything obviously noteworthy.  Velella Velella Talk 19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Wales .  Velella Velella Talk 19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't see the point of deletion.  Were it a stub, written about a recently formed institution without significant history, and if we were sorely constrained for space like in a print encyclopedia, I might think otherwise.   But this is well written and the group appears to have affected many student participants over a century.   Thus, here I do not think deletion serves our readers nor the aim of Wikipedia.   The article simply is a work in progress, like many articles, and should be left to gather them.  Jax MN ( talk ) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Aberystwyth University , charitably, this seems to be here for the wrong reason, as an extension to the student union website.  It's largely original research or cited to the university/stduent union sources.  Though some events occasionally reach the news, there isn't enough basis for a Wikipedia article.  Sionk ( talk ) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Aberystwyth University , per Sionk.  Not sufficiently notable for its own page.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested above.  -- Bduke ( talk ) 02:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - as outlined above.  Not enough notability for a separate article.  Dunarc ( talk ) 21:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Aberystwyth University .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Claudia Baccarini : Interstellarity ( talk ) 12:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 12:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - dubious notability that could be summed up in her inclusion in the List of Italian supercentenarians .  9H48F ( talk ) 22:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:ONEEVENT .  Only mentions of the subject are related to her age.  I support the inclusion in a list -- Broc ( talk ) 10:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I understand the rational, but this is not one event - it is what she has been notable for for years (for her age), and now after the death she is even more notable.  If it is deleted, it should be merged to List of Italian supercentenarians#Biographies to ensure that the information is not lost.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Potential for a Mini Biography in List of Italian supercentenarians but certainly no more, not enough sources or coverage to justify a standalone article, being the oldest living person in Italy is not enough to suffice that.  N1TH Music ( talk ) 14:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Italian supercentenarians .  WP:ONEVENT applies, and per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES : Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of oldest people .  The article may need proof of additional coverage, using reliable sources, to justify a biographical inclusion in List of Italian supercentenarians#Biographies .  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Lesego Moeng : All that comes up in searches are passing mentions like 1 and 2 .  I searched both ""Lesego Moeng"" and ""Gloria Moeng"".  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Botswana .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above.  Giant Snowman 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Bramblefields : Shellwood ( talk ) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/nature-reserves-places-visit-cambridge-16163304 , by a Reach PLC WWW site, which to be honest looks to me like filler on a slow news day when the local tourist board is complaining.   I haven't found much else, outwith government WWW sites of course.   The search engines match on a local wildlife magazine that I cannot access, if anyone with better access wants to check that out.  Uncle G ( talk ) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep its a local nature reserve which is a statutory designation.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crouch, Swale I don't think a statutory designation as a local nature reserve gives presumed notability — a national designation might.  What notability guideline are you basing your comment on?  Rupples ( talk ) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples : WP:GEOFEAT says ""of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable"".  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't think this reserve's status as a local reserve is sufficient to guarantee notability.  I'm not sure that it has any special protection beyond the fact the council decided that this bit of former farmland and allotment-space was better managed as a nature-friendly area.  It hasn't got much history, and not much has been written about it.  It just isn't in the same league as national reserves such as Wicken fen or Monks Wood , or even other local settings such as Paradise Local Nature Reserve , a location that has a long history and has been written about.  In many ways, Bramblefields is served adequately by its entry in List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire .  But I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of deleting it.  Before I found the list, my feeling was that the minor reserves of Cambridge would better be served by amalgamation into one narrative article about the lot, but this one is caught between a world of individual mini-stubs and a table that makes it very hard to expand on an individual reserve if information appears.  If it does get deleted, I would not have any objection to it being re-created if someone finds useful things to say about it.  Given its Cambridge location, it's quite likely it'll attract some local historian at some point in the future.  If we do delete it, I'm worried someone will spot a red-link in the list article and remove it from there, which I think would be unhelpful to our readers.  Elemimele ( talk ) 15:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire .  It's reasonably covered there, and there's not a lot else to say about it.  Should someone study and write the place up a bit better, then editors can easily restore, expand, and cite the article.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire .  Agree a redirect is the answer here as there's insufficient coverage to pass the GNG and I don't think it has presumed notability.  Didn't want to delete so grateful to Elemimele for coming up with a suitable redirect target, and I echo the points made.  Rupples ( talk ) 17:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire per above rationale  - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉 ( talk | contributions ) 14:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Oriana Bedingfield : The subject made one appearance for the Malta women's national football team in 2011.  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Malta .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect' as above.  Giant Snowman 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Although perhaps, given 2011, it's a bit of a soft decision.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 18:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Suleman Dawood : Suggest a redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident .  Edwardx ( talk ) 22:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong support and hopefully a speedy deletion.  Killuminator ( talk ) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete - There is nothing noteworthy about this article that is not in Shahzada Dawood , except for personal subjects such as interests and schooling.  With all due respect.  Usedbook ( talk ) 22:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While the other passengers were notable due to lasting coverage of their activities, this was a 19-year-old university student who really had no opportunity to gain WP:SIGCOV before his death.  Lettler hello • contribs 22:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete - WP:BLP1E .  We don't have Wikipedia pages for every person killed on 9/11 - we don't need this.  Schierbecker ( talk ) 22:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree .  There is nothing of significance in the Suleman Dawood page that already isn't present in the 2023 Titan submersible incident or Shahzada Dawood pages.  Noahpeaslee11 ( talk ) 22:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect (in)to Shahzada Dawood .  Because article is based on multiple reliable sources a redirect should be kept.  Information about him that can easily be moved and even expanded in the family section of Shahzada Dawood .  109.38.140.242 ( talk ) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non notable.  Being a victim of an accident doesn't make someone notable.  Canuck85 ( talk ) 22:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Pakistan ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to either 2023 Titan submersible incident or Shahzada Dawood .  Keivan.f Talk 22:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not to diminish his tragic death, but he seems far less notable than his father, who admittedly doesn't seem particularly notable himself.  While I don't believe we need to delete the Shahzada Dawood article, there isn't much to Suleman's article beyond him being a college student and son of someone else who also died on board the Titan .  Fernsong ( talk ) 22:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood .  Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 22:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete .   I carried out a page clean-up and fixed bare links which could suffer from link rot as it was practically abandoned by its creator.  It is one of those cases where notable parents don't necessarily equal notability.  Maybe this could be expanded upon in the future for being a passenger of Titan , but I say for now, delete.  Another way of fixing this would be to do a sub-section on his father's Wikipedia entry.  Mechanical Elephant ( talk ) 22:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete - Per Schierbecker - FlightTime ( open channel ) 22:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete.  I would argue this could fall under WP:A7 and shouldn't require any discussion.  With all due respect the only articles written about him are about his death, which makes him not really a notable figure.  I would move for a speedy delete.  Icehax ( talk ) 22:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is nowhere near the level where A7 would apply - A7 isn't ""non notable"", it's ""no credible claim of significance"" - the latter is a lower standard than the former.  The article contains full length pieces of coverage of this person from the BBC and surrey live, and being a victim in a major submarine accident that is currently worldwide front page news is a credible claim of significance .  The issue here is that this is a WP:BLP1E , and since the person is only notable in one context they should be covered in the article on the event.  192.76.8.66 ( talk ) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident per WP:BLP1E .  Only notable in the context of that submarine accident as a passenger/victim.  192.76.8.66 ( talk ) 23:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood#Personal life - it wouldn't be appropriate to merge the information to the article on the Titan incident as it does not (and will not) go into such level of detail of the other victims.  The personal life section of the article for his father is a suitable merge location.  Kingsif ( talk ) 00:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident (or if that page is moved per its move discussion, whatever new title it is under).  Per WP:BLP1E , there's no claim they're notable other than as the victim of said accident.  There is no need to merge any content from here; coverage of them on the target page is already sufficient.  Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 00:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : Obvious redirect candidate, preferably to 2023 Titan submersible incident and second preference to Shahzada Dawood ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  00:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident or Shahzada Dawood , barely any other coverage outside the submersible incident.  - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 01:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident , not enough info on him so not notable enough Taiwanesetoast888 ( talk ) 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or delete as they're obviously non notable on their own.  Bedivere ( talk ) 01:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and merge into Suleman Dawood .  Not notable, just his teenage son.  Yekshemesh ( talk ) 01:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Err...this is Suleman Dawood we're discussing.  Heavy Water ( talk • contribs ) 03:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously meant Shahzada Dawood Bedivere ( talk ) 03:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My bad but yes, I obviously meant Shahzada Dawood Yekshemesh ( talk ) 07:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect it would be sensible to merge with the page for Shahzada Dawood .  - Anvib ( talk ) 01:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete.  This should not even require a discussion and it's a failure that it's not already gone quite frankly.  parqs ( talk ) 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Shahzada Dawood .  Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 02:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Redirect to his father's page.  His father as well as the others on-board are notable in other ways, while Suleman unfortunately is not notable outside of this tragedy.  A redirect would make sense rather than a complete deletion.  Mannytool ( talk ) 02:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect the article with Shahzada Dawood GodzillamanRor ( talk ) 02:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per WP:ONEEVENT Nswix ( talk ) 03:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect with the incident's article : Obvious BLP1E, but, in my view, better to redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident than Shahzada Dawood, as Suleman Dawood was known for his involvement in this debacle , not for being the son of Shahzada.  Heavy Water ( talk • contribs ) 03:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete - He was not notable before the incident, not even locally.  The article is about his personal life and his education - Which everyone has.  He hasn't been involved in anything notable prior to the accident.  And, with respect, him perishing in a notable maritime accident of this decade shouldn't grant him an article.  The young man was unknown before the incident, and even before the incident he was pretty much a 'regular' person (besides being the son of a billionaire, who he himself wasn't that known either way).  Yucalyptus ( talk ) 03:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident , or failing that, to Shahzada Dawood .  There are plenty of good arguments (and some not-so-good ones) above for why this page should not remain as an article; I will not repeat them other than to point to WP:BLP1E .  I am persuaded by Heavy Water's argument that anyone looking for Suleman is looking for him because of his involvement in this debacle , not because he was the son of Shahzada.  A reminder that WP:ATD is policy , so anyone arguing for deletion needs to explain why a redirect is a bad thing.  I think the content in this page could be merged into both potential redirect targets, but I believe this page should point to the event for which he is notable.  House Blaster talk 04:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Shahzada Dawood , as that article will be able to better cover details about the son as opposed to the article on the submarine incident.  Mar4d ( talk ) 04:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per most of the above.  Saw this coming as soon as Paul-Henri had a page made (although his had slightly more reason to be made a page).  Booyahhayoob ( talk ) 05:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood .  Rafaelosornio ( talk ) 05:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect I believe it would be best to merge and redirect Suleman Dawood's page into his father's Shahzada Dawood , and his section can be added and included there instead.  24.13.28.25 ( talk ) 05:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete/Merge : per all of the reasons above.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident or his father Shahzada Dawood .  Give_Up 05:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood .  I'm sensing snow in June... ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 05:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood .  〜 Festucalex • talk 05:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete -This article has already been up for far too long.  Nothing against this poor kid, he's just not relevant for WP 21stCenturySloth ( talk ) 06:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Shahzada Dawood . -- Dl.thinker ( talk ) 06:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident Alex Muller 06:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect , notable for only one event, redirect to Shahzada Dawood .  Milkk7 ( talk ) 06:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect either to the incident or to his father, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL .  This 19-year-old boy did nothing notable in his life but die in a notable incident.  — Mahāgaja · talk 07:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with fire per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL .  Tragic event but subject nowhere near notable enough for own article.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 07:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Titan submersible incident , preserving categories.  Pam D 07:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect otherwise Delete to his father Shahzada Dawood .  While not notable on own terms, he will be now, but only because of his father and the incident.  -- Tytrox ( talk ) 08:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect & merge to Shahzada Dawood or 2023 Titan submersible incident .  Blaylockjam10 ( talk ) 08:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Werneth Cricket Club : Non-notable.  Tails Wx 02:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Cricket ,  and England .  Tails Wx 02:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom.  Fails WP:GNG as the coverage is only the usual match reports and usual local cricket team website stuff.  There is this but would be nice to see some more.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would usually argue for a redirect in a situation like this but I'm not sure there is a great target.  The league they currently play in Greater Manchester Cricket League is a redlink and the bluelink league from the article Central Lancashire Cricket League is defunct.  Jenks24 ( talk ) 10:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 20:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Werneth, Greater Manchester#Sport a heading I've just created in the Werneth article.  Made use of the citation found by User:Rugbyfan22 above.  Rupples ( talk ) 00:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd support this redirect FWIW.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"Asian Carrom Confederation : L iz Read!  Talk!  16:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games , Organizations ,  and Asia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Redirect to International Carrom Federation , per Visviva .  Can't find any WP:SIGCOV online.  Should be noted that this and Asian Carrom Billiard Confederation are not duplicates.  One is a tabletop game, while the other is a type of billiard.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 23:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to International Carrom Federation , where I have added a brief mention of the Asian confederation.  The ICF article is in bad shape but from a quick look there at least are secondary sources to cite, which seems to be more than can be said for the ACC.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to International Carrom Federation .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",redirect
"IMPDH RNA motif: No source besides one paper.  Hongsy ( talk ) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or Delete .   Published in 2017, it is possible this has been mentioned in other manuscripts under a different name, which might be identifiable via sequence searches or deep review of articles citing the paper supporting this stub.   However, I believe that until a motif such as this has been confirmed in some way through experimental evidence, we shouldn't have an article about it.   I looked and we do not have an appropriate list to add a mention to.   Therefore, my ! vote to either Delete or Draftify.  User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The nominating user cites WP:NBIOL .   In fact, the text for WP:NBIOL states ""RNA motifs: de facto notable? Subject of the recent AfD. Closest equivalent are protein motifs, though no database currently collates an equivalent to Rfam's RNA motifs.""  The IMPDH RNA motif is an RNA motif and is present in the Rfam Database, as shown in the Rfam infobox within its article.  Therefore, previous discussion on Wikipedia that is relevant to this RNA motif tends towards regarding it as de facto notable.   Is there a reason to revisit this question?  Zashaw ( talk ) 09:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zashaw - yes, there is reason to revisit because the AfD discussion is 2 years old already.  Hongsy ( talk ) 13:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I get the logic there.   I expand on my question as follows.  Two years ago there was a big discussion about deletion of a similar page, which you link to ( [22] ).   In that discussion, many editors argued in favor of deletion, as you do, while others argued against.  Ultimately the result was to keep the article, and the line in the WP:NBIOL article that I quoted above was added based on the decision.   As far as I can see, your deletion nomination would start a discussion that would essentially rehash the discussion from 2 years previously.   This does not seem like an efficient use of Wikipedia editors' time.  My question is: when you nominated this article for deletion, did you have any new facts or arguments in mind that (1) were not available in the discussion 2 years ago and (2) are likely to lead to a different decision about the fate of the article?   If not, I don't see a reason to revisit the text in WP:NBIOL.  Zashaw ( talk ) 23:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: might it make sense to put a bunch of RNA motifs in a list?  Notability is not required for list members; they just have to be reliably sourced.    Here's a list I made of 177 RNA motif articles: User:A.  B. /List RNA motifs My sample list above is too basic to be useful, but it could potentially be expanded with more columns into something that conveys more information similar to: List of cat breeds I don't know if you'd want one big list or several smaller lists grouped by type of RNA motif.  The list(s) would contain a mix of: Notable RNA motifs with their blue links to their own articles containing additional information Notable RNA motifs that don't have their own articles because there's nothing of interest beyond what's already listed Non-notable RNA motifs that are reliably referenced Such a list (or lists) could allow us to shrink our article count, provide the same information in more compact form and provide an alternative to deletion ( WP:ATD ) for non-notable RNA motif articles.  25, 50 or 100 articles are easier to maintain and watch than 177.  For example, if you found this article non-notable, you would just redirect it to the list article.  Wikipedia would still have the same information.  Is this list idea feasible or is there just too much variety among RNA motifs?  If it is feasible, is it desirable?  Caveat: I'm not a molecular biologist, just an editor who prefers lists over lots of stubs.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You would need to distinguish between experimentally verified motifs and those that are predicted based on computational analysis alone, in my opinion.  User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It would help to alert areas of the project where there might be editors who have knowledge on this subject.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since we're an encyclopaedia, not a global database, I would favour our having articles about RNA-motifs that have been written about by multiple authors, not just whoever proposed or discovered them.  Databases can very properly include absolutely any publication of a motif because that's their job.  Without any reflection on the current article up for debate, do we really want a guideline that tells us to keep articles on a motif that one person proposed on computational evidence, published in a minor journal, and which no one else ever looked at?  Elemimele ( talk ) 06:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I've added some more of the motif's biology from a PhD thesis, so we now have an additional WP:RS .  The motif certainly exists; it seems to have a definite regulatory function; and it seems to behave by a novel (and interesting) mechanism.  I'd say this was definitely notable.  More research can certainly be expected.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Bela Duarte: She has been in CAT:NN for 14 years now, so hopefully we can resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 12:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women ,  and Africa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I think she is likely non-notable, which is unfortunate as she looks to be a good artist.  Lots of passing mentions,perhaps promoting her work but nothing found in the WP:BEFORE which is substantial.  Essentially a local artist.  Fails WP:SIGCOV .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep ( talk • contribs ) Comment - My Google search didn't bring what I can use to defend, maybe because some of the publications not in English, there is possibility of it being notable but I doubt with my search.  Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 07:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm not sure why the prior ! voters have been unable to find sourcing.  I found four SIGCOV obituaries without much difficulty: ""Morreu a artista plástica Bela Duarte"" .  Expresso das Ilhas (in Portuguese) .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  – obituary in one of the largest newspapers of Cape Verde .  ""Morreu a artista plástica Bela Duarte - Sociedade - Santiago Magazine"" .  Santiago Magazine (in Portuguese) .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  – another obituary.  ""Bela Duarte - Artista plástica da Modernidade de Cabo Verde - Vatican News"" .  Vatican News (in Portuguese).  2023-06-22 .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  – obituary and audio profile.  ""Faleceu ""Bela Duarte"", um dos expoentes máximos das artes plásticas"" .  A Nação (in European Portuguese).  2023-06-21 .  Retrieved 2024-02-14 .  Jfire ( talk ) 05:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : am not find any additional RS information to add to the article.  No RS for biographical information, no sources for exhibition or collections.  None of the information listed above has been added to the article.  No birth or death dates.  I don't understand Portuguese.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the sources adduced by Jfire above appear to be enough to support an article.   While the first two look to be duplicates, there is enough coverage to work with.   There is no requirement that sources be added to the article immediately nor that they be in English.   In many cases, including this one a machine translation can go a long way in helping understand sources in a language one doesn't read.  During his[ sic ] artistic career, in addition to Cape Verde, he participated in exhibitions in Austria, Belgium, the United States of America, France, Italy and Portugal.  She was distinguished with the First Class of the Volcano Medal, in 2010, and First Class of the Medal of Merit of the Republic of Cape Verde, in 2018.   In a statement, the Ministry of Culture and Creative Industries says it received with a feeling of regret the news of the death of the artist-teacher, Bela Duarte; “An unavoidable figure in weaving, who leaves, but is eternalized in her Art”.  google translated from Expresso das Ilhas 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.",no consensus
"Racine Kamatari: Sources used are blogs or music downloads sites which dont count towards WP:RS .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 07:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Rwanda .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 07:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : he has a good career as a rapper he has over 600 songs and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable.  I think this hinges on if The New Times (Rwanda) is a reliable source.  Pfomma ( talk ) 18:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I vote no this page should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.  Twickenhm ( talk ) 18:40, 07 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Bruno PlayHard: Nominated for an esports Brazil award, didn't win it.  Not notable, fails WP:GNG - coverage owned media, self-fulfilling platforms or passing mentions in gamer titles.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Websites ,  and Brazil .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I didn't create the article here, but I'm the original creator on ptwiki.  It clearly meets WP:GNG with presence of significant coverage on [51] [52] [53] .  Plus, he appeared on Forbes Brasil's 30 Under 30.  Skyshifter talk 23:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: With only one keep ! vote I'd like a little more input before closing one way or the other.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 00:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO .  Sources above are either interviews or passing mentions.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 01:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  We need more opinions here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Loud (esports) , though I would weakly support for deletion.  There is enough for me to say that he passes GNG.  That is, there seems to be enough interest in the Brazilian media from the refs in the article ( WP:THREE : 1 2 3 ).  They're not all great, but they demonstrate to me some notability.  SWinxy ( talk ) 21:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Nimr Baqir al-Nimr Street: Since it has already been PRODded (against all policies, as it was a stub created mere two hours earlier and still being worked on), it now must go through the full deletion discussion.  — kashmīrī TALK 19:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  — kashmīrī TALK 19:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:56, 2 August 2023 (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 00:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article includes a reference from a leading British newspaper, so this is not just a local story.  And here is a reference showing that the renaming has been undone: https://www.newarab.com/news/iran-quietly-changes-name-nimr-street-mashhad Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A single old mention in a foreign newspaper is precisely a hallmark of ONEEVENT.  Besides, the undoing was of a different street (in Mashhad, not in Tehran).  The nomination is in accordance with WP:NOTTEMPORARY which is a very good policy.  — kashmīrī TALK 08:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Nimr al-Nimr .  The street itself is not notable, and its only WP:SIGCOV is from its renaming for al-Nimr.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Is there more support for Deletion, Keeping or Merging the article?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Retracted per below Keep .  Meets WP:GEOROAD / WP:GNG .  The nomination seems to be around concerns about WP:SUSTAINED .  However, there are sources from 6+ years apart about this street, so it meets that criteria.  Note that WP:ONEEVENT only applies to biographies, and would not apply given there are two distinct renaming events here.  A merge might be in order but I'm not familiar enough with the target to be sure if 2023 coverage of the second name change would it.  Given that we don't need a merge as an ATD, it should be treated as an editorial decision.  — siro χ o 01:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo The 2023 article that Eastmain added a week ago is unrelated to the article subject (the news piece is about a similarly named street in another Iranian city).  Even though I pointed this out to them immediately, they did not react.  I have now removed the 2023 link as unrelated.  You are welcome to revisit your ! vote since SUSTAINED is certainly not met.  — kashmīrī TALK 02:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Trent Staggs (American politician): The sources cited are either the city's website, election results, or routine coverage of his administration or campaigns from local media outlets.  Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL .  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 03:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject has decent sources like https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trent-skaggs-utah-senate-mitt-romney_n_646d1259e4b056fd46dd071d , I think it might not be a bad thing to expand coverage to include such articles if they are well referenced and not overly promotional.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added several points and citations from various news sources.  I hope that addresses the concerns.  Hilton80 ( talk ) 22:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete mayors and candidates do not have inherent notability per WP:10YT .  He is not independently notable of his candidacy and should be covered on the Utah senatorial election page.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many articles for mayors and candidates are not as good as this so policy can be used to exclude them, but subject here probably has enough to meet WP:GNG .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We exclude candidates even if they meet WP:GNG .  He's a small town mayor and candidates are almost always redirected to the election they're running in unless they're independently important, he's not as a mayor of a small town, and this article was specifically created to WP:PROMOte a senate candidate - it's in the very first edit summary.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article's not in bad shape and it covers some things outside of his political activities.  Well sourced too.  I've seen worse articles that are still around here.  -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk ) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not just a discussion about whether or not the page is well-written, it's also a discussion about whether or not Trent Staggs is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page.  Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes made to the article since its nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe Staggs is worthy of a page, but it definitely needs work.  The fact that he doesn't even have an officeholder infobox makes me wonder if there are POV issues at work here.  Going to work on some edits.  PickleG13 ( talk ) 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.",no consensus
"Debbie Schneider: Not enough in-depth coverage for them to pass WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 15:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as nommed.  I posted some advice on the creating editor's TP, hoping to get some sort of response, but it's been three days and so far nothing.  I could live with draftification, too, but the creator must expressly agree to this as they've already moved it out of drafts twice.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 15:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Discrimination , Organizations , Sexuality and gender ,  and Massachusetts .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Pinging User:SusunW as this AfD nom is relevant to earlier RfC discussion regarding SIGCOV requirements, and the effect it has on notability in practice for historically marginalised peoples as it stands I don’t think this article meets GNG or WP:BIO, regrettably Jack4576 ( talk ) 18:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commenting because I was pinged, but am not ! voting because WP:Canvas .  There is plenty to indicate that Schneider is notable, This (p9) says she was the Service Employees International Union's ""International Vice President and the first SEIU Global Organizing Director"".  This (p 149) says she was the international affairs staffer and a deputy trustee of the United Healthcare Workers.  This (p 15) says she was working as a union organizer in Cincinnati by 1986.  This (p19) says she was the regional coordinator of District 925 of the SEIU in 1989.  All indicate more significance than a routine worker.  That said, many sources from this period are not digitized and I do not have access to many of them.  This is going to take quite a bit of work by someone who has access to period sources, (period sources would be required as many of the current sources rely on the interview, thus are not independent) or a library with interlibrary loan abilities.  (I am not in the US and have no access to library loans.)  Debbie Schneider is a very common name and I would suggest searching using terms like ""Debbie Schneider, Women Office Workers"", ""Debbie Schneider, United Healthcare Workers"", """"Debbie Schneider, Service Employees International Union"", etc.  As it stands, the sources used in the article do not constitute reliable secondary curated sources or sigcov.  The interview can be used to supplement data published in RS which establish notability, but it cannot be used to determine notability or as sigcov.  To constitute sigcov, sufficient curated, independent, reliable sources to give a career trajectory with biographical data would need to be found.  SusunW ( talk ) 20:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed there is plenty to indicate she is more likely than not notable in the colloquial sense but as it stands SIGCOV is the barrier to WP’s definition of notability Jack4576 ( talk ) 00:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 9to5 .  The organization appears to be marginally notable, but Schneider is not.  Being something other ""than a routine worker"" is not enough.  All I'm seeing are passing mentions.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 21:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - She also goes by Deborah Schneider, and articles at newspapers.com are available with that name.  I have added one to the article.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 22:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] unfortunately I don’t think the passing references in those articles are going to amount to enough to satisfy the editors that demand SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 00:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am working on this.  Once I have a better sense of the information, I will expand my comments.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 00:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Schneider is best known for her work on negotiations at the University of Cincinnati that led to the founding of a clerical union.  She was the lead organizer during the period from 1984 at least through 1989 for this work.  The article with the most significant coverage of her dates from when she was named the national president of the District 925 union.  [1] In addition, she meets WP:BASIC given her coverage in multiple, reliable sources.  As I was considering this article, I have also tidied it up as it was redundant and had an inappropriate tone.  Should this article be kept, I think it should move to Deborah Schneider as that is the name more commonly found in the news.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 00:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep- I have added some secondary sources on 9to5 that mention Schneider's role in the organization to improve the notability, namely the Windham sources Public-historian-90 ( talk ) 15:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Flynn, Terry (July 9, 1993).  ""Service-employees union leader becomes president of District 925"" .  The Cincinnati Enquirer; Cincinnati, Ohio .  Retrieved 2023-05-13 .  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Should not be redirect to 9to5 , as Debbie Schneider has had positions in other organisations as well.  In terms of references, I discovered only a few that support the subject's importance.  It may be a Soft Keep, according to me.  Gothamk ( talk ) 06:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I am not seeing sufficient independent SIGCOV sources to warrant an article.  Articles written by colleagues like Karen Nussbaum and Ellen Cassedy, passing mentions and quotations (including pieces reporting what she said without quotation marks, and especially pieces derived from press releases) in local news, and PR from orgs she belongs to do not count towards notability.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Dilse: I removed all questionable sources (no wiki link).  Remaining 8 sources confirm that the film released and nothing else.  Could redirect to Dil Se. . .  DareshMohan ( talk ) 05:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak Keep because production has attracted relative attention (I am not sure all sources removed from the page were not appropriate, but maybe that's just me); if not, redirect to List of Telugu films of 2023 .  The film is not a remake of Dil Se. .  , is it?  Why would we redirect the page there, if it is not? - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mushy Yank : I agree with your vote but I feel the article will be stronger had it had two reliable reviews.  It is not a remake like you said.   The name is a common misspelling of Dil Se .  However, I had to remove unreliable sources because of the promotional tone.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 17:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Development Business: Only non- WP:IS sources.  Fails wP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Article probably needs to be re-written, it's so out-of-date, and needs independent sourcing.   However, the home page of United Nations Development Business is evidence that this is a vital part of the United Nations.  Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations doesn't look like it's too active these days.  The article is legit and notable.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"IKON Awards: This and the 2nd iKON Awards are not backed by any reputable academy of film or other body and are all too easily abused to create 'notability' for figures where none otherwise would exist.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , Television ,  and Uganda .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Independent sources with significant coverage exist, for example: https://www.afrocritik.com/sautiplus-media-hub-uganda-ikon-awards/ https://observer.ug/lifestyle/77334-ikon-awards-reward-tv-film-talent https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/lifestyle/entertainment/kafa-coh-runs-over-ikon-awards-4174318 So Keep . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Monitor is probably your best source, the first two are a list of winners, and a bunch of photos.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Delete Noting the line ""The 1st Ikon Awards ceremony, presented by the Sauti Plus Hub"", it's a glorified 'employees of the year' ceremony but televised because it's very likely that any non-Sauti Plus nominees are not going to win an award in favor of things on Sauti Plus.  Nate • ( chatter ) 22:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article's refs are inadequate.  For example, this website purports to be a news organisation but has no staff pages or editorial policies.  This has 4 sentences excluding quotes and then a simple award listing, so fails SIGCOV in my opinion.  Then compare this piece 's line The iKon – Film & Television initiative is a prestigious programme by SAUTIplus Media Hub that recognizes and rewards transformational thought leaders, implementers and personalities in the Film and Television and Mainstream Media in Uganda and ultimately, Afrika. to the website's home page: The iKon - Film & Television initiative is a prestigious programme by SAUTIplus Media Hub that recognises and rewards transformational thought leaders, implementers and personalities in the Film and Television and Mainstream Media in Uganda and ultimately, Afrika . These are basically exactly the same, and are not even paraphrased at all. For the 1st ref above, iKon Awards, a prestigious event put together by SAUTIplus Media Hub, will recognise and reward exceptional individuals and organisations who embody creativity, innovation, and enterprise in their work in the Ugandan Film and Television industry is especially similar with the website's own description , which states The iKon Awards will reward and recognise exceptional individuals and organisations that carry the spirit of creativity , innovation and enterprise in the Film and Television society in 32 categories. , and is not even paraphrased. Also compare these two quotes ...a 'Kibo', a respected ornament in Ugandan culture.  With the sun at its centre , the accolade symbolises the harvest of an outstanding level of greatness (from the award page) and The award plaque takes the form of a locally crafted basket called a “Kibo,” a highly respected ornament in Ugandan culture .  With the sun at its center, the accolade symbolises the harvest of greatness , and serves as a fitting reward for the iKon Award winners.  (from ref 1), which are similar excepting extremely minor paraphrasing.  And the website does not even attribute these descriptions.  Excluding these parts, the rest is IMO not SIGCOV.   The 2nd ref has very short independent parts and is otherwise just a listing of award winners, and IMO fails SIGCOV.  This ref I found lists the award winners, e.g., this , with only three sentences of independent analysis (i.e., excluding simply posting the list of who won which award).  This just leaves the 3rd ref above, which IMO is insufficient for GNG.  My WP:BEFORE search did not find more refs meeting GNG.  So delete.  VickKiang (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An unusually compelling vote!  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Monitor quoted above (number 3) has more than 20  paragraphs on the Awards, it's independent, reliable and significant and the users above agree on that.  The page has an article of The Kampala Sun that seems significant.  MBU has various other articles on the awards, including this one .  There is also this [50] in New Vision .  There are  other existing sources ( https://www.pulse.ug/entertainment/movies/ikon-awards-rolled-out-for-second-edition/sle4l9t ; https://thetowerpost.com/2023/03/28/ikon-awards-m-net-triumphs-with-sanyu-and-prestige/ for example).  Many, if not most of, Ugandan media covered it one way or another.  This seems clearly notable and I'll leave it at that.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The Monitor source and the last few above (Tower Post and Pulse), seem to be just enough to keep it.  Barely, but they at least have more than a few lines with a bunch of photos.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG.  Sources are all non-significant, trivial/routine coverage of an event.  Doesn't make it notable.  The Monitor source article's play-by-play of who won what isn't significant coverage.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I believe there are enough references for inclusion, such as: https://www.galaxyfm.co.ug/2021/03/29/reach-a-hand-uganda-launches-the-prestigious-ikon-awards-initiative/ , https://www.newvision.co.ug/category/entertainment/new-initiative-to-support-film-industry-gener-NV_135522 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2791129646/A643A6446FBA424EPQ/1 , https://www.proquest.com/docview/2795048231/A643A6446FBA424EPQ/4 , etc.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, still divided by those who believe SIGCOV exists and those who don't.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with Indefensible that these two sources meet SIGCOV [51] [52] Especially the NewVision article which is has significant independent content.   I'd add this one, which isn't in the article, not a particularly substantive article but appears to be independent evidence of general notability: Who won what at the iKon Awards 2023?  (Full List Of Winners) [53] It may be this relatively new award program proves to be an empty industry love-fest without lasting impact, in which case the article could be worth revisiting at some point.  But especially considering issues of under-representation on Wikipedia I think it should get the nudge over the edge.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, my concern for the MDU ref (the last one you linked to) is mainly reliability more so than indepedence.  Thanks.  VickKiang (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see your perspective.  I'm not thinking that's sigcov but rather general common sense evidence of notability.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Dreams of India: The journal article is a passing mention.  The other sources do not appear independent.  Andre 🚐 08:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Radio , Popular culture ,  and Hinduism .  Andre 🚐 08:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is about the second of four radio plays in the Travels With Jack series.  Why is only the second play in the series being repeatedly deleted as not notable?  It seems peculiar to do this while leaving the first, third, and fourth plays in the series in place.  If Dreams of India is not notable, shouldn't the articles for the other three plays also be deleted?  Won't that be strange to have only the links for the second play in the series be dead?  Won't the article just end up getting repeatedly recreated each time someone notices the missing link?  Should there perhaps instead be an article for the series that replaces the articles for the individual plays?  Bryan H Bell ( talk ) 07:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, maybe we should just merge them into one article about the series.  Is the series itself notable though?  Dreams of the Amazon , Dreams of Bali and Dreams of Sumatra all seem pretty skimpy on source coverage?  Andre 🚐 07:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you're right about notability for the series.  Looking at the other Dreams of... articles, I am seeing almost identical content and a similar lack of sources.  I must admit I did find it difficult finding coverage of Dreams of India .  Give me a day or two to see if I can find any significant coverage for an article about the entire Travels With Jack series.  If I can't, can you help me with nominating the other articles for deletion?  I'm not too familiar with the process.  Bryan H Bell ( talk ) 10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Baakiyalakshmi: Tirishan ( talk ) 20:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:GNG have added references from News18 India [42] , The Times of India [43] , The Times of India [44] , IMDb [45] , and Official Disney+ Hotstar Ott Website [46] and more coverage in Tamil language. -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 09:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 1 is from a self-published source whose expertise is unknown, and is only routine coverage on the serial starting Source 2 routine promotional coverage on the serial starting Source 3 is routine plot updates Source 4 is routine updates on one actress' birthday Source 5 is also routine plot updates (link 16) Source 6 is routine updates on actress replacement Source 7 is routine updates on actor announcing leaving Source 8 is routine updates on actor leaving Source 9 is routine updates on actor leaving Source 10 is promotional coverage on an actress' Instagram posts This reply's link 17 is completely unrelated, link 18 is an WP:IMDB source, and link 19 is the serial's page on Hotstar.  None of this shows how the serial is notable for Wikipedia Karnataka ( talk ) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - one of Vijay TV’s top serials with a lot of coverage.  look it up and there’s about 300 articles in english, in tamil probably the same if not a fair bit more Aspiringeditor1 ( talk ) 17:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per the source analysis above, nothing else found we can use.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Out of all the television series, you nominated this is actually a well known one.  What kinds of sources are you looking for?  DareshMohan ( talk ) 04:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It does cite it's notability.  CastJared ( talk ) 15:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] please explain Karnataka ( talk ) 18:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  While those advocating Keep are in the majority, they haven't done a good job refuting criticism of the newly found sources in the source analysis.  We can't just rely on a subject being called well-known, we need evidence of their notability in reliable sources with SIGCOV.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft space, probably significant enough based on referencing coverage (even if sources are ""routine"") but article could use quality improvement.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Per prior relist comment above.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - 63 sources found from The Times of India .  2 pages of articles found from The Indian Express .  Tons of articles from Oneindia .  DareshMohan ( talk ) 06:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"List of female supervillains: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Likely too large to list, even if limited to notable characters.  For example, there are over 350 articles about characters in Category:Female supervillains and its subcategories.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Same argument as my 2021 AfD when it was derailed by Andrew D. and friends - maybe now it will have the opportunity for a rational look at why this list is far too broad to work.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As it has been pointed out my argument is flawed here, I will be changing it to the fact that this article does not offer proof the topic has ""been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"" per WP:LISTN .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Sources which do discuss female supervillains as a group: Women in Popular Culture , p. 229 and following; La maschera dell’antieroe ; Best female supervillains in comic books ; 4 Reasons We Need More Female Supervillains in Our Lives .  That's enough for me to fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:LISTN .  There are many more which have short commentary (like this one or this one , where I cannot see the full extent) or which discuss a subset.  Daranios ( talk ) 15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is way too broad for Wikipedia.  It can go into a blog or even a database considering how many female supervillains there are.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, if only there was a database on Wikimedia… Dronebogus ( talk ) 06:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wow, a 5th nomination.  While we can surely debate if we want this list on Wikipedia or not, I have not seen any policy-based arguments backing up the delete-opinions.  Length, specifically, is not a reason for deletion .  If we limit the list to notable characters, as suggested by LaundryPizza03 - which needs a bit of trimming, but that's a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem - none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies: Then it is not a collection of indiscriminate, uncommented information, but rather a cross-reference of information which has already been deemed notable and encyclopedic enough to include on Wikipedia, making this a navigational list in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV .  There is at least a bit of additional information which the category does not provide.  Ideally, this could be somewhat expanded and made sortable, but it is already something.  As the last deletion discussion is not very long past, courtesy pinging the other participants who might still be interested: @ Andrew Davidson , Dream Focus , Jclemens , Philoserf , Desmay , Estheim ,  and Jackattack1597 : .  Daranios ( talk ) 19:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3/4 of those are 9+ years old, and the most recent one was derailed, delegitimized, and possibly canvassed by Andrew D-  who if I recall was t-banned from deletion for engaging in systematic ultra-inclusionist disruption.  The point is number of times is not relevant and can’t be used to “kill” a discussion.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not try to ""kill"" the discussion, but rather put it on a broader basis.  I am not playing any game.  Shall we go back to discussing the merits and drawbacks of the article, rather than the participants, while keeping the advice on renominating in view?  Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There is also the topically related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female superheroes going on, for those who are interested.  Daranios ( talk ) 19:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per criterion 3, The nomination is completely erroneous.  No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.  Long lists are not a reason for deletion, fictional supervillains do not become MILL (only an essay, not even a guideline) just by there being a lot of them, and INDISCRIMINATE has been dealt with above.  Jclemens ( talk ) 19:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see anywhere in the article that, ""discuss[es] the development, design, reception, significance, and influence"" of the subject, or a related article that does so, so INDISCRIMINATE indeed applies and the nominator is correct in their assertion.  Surely you can come up with hard proof that female supervillainesses are worthy of note, as I did above for Latino superheroes, instead of resorting to relying on technicalities in Wikipedia rules.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : LaundryPizza03 counted 350+ stand-alone articles within the scope of this list, so presumably there is a lot of discussion of ""the development, design, reception, significance, and influence"" out there for individual entries.  With regard to hard proof that female supervillainesses are worthy of note , please have a look at these search results: [6] , [7] .  If you want me to state individual secondary sources, please let me know.  Daranios ( talk ) 10:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:OSE - simply saying there are 350 possibly non-notable articles is not sufficient to prove anything.   Actual sourcing about the topic is needed.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But WP:OSE does not apply, because I am not comparing to other stuff that exists on Wikipedia, but I am talking about the large number of articles within the scope of our topic, which this list is supposed to index.  So far, the argument for deletion was that there are too many items within the scope of the list.  Are you now arguing that there are not enough ?  Or, do you really think that (almost) all of those articles are likely to be deleted on grounds of notability, so that the list may no longer be necessary some time in the future?  For actual sourcing on the topic, aside from the individual articles, I have already referred to sources above.  Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can’t speedy keep something with multiple delete votes.  That means multiple people do not agree with your assessment that the nomination is “completely erroneous”, which isn’t even applicable here.  You’re playing the same game Daranios is playing, and Andrew played last time— trying to knock it out prematurely using technicalities.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You absolutely can.  Where did you get the impression that one or more delete ! votes prevented an otherwise applicable speedy keep?  Jclemens ( talk ) 02:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Having too many entries to fill a single list, is not a reason to delete the list.   Just create multiple list then.   If the list had columns that listed additional information, instead of just the name, it'd be more useful.   Example, list the year they were created and what their powers are.  D r e a m Focus 20:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Representation is a thing.  When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples.  Nominating a bunch of ""[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]"" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate .  Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic, and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up.  The rest is just cleanup .  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wp:Indiscriminate refers to data without context as well as things with no inclusion standards Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually it’s WP:NOTDATA but they’re easily confused and both legitimate reasons to delete something Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of the four points of WP:NOTDATA would apply to our list here?  Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant WP:NOTDIR , the first one Dronebogus ( talk ) 16:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first point of WP:NOTDIR specifically allows for listings of notable entries.  I guess we can take from that the suggestion to remove non-notable entries without further commentary.  But that would be a limited trim, an improvement that can be done through normal editing, and therefore not grounds for deletion according to WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD .  Daranios ( talk ) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Absolutely trivial and not truly encyclopedic.  Dympies ( talk ) 04:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dympies : If that were the case, why would have 350+ individual encyclopedia articles on this topic ?  Daranios ( talk ) 10:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - there's no guarantee most of those are notable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See my reply above.  Is there ever a guarantee for anything?  That's why we have WP:AGF .  Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - We need something better here than basically attacking the article for clearly being relevant.  I also feel we need to do some kind of AFD salting so we don't have to do this for the 6th time soon.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 17:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: If this article is Kept, could we go longer before a 6th nomination is made?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and amend whatever policy is asserted to apply in contravention to this to clarify that this is a permissible list.  The issue I see with this is not its existence, but the absence of sources.  BD2412 T 01:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just an observation from reviewing recent AFDs, but it's curious that List of female superheroes has only been nominated at AFD once while the supervillains article has been nominated 5 times.  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps because there is a notable cause for superheroes than villains?  I'm just speculating though.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 08:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can tell from personal experience that it is easier to find sources discussing female superheroes than female supervillains, though both exist.  Daranios ( talk ) 10:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's definitely an interesting insight.  What was the outcome for the superhero AfD?  Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 00:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was actually nominated twice, though the first time it was nominated under a different name ( List of superheroines ).  Both were kept.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 12:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheInsatiableOne : Which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to our list here in your view?  Daranios ( talk ) 14:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. ... merely being true, or even verifiable , does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"" TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 14:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, so as discussed above we should limit the list to entries already present on Wikipedia, which is already the case for the most part.  Then the required context is present at all the blue-linked articles (otherwise they would not be Wikipedia articles).  That can be done as part of normal editing and is therefore not grounds for deletion according to WP:SURMOUNTABLE .  (Also, we have a very small amount of context present here in the form of the list's structure.)  Daranios ( talk ) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds like arguing that collating data in itself produces context, which seems dubious.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 16:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's arguing that lists in which "" Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia "" are one type of accepted lists on Wikipedia, and are not inherently in conflict with WP:INDISCRIMINATE , as TheInsatiableOne seemed to imply.  And that in such lists the encyclopedic explanation are provided in the indvidual articles rather than the list itself, like e.g. List of German-language poets .  None of the four specific points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE was said to apply here.  Daranios ( talk ) 18:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restricting lists to entries with Wikipedia articles is a common way of setting up inclusion criteria, which really has nothing to do with providing context.  Saying that the encyclopedic explanation are provided in the indvidual articles rather than the list itself is basically arguing that as long the entries have articles, creating a list is its own justification because collating the links produces the context.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I am saying that a list restricted to entries with their own articles is justified with regard to WP:INDISCRIMINATE , not because collating the links produces the context , but because if there's an article to link to, then that topic has to be encyclopedic and that article has to have the context.  - Otherwise how would you explain the existence of List of German-language poets , which is put forth as an illustrative example by WP:Stand-alone lists ?  There may very well be other considerations, though, like the question if we need a list with regard to WP:CLN , if the list purely provides the article names.  Daranios ( talk ) 10:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would start by noting that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and go on to point out that fact is not fiction and the two are not to be treated the same way.  More to the point: if you have to go elsewhere to find the context, the data is not presented in context, now is it?  TompaDompa ( talk ) 23:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TompaDompa : I believe such a restrictive interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE beyond the listed four cases when applied to lists is contrary to consensus on Wikipedia.  The only way to confirm this belief I can think of is pointing to the abundance of other articles which would conflict with this restrictive interpretation, e.g. all disambiguation pages.  There may be a difference between fact and fiction, but I think there are no policies to treat them differently on Wikipedia, are there?  And then it becomes a point to form local consensus for each individual case if an article/list is wanted or not based on WP:PAGEDECIDE , other reasons being absent.  If the data is presented in context elsewhere on Wikipedia and the list does not contain no new information, as long as it helps in navigation to that context, that in my view is a valid approach.  Daranios ( talk ) 09:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:WAF is all about special considerations when dealing with fiction.  As for disambiguation pages, we don't have the John Lee disambiguation page because people who share that name make up a meaningful set—we have it to aid readers who are looking for a specific article among the ones listed but don't know its exact title.  The difference here is that of course nobody looking for e.g. the Catwoman article is going to come looking at the List of female supervillains article to find it.  A list like this doesn't at all serve the same purpose as a disambiguation page.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True, disambiguation pages differ in function from our list here, just like lists following WP:LISTPURP-NAV differ from regular articles.  That's why I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE should not be applied in exactly the same way to all three types.  Though I guess we may disagree on wether the function of browsing falls under the purpose of navigation or not.  Thanks for pointing out WP:WAF .  In it did not see suggestions to treat such lists on topics of fiction as we have here differently from lists of factual topics, however.  Daranios ( talk ) 10:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The real reason raw-data lists like these exist is because people don’t know categories exist and that’s unlikely to change.  There is no novel information or context provided here and that’s patently obvious.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 23:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dronebogus : Maybe so, but that means that deletion would hurt rather than help the project overall, if the list helps persons navigate/browse who don't (like to) use categories.  And of course lists do have advantages over categories , even if not yet fully realized here.  Daranios ( talk ) 09:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per others, above.  - jc37 11:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notability is not temporary .  This has been discussed four times previously, and in all four times the result was keep.  There are plenty of good reasons to keep, but there is no reason to even discuss this when we've been over it so many times already.  Jacona ( talk ) 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire: The subject doesn't get a pass at WP:NPOL due to never sitting in the House of Lords.  The only piece of significant coverage for this individual comes from a local newspaper.  A source assessment follows.  See also the previous AfD for a review of other sources.  Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  "" Marquess of Downshire "" in Debrett's Peerage (Debrett's, 2019), pp. 2398–2402 passing mention ✘ No ""The Marquess of Downshire"", The Daily Telegraph, 25 February 2004, accessed 13 February 2023 (subscription required) passing mention ✘ No Chris Berry, ""Influence from high places to bang the rural drum"", The Yorkshire Post, 2 August 2014, accessed 13 February 2023 significant coverage, but only local coverage ?  Unknown ""Downshire, 9th Marquess of, (Arthur Francis Nicholas Wills Hill) (born 4 Feb. 1959) company director and landowner"" in Who's Who online edition, accessed 13 February 2023 (subscription required) WP:PRIMARY - written by the subject of the article and equal to a self-published source , per WP:RSP consensus not reliable per 2022 RfC ✘ No Annabel Sampson, ""Why Harrogate is the chic capital of the north"", Tatler, 31 March 2021, accessed 13 February 2023 no mention of the subject ✘ No Grace Newton, ""Clifton Castle: Privately owned stately home in the Yorkshire Dales to open its gardens to the public this weekend"", The Yorkshire Post, 10 June 2022, accessed 13 February 2023 passing mention ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Pilaz ( talk ) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility , Ireland ,  and United Kingdom .  Pilaz ( talk ) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Yes, never a member of the House of Lords, so it's just a question of WP:N and the GNG.  Agreed that Who's Who does not count towards notability, but the articles in The Yorkshire Post do.  The Tatler article does in fact mention the subject, as ""the Marquess of Downshire"" is this one.  Not much there, but it verifies something in the article, which is what references do.  Debrett's is independent of the subject and has editors.  As I see it, he meets the test of WP:N, which is about verifiability and not importance.  If the page is not kept, it is all relevant to Marquess of Downshire , a notable subject, and should be merged there, with a redirect, as the present peer is an integral part of that history.  Moonraker ( talk ) 04:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with Debrett's is the lack of WP:SIGCOV : you get a name, title, DOB and descendants on p. 2999, and that's it.  This is routine information, hardly ""more than a trivial mention"".  Even The Guardian agrees that this source is ""a bible stripped back to its begats. Outsiders can be frustrated by the lack of the colourful narratives that they suspect must be behind a lot of the begetting.""  Debrett's also cannot count towards the GNG because it is not a secondary source: it's a tertiary source, much like other reference work.  Pilaz ( talk ).  10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, WP:NOTGENEALOGY .  Family coverage on Wikipedia should only be included to support an already notable topic, so it seems odd to consider a WP:TERTIARY source like Debrett's with no SIGCOV enough.  Pilaz ( talk ) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , one local piece with non-trivial coverage is not enough for GNG.  Edit: Redirect .  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JoelleJay you agree then that The Yorkshire Post is non-trivial coverage.   It is a regional rather than local newspaper, and the GNG does not distinguish between national, regional, and local sources, so the question is whether it is a reliable source, and it meets all the tests.  Pilaz says it is ""significant coverage"".  And then there is Debrett's Peerage , which has biographies as well as genealogy.  Pilaz does not dispute its reliability, and I agree, but there is a misunderstanding in the words ""passing mention"", as Debrett's has nearly half a page about the subject of the article, which is not trivial.  NB, what the GNG requires is "" significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject "" and defines ""significant coverage"" as —  ""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.""  Moonraker ( talk ) 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since you seem to have access to it, what does Debrett's actually say beyond his genealogy, and is that info non-routine?  WP:N requires article subjects also pass NOT.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JoelleJay it's a short biography.  I would say more, but the copy I have access to is in a library in Oxford and I am in a different place now.  Moonraker ( talk ) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Marquess of Downshire - WP:ATD and plausible search term.  Ingratis ( talk ) 08:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as mentioned above -- Theoreticalmawi ( talk ) 16:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Moonraker.  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Marquess of Downshire .  Spleodrach ( talk ) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - an ongoing RSN discussion on the nature of Debrett's Peerage has uninvolved editors stating this is a tertiary source.  Pilaz ( talk ) 20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Moonraker and from what I gather this is an active and notable person, much of the deletionist view is nitpicking about the importance and nature of sources.  His activities are better sourced than the political careers of some elected hereditary peers in the House of Lords.  Killuminator ( talk ) 18:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Surely, if we are nitpicking, you can tell us which sources help satisfy the GNG.  Unless you are just arguing WP:ITSNOTABLE + WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  Pilaz ( talk ) 00:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I could have done that but I'm not going to given your second sentence.  Killuminator ( talk ) 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It could have been helpful for the ! keep case, because right now the rough consensus is that there's only one source which passes the GNG, which is the Yorkshire Post .  Pilaz ( talk ) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No one seems to disagree that The Yorkshire Post piece is solid, and Moonraker says Debrett's Peerage has a half-page biography of the subject.  𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 12:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Statistical benchmarking: Tooncool64 ( talk ) 06:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm in a real quandary about this.  The subject is definitely notable by Wikipedia standards, with a substantial literature.  Statistics in general is also such an enormous subject that it's completely inappropriate to merge this into Statistics - we'd either have to compress statistical benchmarking to a meaningless sentence, or unbalance the overall Statistics article.  This has to be a stand-alone.  But the current article is painfully poor; it's got no citations, it explains the subject in a way that's unlikely to make sense to anyone who doesn't already know what it's trying to say, and it doesn't even offer any external links to help anyone who needs a more textbook-style approach.  I don't want to delete it because the topic ought to be here, but I don't want it to linger like this for another 16 years without improvement.  Evidence that there are sources out there: [5] , [6] and numerous others.  Elemimele ( talk ) 08:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT unless someone improves it rapidly.  Clearly a notable term but we need a better page.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This could be salvaged as a reasonable stub if it were cut down to the first sentence and a few references were added.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  While there are no ""Keeps"" here yet, there are editors who see some value in this article so I don't think a swift Delete is the optimum response at this point in the discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to benchmarking or benchmarking#Metric benchmarking Keep .  I have done a google scholar and EBSCO search and found a total of five sources using the precise term.  None of them define or describe the term, leading me to believe it is a neologism not meeting GNG .  I will mention the essay section WP:JUSTNOTABLE .  Even the current article reads: In statistics, benchmarking is ... .  The term to me seems to literally mean ""benchmarking using statistics"" which is, frankly, self-evident in any benchmarking process.  And I concur none of the material can be salvaged; it is both too technical to be encyclopedic and unsourced.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 11:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't seem like a good redirect target; it's only about business, not about a general statistical technique.  The Google Scholar search linked above provides 700+ matches for the exact term statistical benchmarking, but not all of them apparently mean the same thing; sometimes the words are thrown about in a sense like ""we used statistics to see whether we met our benchmarks"", rather than ""using auxiliary information to adjust the sampling weights used in an estimation process"".  XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies about the google scholar search, I must have made a mistake on my scholar search.  Having another look, I found [7] which mentions that two statistical benchmarking techniques are data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis , so I do think the redirect is a plausible target with the caveat that the current benchmarking article should really refer to both business and economics rather than just business.  That being said, the two sources you provided about time series analysis for benchmarking have convinced me there is enough content to write about in a standalone article in summary style.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 00:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but stubbify drastically and perhaps focus on time-series analysis per the second of the links Elemimele provided above and [8] [9] .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Statistics .  There are discussions of related topics like sampling under the ""Statistical data"" section in that article.  Steven Walling • talk 21:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The current content is unclear and uncited; what is the benefit of merging it anywhere?  XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No consensus yet and now we have three different suggested Merge or Redirect target articles.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I added several sources to the bottom of the article (all taken from the Google Scholar search results).  Duckmather ( talk ) 04:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Ye with grave: The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG , but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter with Grave accent or Stress (linguistics) .  (They are not even articles about Unicode code points, because these accented letters can be represented either by a code point or using a combining accent, for example U+0400 Ѐ, or U+0415 U+0300 Ѐ.)  See Macedonian alphabet , Bulgarian alphabet , Serbian Cyrillic alphabet , Church Slavonic , and Early Cyrillic alphabet .  See also the previous successful RM of nine articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) , RM in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yat with acute .   — Michael Z .  17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Europe .   — Michael Z .  17:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: I with grave (Cyrillic) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) O with grave (Cyrillic) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) U with grave (Cyrillic) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Hard sign with grave ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) — Michael Z .  17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Grave accent .  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment' I with grave looks like it is close to being properly sourced, which makes me think everything but Hard sign with grave may also be able to be properly sourced.  I also don't know how to search for sources in say Bulgarian.  I think a merge with Grave accent is probably best at this time, but this could potentially be salvageable.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all , I think, without prejudice to possible mergers or reconfigurations.  Most are already cited to some degree, all are almost certainly citable, and it seems quite unlikely that any would actually fail the GNG.  Of course this is really a WP:NOT issue, so if not kept, soft redirect to Wiktionary (e.g. wikt:Ѐ ), which is much better equipped for providing such information as can be provided.  I don't see plausible merge targets at either grave accent or Cyrillic script .  I don't think bundled noms like this are very productive; I note that the nom refers to these as ""RMs"" but in fact the first tranche have already been soft-deleted without being merged anywhere, and without any input from anyone besides the nom.  That seems like a really unsatisfactory way of making content decisions.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I accidentally typed RM when I meant AFD.  There’s nothing else wrong with this.   As you can see it was an AFD, the procedure was followed, and notifications were posted widely.  Beyond likelihood or not, why don’t you demonstrate that any of them actually meet GNG.  That is the bar.   — Michael Z .  03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nom's not at fault because no one else ! voted in the deletion discussion, but it's also not a consensus to delete.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS .   — Michael Z .  22:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the same as ""boldly"" deleting something.  Anyone is welcome to challenge it.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right.  And no one has done so.  The main argument to keep is “I don’t know,” accompanied by pure speculation about possibly meeting GNG, without any attempt to demonstrate it does.  The previous deletions have not been reversed or appealed.  I’d be perfectly happy if someone did so with a valid rationale, but it has not materialized and I don’t think it exists.  This set is a bit different, because it concerns two different usage of the grave (as opposed to the acute), so I would be happy if it’s re-listed or gets wider input.  Anyway.   — Michael Z .  18:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to see if we can come to a consensus.  So far we have an implicit delete (nom), a redirect, and a keep.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect is fine with me.  But no problem with keeping this open either.   — Michael Z .  14:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say keep , seems useful and well documented enough to me in spite of it being a niche thing.  -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 15:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Dominika Polakowska: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Poland .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia only contains one source that is a database and no significant coverage .  My Google searches also come up with nothing else.  Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 10:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Sivakumar Vijayan: Video interviews do not count towards notability if not transcribed.  Was nominated for an award at 8th_South_Indian_International_Movie_Awards#Film but did not win it.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 02:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tamil Nadu .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliable citation are been given for each actions mentioned and it's genuine.  There are many articles mentioned about Sivakumar Vijayan by press and reliable news paper articles.  They aren't passing mention.  Kindly reverse from deletion as Sivakumar Vijayan is an important figure and we'll known personality in Indian cinema and Tamil Film Industry.  John pascal ( talk ) 17:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - sources provided are interviews and passing mentions.  Naomijeans ( talk ) 20:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is citation for Sivakumar Vijayan as a cinematographer from the newspaper The Hindu, a renowned newspaper in India https://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/that-moving-image/article6969417.ece Cathode bench ( talk ) 17:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Struck sock comments Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliable citation are been given for each actions mentioned and it's genuine.  There are many articles mentioned about Sivakumar Vijayan by press and reliable news paper articles.  They aren't passing mention.  Kindly reverse from deletion as Sivakumar Vijayan is an important figure and we'll known personality in Indian cinema and Tamil Film Industry.  John pascal ( talk ) 17:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliable citation are been given for each actions mentioned and it's genuine.  There are many articles mentioned about Sivakumar Vijayan by press and reliable news paper articles.  They aren't passing mention.  Kindly reverse from deletion as Sivakumar Vijayan is an important figure and well known personality in Indian cinema and Tamil Film Industry.  John pascal ( talk ) 17:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/that-moving-image/article6969417.ece Cathode bench ( talk ) 17:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Struck sock comments Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Withdrawn but can't be closed since someone ! voted delete.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Not supporting it, but if there is a consensus to delete, 8th South Indian International Movie Awards#Film is an ATD.  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Jimi Cravity: Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO under any criterion.  Not a GNG pass either.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Christianity .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Is the inclusion of ""Believe"" at number 37 on the Hot Christian Songs chart valid for notability?  WP:MUSICBIO suggests that a chart position on a national chart is a point for notability, and Hot Christian Songs is listed as an ""acceptable"" chart on the chart notability page.  Spiralwidget ( talk ) 15:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's an acceptable chart for a mention in the article, yes, but it is not a country's national music chart.  So no, not a notability pass per WP:MUSICBIO .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if it was, we still need RS to arrive at GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep haven't done a full search yet but he does have an AllMusic bio here which shows that he was contracted to Universal Music as a songwriter.  Regarding the charting as well as the Christian charts the most significant charting is position 11 on the billboard heatseekers chart which covers all music genres and is just below the main Billboards album chart, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional coverage here , here , and here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I can't access the AllMusic site through our vpn at work, this from Billboard is not extensive, but it's something.  [3] Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can't find anything extra for this person.  I don't think the three sources above are RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  An examination of further sources on this article subject mentioned by Atlantic306 would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - as the nom, I am not sure my view will be enough to swing this from a quiet no consensus.  But looking at the sources, there are four proposed.  There is no consensus on reliabilility of All Music [4] at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources .  The piece is a short bio.  If this was generated off a publicity drive it wouldn't be independent.  I am not convinced it is significant.  I don't believe this one counts towards SIGCOV.  [5] appears to be a Wordpress blog, and I am not familiar with it.  However, it lists 4 staff writers which may speak to an editorial process.  All the same, the review here does not come from a staff writer, although they have provided a number of the reviews and one might guess based on names that they could be related to a staff writer.  I don't believe this meets SIGCOV threshold.  [6] Cross Rhythms is specialist in the sub culture, but reliable.  Except that Stephen Curry's review there has a disclaimer: ""The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms"".  That suggests a submitted review.  [7] I don't know this site, but there are a lot of reviews and effort has been taken over it.  They don't describe their editorial poilciy, but I note that they tak review submissions: [8] saying ""let us review your Music.""  If they only review aftter a review submission, then the review is not independent.  So in summary, I am not sure any of these count towards SIGCOV, but even if we let Cross Rhythms pass, we would not be in multiple territory.  The fact is that anyone touring the Christian Music circuit will solicit and thus garner a few reviews in Christian music sites, but these are not the sources that demonstrate notability per WP:MUSICBIO .  What we need is an independent publication that sat up and took notice.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to disagree with @ Oaktree b : as all of the sources I provided are reliable sources.  The three christian music sources are listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources and AllMusic is regarded as reliable by most music editors hence its inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources .  Also.  it no longer seems to have an entry at the perennial sources list.  In any case the fact that the artist charted on a non-genre Billboard chart should give him some leeway in my opinion,imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also regarding WP:NMUSIC he clearly passes criteria 2 with a charting on a national music chart particularly one that is not genre specific.  Also I don't see any mention that genre specific reliable sources should be ignored or not counted, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All Music is still there.  See WP:ALLMUSIC .  No consensus on reliability doesn't mean it is unreliable, but those who advocate for it tend to argue that substantial reviews by staff writers are what count as notable.  This is not a substantial review, and it appears to be by a singer and not a staff writer.  Thus I don't think that one is notable.  What I said is not all about the reliability or otherwise of the sites.  I took the time to explain why I don't think those can be used for SIGCOV based on the specific reviews.  MUSICBIO specified a country's national chart as being a determiner for a presumption of notability.  Number 11 on a specialist chart for new and developing acts is not sufficient.  But really what it comes down to is whether there is sufficient material to write an article about this artist.  He has released two EPs in the last 10 years, and that is all.  This does not look like a notable singer to me.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Chiesa di San Michele Arcangelo: Should not be a redirect for ""San Michele Arcangelo, Anacapri"".  Article ""Chiesa di San Michele Arcangelo (Venezia, San Marco)"" exists in italian wiki.  Deleted redirect to avoid confusion in interlanguage links and in general.  Gor1995 ( talk ) 22:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Christianity ,  and Italy .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Wrong venue.   The nominator should have begin this discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion .   This redirect is justified by the following example: ""They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the ""Keystone State"" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.""  The same with the name of the church.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in favor of a change of venue per Eastmain.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 03:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Veronika Kropotina: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Russia .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Télé Lyon Métropole: Additionally, it may lack independent, third-party references to establish its significance in the context of television broadcasting.  Welcome to Pandora ( talk ) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep One would expect a TV station reaching 1.3 million inhabitants fulfills WP:GNG and it does.  The French Wikipedia article shows an abundance of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources.  I agree the article needs to be updated and better sourced (the TV station seemingly does not exist anymore), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP .  Broc ( talk ) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears that BFM Lyon Métropole is the rebrand/successor of this station [2] .   There is no sourced content in the (English) article; the article should not be kept in its current form.   A redirect (to BFM TV ) might be better than trying to fix this article.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to BFM Régions , where we learn that Télé Lyon Métropole was bought out by BFM, and rebranded as ""BFM Lyon Métropole"" then ""BFM Lyon"" as part of the BFM Régions network.  In an ideal world the article could be kept and expanded from the frwiki article (which itself is way out of date), but realistically that isn't going to happen for a defunct local channel.  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 15:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Pilot (Faking It): There are some reviews present, but not convinced they support notability.  This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid.  In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.  Previous REDIRECT was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion.  Let's decide once and for all if this episode is notable or not.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Believe additional sources [34] [35] I added in last year were enough for WP:GNG .  Found brief book coverage [36] , where while talking about the series, they do briefly discuss pilot.  Also found a Hollywood Reporter [37] article about the pilot being shown early, but there already is a review from them in article.  WikiVirus C (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a trimmed down version to Faking It (American TV series) .  Lacks SIGCOV for the episode, coverage is all mentions in the context of the series.  // Timothy :: talk 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Faking It (American TV series) .  Sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV , and the sources mentioned by WikiVirus above don't cut it in my opinion.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 00:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Venable, Nick (2014-04-22).  ""Faking It Review: Stereotypes Meet Screwball Faux Lesbian Dramedy"" .  CinemaBlend .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 .  Retrieved 2023-05-07 .  The review notes: ""But it was still with an impartial mind only sprinkled with antipathy that I bussed into the first episode of the new teen dramedy Faking It, in which the central hook involves two best friends posing as a lesbian couple to attain more popularity in their trope-filled high school. By the end, though, I almost wanted to curl up inside a locker with a bag of milk and watch Sifl and Olly on my phone. ... I could easily throw more hatred at Liam’s “I’ll fuck anything as long as it understands my rules” attitude towards women, or the fact that the two leads are already outed as non-lesbians twice. But the episode did have a few rays of sunshine to balance the vomit jokes and the Shia LaBeouf reference. Karma’s initial goal of pretending to be blind to fit in was an inspired way to start the plot off, and I like the way the foul language is bleeped rather than substituted for corny slang.""  McHatton, Nick (2014-04-23).  ""Awkward Review: An Outlook of Doubtful"" .  TV Fanatic .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 .  Retrieved 2023-05-07 .  Editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260#TV Fanatic found TV Fanatic to be marginally reliable.  The review notes: ""Thankfully, as Faking It Season 1 Episode 1 points out, there is life past the phony relationship. It's just a matter of getting to that point first - but with both sides ""un-outing"" themselves in the premiere, the timeline can't be very long.  ... The supporting characters of Shane and Liam are pretty one note at the moment. Liam, particularly, is just about finding the right buddy for the night and his general ideas of women in general are rather sad considering how progressive the show is trying to be.""  Swift, Andy (2014-04-22).  ""Did You Fall For MTV's Faking It?"" .  TVLine .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 .  Retrieved 2023-05-07 .  The review notes: ""There’s a magical high school in Austin, Texas, where being different is a cause for celebration, rather than an excuse for ridicule — so much so that two social nobodies can skyrocket to instant popularity simply by pretending to be lesbians. That’s the basic premise behind MTV’s new comedy Faking It, which premiered Tuesday, as best friends Amy (Rita Volk) and Karma (American Idol‘s Katie Stevens) engage in a faux-lesbian relationship after some misinformed encouragement from new pal Shane (United States of Tara‘s Michael Willett).""  L., Melissa (2014-04-24).  ""How Is MTV Indoctrinating Your Kids Today? The Debut of 'Faking It' "" .  New York Observer .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 .  Retrieved 2023-05-07 .  The article reviews the first episode of the TV series.  It notes: ""When that fails, Lauren just loudly grumbles that she wants to ship them off to the Isle of Lesbos. It’s an idle threat that the school’s Queen Bee — Shane, who “came out in the 4th grade” — overhears. He notes that “bullying the gays is so late ‘90s,” and as it so happens, he has been “craving lesbian energy in his life”. Amy and Karma’s fake relationship gives them instant celebrity status, which naturally includes an invitation to a party at his house. When they try to tell Shane that they aren’t gay, he just accuses them of being closeted. ... While Karma loved how Amy “sold” their relationship, Amy may actually be struggling with her sexuality, which is the realest thing about this show so far. Can’t wait to see what happens next week when MTV continues trying to make teen open-mindedness happen.""  Hale, Mike (2014-04-21). ""Their Surprise Route to Popularity"" . The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . The review notes: ""If any of these shows are genuinely subversive, however, it’s probably MTV’s “Faking It,” on Tuesday. The network’s latest attempt to get another scripted teenage comedy off the ground (so far “Awkward” has been its only notable success), the series is set in a fantasy version of Austin, Tex., where a high school’s overprivileged mean girl can fume that she’s being discriminated against. ... And for ballast, there’s the executive producer and writer Carter Covington, who worked on the ABC Family comedy “10 Things I Hate About You.”  His script for the “Faking It” pilot has a snap and cleverness reminiscent of that earlier show.""  Ng, Philiana (2014-04-15).  ""MTV's 'Faking It' Pilot Debuting Early (Exclusive Video)"" .  The Hollywood Reporter .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-07 .  Retrieved 2023-05-07 .  The article notes: ""MTV is giving early access to the full pilot of Faking It, a half-hour comedy revolving around two best friends, Karma (Katie Stevens) and Amy (Rita Volk), who pretend to be lesbians to gain social standing.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ""Pilot"" ( Faking It ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  Cunard ( talk ) 10:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Coat of arms of Lebanon: At Lebanon , the user Beshogur ( talk · contribs ) has repeatedly removed the coat of arms on the basis that the Constitution of Lebanon doesn't define one (whough the US constitution doesn't define the state symbols, either), and that the symbol was unsourced.  The only reference in this stub is circular, and the source added in an August 24 revision at the main article includes fictional content.  [1] – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LaundryPizza03 : thanks for doing this job.  Beshogur ( talk ) 20:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: One thing I should like to note is that the announcement of the adoption of the Seal of the President of Lebanon, which is official and which includes this design, notes (in Arabic) that 'the arms were chosen because they historically represent the official symbol of the Lebanese Republic.'  That's a pretty scant reference, but it does come from the Lebanese government itself, so it's worth taking note of it.  Edit: The design was also præviously used on its own on the Presidency's website (it differs slightly, having a brown trunk, but the general blazon tracks, heraldically).  Mnmazur ( talk ) 22:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another addition to the comment, I discussed this with other user as well.  For US, if their coat of arms were adopted by the congress, which is, it makes it official.  Beshogur ( talk ) 13:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that a design of similar construction also appears on the embassy of Lebanon in Paris (on the door to the left).  ― novov (t c) 11:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - These arms have definitely been around a while; I have added a citation from a book , but they can also be found on the Lebanese embassy in Paris (see my comment above) and several vintage stamp/sticker collections ( 1 , 2 ).  Whether they have seen much usage beyond what’s been found is questionable though, so more investigation is probably needed.  ― novov (t c) 12:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ ""Modest proposal Initial List"" .  Society for Creative Anachronism .  Retrieved 24 August 2023 .  LEBANON.  Gules, on a bend sinister argent a cedar tree palewise proper.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Now sourced.  If there are problems with the article, it can be improved.  ― Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 00:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Koavf : the ""source"" is ridiculous.  1973 source, not official basis whatsoever.  Beshogur ( talk ) 16:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are four sources.  Are they all ridiculous?  What do you mean about ""not official basis""?  ― Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sourcing is indeed extremely weak right now, and Beshogur is correct in stating that the first source is indeed not an official government publication.  The second source (about the presidential seal which includes it) is though.  The other two sources are regarding the more general cedar tree emblem, which probably sees more use and might be worth refocusing the page on.  But it is (or at least was) clearly used in some capacity by the Lebanese government, contrary to the claims of it being a fictional device.  And Lebanon wouldn't be the only country to use a symbol that is not officially legislated in some fashion.  ― novov (t c) 00:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Deep Purple Tribute: The band, Cactus Jack, have a dubious notability, though the article on the band, Cactus Jack (band) , survived an AfD ( no consensus ) in 2010.  SilkTork ( talk ) 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Although currently they are not very significant, Cactus Jack were a very prominent act of the Serbian rock scene in the 2000s.  The album was mentioned in the last two editions of Petar Janjatović's Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija , the most important book on rock scenes of Yugoslavia and successor countries.  All other releases by the band have their own articles.  Ostalocutanje ( talk ) 14:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have an article on the author, Petar Janjatović , and an article on the book, Ex YU rock enciklopedija 1960–2006 , which is a good indicator of the reliability of that source.  I did note, however, in our article on the book, that it says: ""The book also contains basic information about a large number of less notable acts"", and that while the Serbian Wikipedia has an article on the band, Cactus Jack , it doesn't have an article on this Deep Purple Tribute album, so a mention in Janjatović's book may not in itself be an indication of notability.  And even if the album were written about in depth in the book, per WP:NALBUMS , we prefer to have multiple reliable sources.  Given that the album does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NALBUMS , nor in WP:GNG , and there is no article on the Serbian Wikipedia, it may be more appropriate to do as WP:GNG suggests and what the Serbian Wikipedia have done, and that is to merge relevant information about the Deep Purple Tribute album into the Cactus Jack (band) album.  SilkTork ( talk ) 08:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Basic information about less notable acts in Janjatović's encyclopedia are included in the articles about more notable related acts.  When it comes to Cactus Jack, they do have their own article in the book.  (I'm not sure if this information is of any relevance for the discussion.)  Ostalocutanje ( talk ) 15:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Serbia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify : Notability of the performer(s) has nothing to do with that of their recording as per WP:NALBUM .  Currently there isn't any sign of notability whatsoever of the subject, no news outlets, passing mentions, nor reviews.  At that time news were published through paper, sources may exist, until such is listed the article should be draftified for incubation.  dxneo ( talk ) 08:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Bernardo Calvo: There are simply no references to him on the internet other than compendiums of baseball stats which include his name.  Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball ,  and Mexico .  Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Found some routine coverage on newspapers.com such as [ [5] ] and [ [6] ], but nothing that is GNG worthy.  However, it is quite possible that there are Mexican sources that could help this subject meet the notability guidelines.  Let'srun ( talk ) 11:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Love Sex Aur Dhokha 2: Should be in DRAFT, but was moved there and then was moved back by the creator.  Creator also removed PROD.  Donald D23 talk to me 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  Donald D23 talk to me 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DRAFT until release and add cast section OR Merge into Love Sex Aur Dhokha#Sequel .  DareshMohan ( talk ) 17:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I can't soft-delete or re-draft because of the move back to mainspace by the creator, so relisting to establish clear consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to point out that if the consensus of this discussion is to Draftify, this article can be moved back to Draft space.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Brian Andrews (actor): Lots of mentions on less reliable sites/blogs.  Weak keep in 2006 when our standards were much lower.  Boleyn ( talk ) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television ,  and Arizona .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : One quite notable role and some mildly notable ones have him meet WP:NACTOR , which is the applicable guideline.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) PS- Added various sources and think the subject also meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly.... :D [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , roles add up to enough.  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 08:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete : it's not about whether the roles are significant or not, it is about whether the role is significant or not.  and so far... the only significant role i can find is his role as tommy doyle from halloween.  other roles/movies listed in the article do not really make him significant, failing WP:NACTOR brachy 08 (chat here lol) 08:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"2023 Little Rock tornado: Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 .  This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes).  In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes).  To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes.  The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS .  Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now.  As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment ,  and Arkansas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft?  This was unnecessary.  Chess Eric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ChessEric : If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace.  The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to ""improve it"", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware.  With all that, this is more of a TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace).  Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace.  So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true ""delete it due to lack of notability"", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it.  Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened.  Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits.  The AfD was not the way to go.  Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet WP:Lasting .  I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though.  Chess Eric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article.  For reference this entire edit is a copyright violation.  Making it a draft again will not get rid of that.  The SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article.  That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird.  Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along.  Did they help?  Sure.  Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though?  Yes.  It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric .  Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado .  The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations.  The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur.  So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability.  This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023 .  We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article.  In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles.  Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado .  I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section.  The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed.  But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact.  A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak.  148.76.84.29 ( talk ) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK ) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations.  148.76.84.29 ( talk ) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK ) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here.  You state ""Either delete or draftify back like it was"" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space.  Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow.  His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021 .  User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point.  99.196.129.143 ( talk ) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) ( SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks.  I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved.  Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.   Any thoughts from more independent editors?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Inter-Residence Hall Association (University of Florida): And yes the student newspaper of the university is a primary source.   Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 10:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education ,  and Florida .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article by all means has sufficient sources that are not from the student newspaper, including newspapers and outlets from across Florida and the United States.  The Lakeland Ledger , Boca Rotan News, WUFT-FM , Gainesville Sun , Sarasota Tribune, Daily Orange , and Baltimore Afro-American all are cited.  Most of which, with articles that discuss the organization in a decent amount of depth, beyond the single-sentence mentions that WP:ORGCRIT seeks to avoid.  Additionally, the Independent Florida Alligator is no longer associated with the University of Florida anyways.  While it can be argued that a student newspaper is a primary source, the Alligator has been independent and unassociated with the University of Florida since  1973, and while considered a largely ""student-run"" paper, is an independent local newspaper.  With all sources coming after that date, clearly and unarguably being secondary sources.  I would, personally additionally argue, considering that student papers, including the Alligator, are generally editorially independent from their respective colleges, it should be considered a secondary source prior to this date as well.  That's even the reason the Alligator became independent, they were exercising their editorial privileges and the university attempted to intervene.  Subsequently, resulting in a tension between the university and paper, and its withdraw from being an official student paper of the college anyways.  I would also ask someone that has more knowledge in source assessment: do other agencies of the same larger institution typically count as primary sources or secondary sources anyways?  The notion that comes to mind is the example of: what if an editor cites the U.S. Forest Service in an article about NASA, both are independent of each other, but are both organizations within the larger institution of the federal government.  Is this citation considered primary or secondary?  At that point, are they even considered to be related organizations to each other?  This would be similar to the given circumstance: the Inter-Residence Hall Association is only directly cited a handful of times, though other agencies of the university (arguably including Florida Alligator articles prior to 1973) are cited additional times.  Again, I am unsure about this last notion and could use someone more knowledgeable outside myself or the nominator for assistance on that question.  Regardless of this, the article certainly has enough external sources to prove notability.  If the suggestion is that additional secondary citations are required for verification, I could almost understand, especially if we are not counting the Florida Alligator prior to 1973.  However, given the previously mentioned in-depth coverage from newspapers across the state and country where the organization is organization is based, I would argue that the Inter-Residence Hall Association quite clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG by having multiple reliable secondary sources that are unarguably independent of the subject.  - Navarre0107 ( talk ) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More in-depth sources from news outlets and papers across the state have also been added since the creation of this AfD. - Navarre0107 ( talk ) 01:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If WP:GNG can't be assessed, a redirect to University of Florida will always be better than a deletion regardless of the material.  – The Grid ( talk ) 19:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 12:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Bautista Stavile: De-prodder has stated sources he believes pass GNG, however I believe all of these to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, and I've not seen anything in a WP:BEFORE to suggest a GNG pass.  Given he may well make his debut for Zebre Parma in the 2023/24 season, I wouldn't be against draftyfying as more coverage will likely exist within the next 6 months.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , Italy ,  and Argentina .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Adidas Copa Mundial: 2) Fails WP:GNG .  A google search does not uncover any additional WP:RS .  TarnishedPath talk 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Sports ,  and Football .  TarnishedPath talk 04:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a rather iconic football boot amongst many, there are multiple reviews online about the boots such as ESPNs example , which in turn is in-depth coverage.  There are some news articles, such as [11] about possible discontinuation of the boot.  However they continue to update it at times [12] .  There are multiple sources online, @ GiantSnowman : If you continue to post the same thing over and over again of no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me. I will be more than happy to report this to ANI, as at times this is rather like how many have be barred from AfD.  Simply voting delete or keep with lack of explanation is tiresome.  Especially for an article such as this, when there are huge amount of sources online for this icon boot.  Govvy ( talk ) 11:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did explain.  Feel free to take to ANI.  As I have explained elsewhere, and as others agreed with me, your respectfully shitty attitude in dealing with people who you disagree with at AFD will not win people around to your way of thinking.  Giant Snowman 17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your first citation, the author runs a blog which sells the products he reviews .  While it may be published by ESPN, there is a clear COI there given that ESPN are publishing his websites name in connection with the review.  Your second citation, I couldn't find any editorial staff or policies for that website.  TarnishedPath talk 03:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , or delete ALL brand name articles.  Please see Category:Adidas , and Wikipedia:Brands .  The other Adidas are no more, nor any less, advertising than this one.  And it's not isolated to one brand.  Don't cherry-pick only select Adidias articles to delete.  — Maile ( talk ) 10:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 , I'm not cherry picking Adidas.  Refer to the following other football boots that I nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Hypervenom - Deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Mercurial Vapor - Deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Tiempo - Redirected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Total 90 - Redirected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike Phantom Luna - Deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike CTR360 Maestri - Currently relisted TarnishedPath talk 01:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for responding.  I struck through my comment about cherry picking.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 , no worries.  Enjoy your day or night.  TarnishedPath talk 02:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ Govvy : I find nothing objectionable about @ GiantSnowman : ’s comment.  His comment about pinging is a reasonable alternative to following multiple AfDs, comment-by-comment, after leaving his own comment.  I suspect an ANI discussion would ultimately reach the same conclusion, perhaps after some contentious, gratuitous drive-by comments from the peanut gallery.  Either or both or neither of you might get sanctioned - it’s a crap shoot.  ANI is not worth it, trust me.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I had edited the article to remove unreliable sources, however an editor has seen fit to restore the unreliable sources because they think it appropriate to include blogs, websites with no locatable editorial policies and sources which don't back up the claims made in articles because ""they are not black listed"".  After removal of unreliable sources there were only two sources left in the article.  One of the sources was about California banning kangaroo skinned boots and barely mentions the product.  The other is about the product being offered in white.  TarnishedPath talk 11:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Adidas Copa Mundial , Adidas Nemeziz , Adidas Predator , and AdiPure into single article on Adidas football boots , eliminating everything that is either unsourced or sourced to non-independent sources (which is quite a bit of it).  BD2412 T 01:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: An even split between keep, merge, and delete Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Claudia Letizia: After the article of Claudia Letizia in Italian Wikipedia has been deleted, the author of the Italian article created articles of Claudia Letizia on 30+ Wikipedias.  @ Giammarco Ferrari : Please explain the detailed situation if you can.  San mo sa Outdia 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  San mo sa Outdia 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance , Radio , Television ,  and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good morning, I know that each Wikipedia project has its own encyclopedic rules, however you can find the deletion procedure in Italian here.  As you can see, it is also confirmed there that she has only had roles as a competitor in TV programs or as an extra in a couple of movies.  The character is still on the English Wikipedia because, I'm told, being on the Italian Big Brother is enough for that Wikipedia.  On the French Wikipedia, however, they replied that the entry is because ""it is present on many Wikipedias"", which would be absurd according to the rules of it.wiki.  As you can see for yourself, when the author saw his Italian Wikipedia page deleted, he then created minimal entries on another thirty Wikipedias for promotional purposes (today Letizia actually has an OnlyFans profile as you can read here ).  Regards Giammarco Ferrari ( talk ) 09:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At least according to the source of the English article, there are at least 3 reports of her on Il Mattino , so she not just only has OnlyFans profile.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 11:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The three references in voice (all dated  2018) are two from Il Mattino and one from Il Giornale.  Two of them (Il Giornale and Il Mattino) report the same news (she stated that a maniac chased her and tried to masturbate in front of her) and the one from Il Mattino reports her being a commentator on a radio program regarding sexy topics.  Giammarco Ferrari ( talk ) 13:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I doubt if it is a CSD G11 case.  San mo sa Outdia 11:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given coverage she has received in various media, no, absolutely not.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What you have mentioned does not have direct relation to it's compliance with CSD G11.  San mo sa Outdia 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm afraid it does.  If there are reliable sources covering any subject, then the article covering the subject can be rewritten from a neutral point of view.  And , anyway, this article was not even (let alone exclusively, for that matter) written from a promotional point of view.  You are, I think, assuming the creator had a specific intent .  User:Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino is a regular on the It WP and he has also made a number of contributions here.  None of them has been challenged for being ""spamming""/advertising, which is a quite serious accusation.  Anyway, I have improved the page with sources and hope it does address the issue.  Feel free to rephrase/remove anything you find written in a promotional tone.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But I think the sources only give trivial mentions?  Also, ""none of them has been challenged for being 'spamming'/advertising"" may just mean that no people have previously discovered the problem.  San mo sa Outdia 04:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just casting aspersions and for the third time , it's a quite serious accusation.  Please let's stick to the article without assuming people's intentions; which leads us to you your first statement/question (?): no , I'm sorry, just read the sources, in most cases, they're directly addressing her and her career.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think that the information page that you have mentioned tries to forbid me from raising any rational and reasonable possibilities.  San mo sa Outdia 13:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I beg to differ.  ""Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack."" or  ""An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN , or other appropriate places per WP:CO "" seem pretty clear to me.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please stop accusing me of accusing others of misconduct, I think you have totally misinterpreted my intention.  San mo sa Outdia 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I coud reply: please don't accuse me of accusing you of accusing others....  More seriously, have I ""totally misinterpreted your intention""?  Well, sorry if I have, but you have repeatedly described the article as spam: it’s the first word in your rationale (your first sentence actually); then My main point is 'spam', not 'notability' ; then Even if you have the sources, if you write it like a spam, it is a spam.  , your mention of  G11 (whose template documentation states ""it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic"") etc..  Now which is it?  Spam or not spam?  If you say the page was created as a spam, then, you are implying the creator did it with the intent to spam and, I'm sorry, but it is a serious accusation, especially when it concerns a very experienced user.  Or did you mean that it is an ""involuntary spam""?  Then that is not a spam and please choose another wording (""it has a promotional tone""), another rationale (""does not meet criteria for notability of people""), etc.  Anyway, as I said multiple times, I think Letizia meets GNG.  Kindly allow other users to express their views, thank you. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm told, being on the Italian Big Brother is enough for that Wikipedia That is not correct.   It just means that WP:A7 does not apply and so speedy deletion is not supported.   It does not mean that notability is met.  -- Whpq ( talk ) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh sorry then, I misunderstood.  Giammarco Ferrari ( talk ) 16:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: the 2018 ""simplified deletion discussion"" in Italian linked above by Gianmarco Ferrari, has 2 users voting keep and 2-3 concerned about promotional content, fwiw.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC) .... And the quote from the Fr.  Wikipedia deletion debate concerns only ONE user upon 4 or 5 Keep ! votes.... .Also note that Gianmarco Ferrari (a regular of the Italian WP, whose good faith I am certainly not questioning) has put CSD tags on the pages about the subject in various versions of Wikipedia and taken other to Afd.... (again FWIW) possibly on every language in which the page exists....  For transparency's sake, let me add that I declined the ones in Picard and Luxembourgish and voted Keep on the SpWP.  [ reply ] Keep .  Fairly meets general requirements for notability.  Added a few of the numerous existing sources ( much more exists). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 14:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if she meets notability requirements, if the article is in fact spam, meeting notability requirements does not bar the article from deletion ( WP:GNG : ' ""Presumed"" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. ').  My main point is 'spam', not 'notability', I hope that you can understand this.  San mo sa Outdia 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I hope I can understand this too.  But if it meets the requirements for notability how could it possibly be a spam?  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I would seriously doubt your general understanding on texts.  Even if you have the sources, if you write it like a spam, it is a spam.  San mo sa Outdia 04:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can doubt whatever you want but I would rather focus on this article in particular, if possible.  Is the page written ""like a spam"" now?  What does ""written like a spam"" mean?  Again, describing pages as spam implies a serious accusation concerning the users who create/edit the page.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, then you may try to comprehend the content of the ""Biography"", and you would find that those mentions regarding Ms. Letizia are all trivial, especially the sentence ""She starred in the musical Carosone, with the singer Sal Da Vinci, in which he played Maruzzella…"" makes it being even clearer that she is not really the topic to be introduced in the sources.  San mo sa Outdia 13:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but I can't understand your comment.  Again, most sources added address her directly and mentions of her are not trivial.  She does imv meet GNG.  Thank you for your concern.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 13:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then please prove that they are really not trivial.  I have proven that they are trivial already.  San mo sa Outdia 05:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just read the definition of trivial on WP and open the links.  Thank you.  I have proven that they are trivial already .... .hmmm.... no, not at all.... how could you have done so?  You've quoted a sentence from the article and commented on it in a way I did not even understand.  I am NOT going to copy-paste here the tons of text in Italian about her from the sources; please open the links; this is beginning to be ridiculous.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC) (NB- I removed the end of the sentence you quoted (for information, in case other users want to check)).  [ reply ] 條目寫的又不像G11（The article has not reached the level of G11, and Italian Wikipedia can consider restoring the article. ） 日期20220626 ( talk ) 14:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You know that I generally disagree with your misunderstanding on spams and advertisment.  San mo sa Outdia 04:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 沒事啊，讓管理員來判斷（It's okay, let the administrator decide. ），而且你看看上面的留言，英維這邊在刪除條目方面可不見得比中維容易。  日期20220626 ( talk ) 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don’t mind, can we use English on this page?  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sanmosa is a Chinese Wiki user, and the Chinese I sent was specifically for him to read.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 10:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, please don't.  I see you're having that debate there but here please do it in English.  Thanks.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 日期20220626 : Yes, per Mushy Yank, it is totally unnecessary to write your comments in Chinese here, I can normally read and write English (and sometimes it may be more convenient for me to read English than Chinese).  San mo sa Outdia 13:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your behavior and demeanor are the same whether on Chinese Wikipedia or English Wikipedia, haha.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 12:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : clear spam cross-wiki case.  ""Sources"" make clear that this person is/was?  ""relevant"" for being a contestant during 3/4 weeks at italian Big Brother.  Today she is an aspiring actress/model with no notability at all.  I think this entry relies entirely on WP:RECENTISM and possibly WP:PROMO , WP:NOT basically.  PedroAcero76 ( talk ) 23:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Exactly, as Mushy Yank said, I asked for immediate deletion in many of the Wikis where the entry on Claudia Letizia is present and I did it because I hate spam campaigns as I believe this one is and above all for the fact that in some Wikis, such as the French Wikipedia, it was answered in a previous discussion regarding the cancellation a few years ago, that the entry should be kept as ""the entry is present on many Wikis"", which, from my point of view view, it's like rewarding the creator of the entry because he wrote it very quickly on a bunch of other Wikis.  Fortunately, on many of the Wikis the entry was immediately deleted, on others - such as the one in Chinese - some users are instead waiting for the Judgment of the Wiki in English.  However, a discussion about cancellation has been opened on almost all of them (I should have opened the one in French and I haven't done so yet).  Furthermore, just as I have requested deletion on many Wikis, Mushy Yank (whose good faith I do not doubt) has on several occasions, as he recalled, rejected the request, and on other occasions, such as the Spanish Wikipedia, voted against deletion being discussed (for now he was the only one to do so and that was his first contribution to Spanish Wikipedia...fwiw).  According to Mushy Yank it is not spam and the subject meets the encyclopedic requirements, but I am increasingly convinced that it is not, since I have read the sources reported above (even those added after this discussion), and they do not add anything new to what has already been said: the subject took part in some TV programs as a competitor, including 4 weeks on Big Brother, after which she had the role of an extra in some movies and ended up in some newspaper articles because ""a maniac tried to masturbate in front of to her"".  Thank you Giammarco Ferrari ( talk ) 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, Mushy Yank has on several occasions, as he recalled, rejected the request : several, no, only the two I mentioned myself above.  If CSDs on other Wikipedias (Romanian, for instance) have been declined that was by other users; and on other occasions, such as the Spanish Wikipedia, voted against deletion being discussed No.  Plural is inaccurate.  Only on the one I have myself mentioned, in Spanish, indeed.  And I had indeed clearly said that myself so that you repeating it  was not exactly necessary, especially if you present the facts inaccurately.  Thank you.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Two"" are ""plural"", ""one"" is ""single"".  In Spanish you seem to be what in english in called WP:SPA , and you did not say it clearly that was your first Spanish Contribution...fwiw.  By the way, I do not doubt of your good faith, But it is better to say all the things, so that all users can form an opinion having all the elements.  Thank you Giammarco Ferrari ( talk ) 11:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just read  your own first comment and my reply again with more attention, please: your statement was inaccurate and misleading.  SEVERAL IS MORE THAN TWO AND ONE IS NOT PLURAL .  As for the rest, no comment.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You also said that you eliminated the deletion requests on the Luxembourgish and Picardy Wikipedias, but you also failed to mention that those were your first and so far only contributions to those Wikis...fwiw.  In this regard, are you sure that as your first intervention in a Wiki you were allowed to remove a notice that, usually, only administrators can remove?  Of course, I still don't doubt your good faith.  Giammarco Ferrari ( talk ) 01:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Picard , not Picardy , the language not the region.  Ask them.  This is not the forum for reporting WP:SPA or other (imaginary or real) issues on other Wikipedias.  To be honest, I am seriously starting to doubt the sincerity of your repeated assertion that you are assuming good faith.  And by the way, this page is not about me, in case you haven't noticed.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 02:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  This is not a productive discussion.  Making accusations, trying to define what is or isn't spam doesn't help us come to a decision on what to do with this article and the longer this AFD gets, the lower the chance that other editors will want to come and participate in it.  This is not the correct forum to make comments on user behavior, either here and on othe Wikipedias, even less so.  Instead, a source review would be helpful.  A formal review would be very useful, a general comment saying that sources prove GNG or sources are trivial do not help others.  What we are seeking is opinions from more uninvolved editors as we already know where the editors here stand on ths subject.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, I will add Here some info about the TV movies: 2009: ""7 vite"".  She does not appear in the cast .  2010: ""La nuova squadra"".  She does not appear in the cast .  2015: ""1992"", She does not appear in the cast .  2015-2016: ""È arrivata la felicità"", She does not appear in the cast .  2018: ""È arrivata la felicità 2"", She does not appear in the cast .  ""Un posto al sole"" is an italian soap opera with more than 6400 episodes and she appears in 4/5 episodes in an extra role, as ten Thousand people. -- Giammarco Ferrari ( talk ) 09:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : no evidence of notability.  Spam cross-wiki.  Look wikidata history : delete from 27 wikipedia.  -- 95.233.51.253 ( talk ) 17:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good Morning, it is quite unbelievable to me how easy is to Insert an entry full of spamming statements and how hard is to remove that entry.  Few post ago Liz asked for a source review and I posted evidences of how all the Letizia's roles in the TV movies listed in the entry were actually extra roles, as she does not appear in any cast of those movies.  For the other TV shows enlisted in the entry, she was just a contestant, not a member of the cast.  If you had read the discussion on the deletion of the entry made on the Italian Wikipedia you would have noticed it immediately, since it was already clearly written that there is no mention of this woman in the casts of the films or shows.  Although each project has its own rules, reading the reasons why an entry was deleted from a project can still be useful.  How much more testing and discussion is needed to eliminate obvious spam from Wikipedia?  Giammarco Ferrari ( talk ) 09:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Going by the lead, ""known for ...  Grande Fratello"", then just mention Letizia on Grande Fratello ?  IgelRM ( talk ) 23:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Samsun Atatürk Anatolian High School: – anlztrk ( talk ) 10:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  – anlztrk ( talk ) 10:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably the most well known school in the city.  I have added an academic reference.  Pretty sure native Turkish speakers can find more by searching for the previous name - including ""Maarif"" as you can see at Anatolian High School .  It is a bit irritating that the Turkish article has no cites - if you are Turkish it would be handy if you could add cites for us to copy here, at least for İsmet İnönü visit.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 15:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Quadeca: Quadeca has received some coverage which is more promising, such as what I've linked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Didn't Mean to Haunt You , but it's limited.  I suspect he's on his way to notability and could easily get there with his next album cycle, but I don't see it just yet.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has one Billboard charting album and significant coverage such as AllMusic here and Flood magazine here , The Fader Atlantic306 ( talk ) 02:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all promo sources, database, primary, nothing (including the above promos) meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 00:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Atlantic306 - the relevant criteria he meets is WP:MUSICBIO .  The Fader and AllMusic are reliable sources per WP:A/S and Paper and Flood magazine look reliable as well.  All of which significantly cover his career and are not press releases or promotional material, so he meets #1 of the Music criteria.  Also, he does indeed have an album that charted on not one, but 2 Billboard charts.  So he passes #1 and #2 of the music criteria.  PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 06:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  06:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games: No secondary sources.  Zero useful content.  Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games was that these articles are not useful, particularly if they lack substantive content.  I am also nominating the following related pages: Montserrat at the 2002 Commonwealth Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Anguilla at the 2002 Commonwealth Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Antigua and Barbuda at the 2002 Commonwealth Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Tuvalu at the 2002 Commonwealth Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Saint Lucia at the 2002 Commonwealth Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Mauritius at the 2002 Commonwealth Games ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports ,  and Caribbean .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games .  Athletes need to win a medal for their participation in an event to become notable - seems most reasonable to apply that to countries as well.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with making that a blanket rule, but many of these countries that send a small number of participants won't generate coverage to pass WP:GNG .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for notifying me.  As I'm not sure what they could be replaced with if deleted, I would favour completing those articles rather than deleting them (and subsequently re-creating them with proper content).  Either that, or put into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (etc) the content that they should have, and turn them into a redirect.  Aridd ( talk ) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AusLondonder , did you add these additional articles to this nomination or did someone else?  Whomever did it, please move this list of articles to the top of the AFD, above any comments, so that XFDcloser will see them as being part of this AFD nomination.  Thank you.  L iz Read!  Talk!  08:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : Thanks, will do.  They were towards the top before, appears someone accidentally commented above them.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AusLondonder , nicely done.  Thank you.  XFDcloser can be a little fussy.  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect all to ""X at the Commonwealth Games"" (where X is country name).  Not enough coverage for separate articles, but they look to have 2002 mentioned in their parent articles.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all with prejudice to Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games , Antigua and Barbuda at the Commonwealth Games etc.  XX at XX CG are often barebones article, almost templates, with no hope whatsoever for expansion to actual articles.  The sensible solution is to merge on sight with the appropriate country pages.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not sure a redirect is necessary.  The Montserrat page, for example, was averaging views in the single digits per month, not even statistically significant.  Most internal links are via templates such as Template:Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games .  I also don't particularly see how a redirect here fulfils the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE .  Also taking a look at the template Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games about half the template are redlinks.  Finally, the redirects are not plausible search terms.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Redirect or merge and which is the preferred target?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a native of the island mentioned in this AFD discussion title (obvious disclosure), merge and source into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (as an example).  (If possible--for completion's sake--we may as well actually mention the names of the six athletes who participated back then.) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 17:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merging just 2002 to the parent articles when no other years, even more successful years, are mentioned, doesn't seem like appropriate balance.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games.  Little chance any coverage exists to satisfy GNG individually.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Full-Option Science System: ~ T P W 13:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  ~ T P W 13:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The link in the nomination says no studies of Full Option Science System™ (FOSS) were found that fell within the scope of the Science review protocol and met WWC evidence standards , which is a narrower claim than it might have first come across.  A Google Scholar search finds, e.g, Robardey et al. (1994) , Holahan et al. (2004) , Mangrubang (2004) , Zimmerman et al. (2011) , and others.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The tone isn't quite encyclopedic, but I think wiki-notability is established.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"CEVA Logistics: The article is a catalogue of mergers and acquisitions without any claims that the business has done anything notable.  A BEFORE search comes up with nothing but listings entries and their own social media.  Cabayi ( talk ) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and France .  Cabayi ( talk ) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The freight forwarding market is significant and has been the subject of multiple analyst reports, some of which provide detailed analysis of participants including the topic company.  Unfortunately most are paywalled, but that doesn't exclude the existence of sourcing that likely meets the criteria for establishing notability.  For example, here is a link to a report by Allied Market Research and another by Global Data and another by Technavio .  Mordor Intelligence also provides analysis on various regions - for example it includes the topic company in a report on the Contract Logistics Market in the Netherlands (and other regions too).  HighKing ++ 20:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per HighKing - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 18:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , while I commend HighKing 's research, the sources found are market surveys which are indiscriminate listings of the companies in the market rather than significant coverage of CEVA.  Cabayi ( talk ) 14:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, its a pity I can't return the compliment because by labelling the reports as indiscriminate listings, you're just demonstrating that you didn't bother to even look at the reports.  These reports contain detailed information and analysis about CEVA.  HighKing ++ 09:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since HighKing calls upon me to prove I've looked at their sources, here goes: alliedmarketresearch.com : ""Some leading companies profiled in the freight forwarding market report comprises Bollore Logistics, CEVA Logistics , DB Schenker, DHL Global Forwarding, Dimerco, DSV Panalpina A/S, Expeditors International, Fedex, Hellman Worldwide Logistics, Kuehne+Nagel International AG, MGF (Manitoulin Global Forwarding), Nippon Express Co., Ltd., Transporteca, UPS Supply Chain Solutions, and UBER Freight LLC."" .  $3,456 for more detail.  globaldata.com : "" CEVA Logistics SA (CEVA), a subsidiary of CMA CGM SA, is a provider of contract logistics and freight management services.""  There's nothing in the paragraph available to show notability.  $295 for more detail.  technavio.com : paywall semi-broken by web archive , "" The market report also offers information on several market vendors, including AP Moller Maersk AS, Agility Public Warehousing Co K.S.C.P, Aramex International LLC, C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., CEVA Logistics AG, CJ Logistics Corp, Deutsche Bahn AG, Deutsche Post DHL Group, DSV Panalpina AS, FedEx Corp., Gati Ltd, GEODIS, Kerry Logistics Network Ltd., Kuehne Nagel International AG, Nippon Express Holdings Inc, Omni Logistics LLC, Singapore Post Ltd, SINO Group, United Parcel Service Inc., and XPO Logistics Inc. among others."" $2,500 for more detail.  mordorintelligence.com : The link provided is a list of 20 reports three of which feature CEVA's logo, priced at $4750 per report .  I won't claim that I've laid out the $20,501 necessary to read the complete text of these reports.  I don't think any of our readers will either.  With these pricetags, it's the pricetag and the alleged insider knowledge that are the points of those articles.  If the other sources established CEVA's notability then I'd have no objection to these sources further down the article.  However, to require $20k to just establish the company is notable is the antithesis of notability.  If notability is only established by insider knowledge, the entity is not notable in any rational interpretation of notability.  It's a variant of Jasper Carrott 's old joke, ""I'm world famous in Birmingham.""  If the ""detailed information and analysis about CEVA"" shows CEVA's notability, please provide the proof.  Cabayi ( talk ) 09:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even better, put it in the article.  Cabayi ( talk ) 09:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What's your point?  Even by your own arguements, these reports go far beyond ""indiscriminate listings"".  For example, the alliedmarketresearch link says that it *profiles* those companies and if you click on the Table of Contents you can see section 10.7 is dedicated to Ceva under a number of headings.  You misunderstand the purpose of sources and the manner of meeting the criteria for establishing notability.  It isn't the case that the report *content* needs to show notability, it is merely the fact that a publisher has created in-depth ""Independent Content"".  The globaldata report is entirely dedicated to Ceva and is a detailed profile.  This is not ""trivial coverage"" and that fact alone means this source meets the criteria.  The technavio report is similar to other research reports and the Table of Contents link shows section 10.5 dedicated to Ceva under a number of headings.  For mordorintelligence, you realise you can click on the link to get more details of each report.  For example this report profiles Ceva at section 6.2.4.  The points you raise only really serve to demonstrate a lack of understanding of our criteria for establishing notability.  It is enough that sources exist which contain in-depth ""Independent Content"" and Research reports (especially when they profile the company in questions) have long been accepted as meeting the criteria and aren't regarded as ""inside information"".  They're no guideline to say that sources must be freely available, only that they are published.  The requirement for ""multiple sources"" has easily been met, there are (even by your own admission) 6 independent analyst reports listed above and I've no doubt more exist too.  HighKing ++ 15:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What's your point?  Even by your own arguments, you have not read these reports.  WP:PAYWALL allows the citation of sources behind paywall.  Your assertion is that the material hidden behind the paywall must be presumed to show the business is notable.  It's an equally valid assumption that the material behind the paywall is a copy of the Wikipedia article for which someone has the chutzpah to charge their users extortionate fees.  If you have read the reports, please cite them in the article, along with some of their great insights, and we can all happily ! vote keep.  Cabayi ( talk ) 14:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So I take it (although you've yet to acknowledge your error) that you've retracted the ""indiscriminate listings"" objection now that you've actually read the guideline?  Your new argument has now changed to not accepting the bona fides of the listed analyst firms.  I don't have access to these specific reports right now but I've read analyst reports from technavio and Mordor in the past and it is for this reason that it is frankly ridiculous to say that it is a ""valid assumption"" that the reports are mere copies of this Wikipedia article.  Perhaps you've not bothered to check out the available Table of Contents for some of these reports from which you can see the headings under which the analysis/profile of the company is provided?  Perhaps you've also not read WP:PAYWALL - the first sentence reads Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.  and I can find no evidence you've even bothered to make a request at RX.  HighKing ++ 13:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the sources currently in the article are not independent from the subject - 1 is co-authored by an employee of CEVA Logistics, and 2-5 are press releases released by CEVA Logistics or their business partners.  It is not possible to determine what depth of coverage the four market research reports provided by HighKing give to the subject.  Given their unknown reliability, unknown independence, and very low diffusion (these are meant to be sold to a handful of companies), I choose to err on the side of what is available to us, and find myself agreeing more with Cabayi 's case.  There's simply not enough reliable material to justify a standalone article when all the content we should be using sits behind an inaccessible paywall.  Pilaz ( talk ) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a new one for me at least.  Technavio is one of the biggest analyst firms in the world.  Mordor is one of the biggest research aggregators.  Have you located something which says they are of questionable reliability or independence?  Also, see WP:PAYWALL .  HighKing ++ 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've added more references.  HighKing ++ 15:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Impose (magazine): The Flavorwire page mentions Impose but mostly talks about Evers separately from his work there, the New Yorker EL is an ad for a concert, and the KC Pitch ( archive ) might not even be a reliable source.  Found no other coverage about the magazine itself.  PROD was rejected due to the number of incoming links but I don't find that a particularly compelling case.  Just because a source is used in 500 articles doesn't mean it is itself notable.  Notability and reliability are separate standards, no?  Same argument from before still applies entirely.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of sourcing about the magazine, plenty of sources about things being ""imposed"".  It might be a RS, but without any sort of critical discussion of it, we can't have an article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A Google Books search shows it being cited in several dozens of publications (those by the Oxford University Press, Springer, Taylor & Francis, among others) so it is easily a commonly used, reliable source (meeting #1 and #4 of WP:NPERIODICAL ).  If it is used on 500 Wikipedia pages as a reliable source, common sense dictates it should probably have a page itself.  (Sources about niche, but reputable sources rarely exist; but such pages are important for the encyclopedia in a meta sense.)  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 14:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There does not appear to be significant coverage of this topic as it is defined in WP:GNG.  One of the sources cited in this article, the last reference, looks like it could very well count towards notability.  (There's a paywall, so I didn't see entire source).  But there would need to be multiple sources like this in order to meet GNG.  - Hannahthom7 ( talk ) 17:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Periodicals (and professors) have slightly different notability requirements in which we often don't necessarily base it fully on the existence of sources directly discussing them.  We base it on how much they're cited in scholarly sources.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 18:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notability policy should appreciate it is important that we have information available to readers on widely-used sources used including those used by Wikipedia.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notified: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#AfD_notice .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Teruko Kiriake: WP:BEFORE shows only Japanese language sources with nominal statistics-type coverage of the competitor e.g. [28] and [29] .  As a commentor at the bundled AfD stated, standard athlete blurb...stats page with no secondary coverage...local-interest community news story and so forth do not demonstrate notability; WP:NATHLETE requires additional, NOTNEWS coverage, or medals at major event, which does not pertain here.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 18:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Olympics ,  and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per my argument at the bundled AfD.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: the bundled nom was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Jahn ☆ Bri ( talk ) 00:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nishonippon.com seems to have several stories focusing on her, but they're behind paywall: see (translated) ""Kurume City presents Sports Achievement Award to Olympic female canoeist Kiriaki"" and ""Canoeist Kiriaki reports on his 7th place finish in the World Cup and visits his hometown of Yame City"" , which each look like they have a decent chance at being sigcov.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Tosh Masson: Fails WP:NFOOT and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sikhism , Football , United Kingdom ,  and England .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:BASIC too, the only sources I could find were passing mentions NotAGenious ( talk ) 11:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep updated with more sources, WP:BASIC says for sports people ""Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject."" 1 in depth source is required which this definitely has.  As first Sikh player in English top flight rugby I think it is quite likely there are more off-line sources available to improve the article in future.  Skeene88 ( talk ) 13:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks to be just enough to satisfy GNG.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Domaine Ylang Ylang: - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , Companies ,  and Mauritius .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented.  Thank you.  Stockbroker369 ( talk ) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a food, drink place LOL.  This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg.  Stockbroker369 ( talk ) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We'd maybe look at CORP notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right).  That editor's analysis is fine.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD.  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ UtherSRG , how about you add the sources yourself instead?  Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?  Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly.   It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.  There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources.   Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article .   As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that.   There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year.   The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal.  WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course.  Good day.  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article.  It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources.   Preferably in the first two paragraphs.  Also images need to have the description on them like I just added.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It is possible that this is heading toward a consensus to keep the article.   Please comment on the sources raised in the previous AFD and whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines or WP:NCORP .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 01:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"K Muralikrishna: Of all sources cited, the subject received single passing mention in 3 of the sources, 2 passing mention in one while the others do mention them at all CrucialEditor ( talk ) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CrucialEditor ( talk ) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Easy choice, there are no sources discussing this person.  Passing mentions aren't enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as director of various rather notable films (3 at least of his films being considered notable, as having  a WP page and having received some coverage). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He meets the WP:DIRECTOR criteria with his direction in multiple notable films.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE .  What we contributors need to understand and accept is that notability is not inherited .  Almost all sourcing one can dig up is about the films; not the director himself.  It;s indicative of desperation when some of the sources already cited, such as this or this , do not even mention Muralikrishna!  A new, young director trying the fast lane .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided.  A source analysis would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Davide Fragnito: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV other than this , which seems like a press release (""The whole company expresses the utmost satisfaction"").  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:22, 12 May 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 ) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's a reasonable source here and a few bits here .  Worth a weak keep in my opinion.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"KZTC-LD: Article was kept in a 2011 AfD but notability thresholds have changed significantly since then.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : It at least looks like there were some attempts at some semblance of local programming in the ""Bay 63"" K63EN days, but unless significant coverage in reliable sources to verify any of this surfaces, it won't count for much here.  (But it's enough to add that ""weak"" qualifier; that still distinguishes this from the numerous LPTVs that never attempted any non-national programming.)  The first nomination was definitely a conflict between enforcing what would now be seen as the ""proper"" GNG and the overpresumption of notability seen in pre-2021 versions of NMEDIA / BROADCAST ; under the looser ""standards"" of that era, that generally didn't lead to many deletions, but Wikipedia and its inclusion standards have evolved since then.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There is indeed an article: ""After 12 years in works, Channel 63 hits air tonight"", San Diego Union-Tribune 10/16/92, and there is a longer article in 1993 from the Los Angeles Times that mostly covers the station's attempts to spotlight gay sex in Balboa Park.  (I kid you not.)  The trail does dry up hard after the 90s, but...  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 08:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 06:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Fresh variable: I'm unable to find any discussions of the term itself that would establish notability, and thus this appears to be a WP:DICDEF situation; a wikitionary entry may be appropriate, but none exists yet.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Mathematics ,  and Computing .  signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lambda_calculus#Capture-avoiding_substitutions , where the concept is explained better and with more context than the current article.  I've only seen these in the context of dealing with recursion in lambda abstractions (there is no stack, hence you need to be careful to use substitutions to keep the variables straight), so the redirect target seems appropriate.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 18:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability: The concept of fresh (or new) variable is used in many fields of logics and theoretical computer science (not just Lambda calculus).  The term appears literally in the articles Boolean satisfiability problem , Lambda calculus , Unification (computer science) , Resolution (logic) , Standard translation , Hindley–Milner type system .  The concept is used in more articles, e.g. in Natural deduction#First and higher-order extensions , where ""fresh"" doesn't appear, but the term ""avoiding capture"" is used instead; more occurrences are likely to exist in Wikipedia.  DICDEF: The article needs to give a formal definition of the concept, and maybe elaborate on definition variants in differents fields of application.  It needs to explain what ""capture"" means in formal terms, and how to obtain capture-avoiding substitutions.  This is far beyond what a dictionary does.  (I admit that the current stub needs expansion to meet these requirements. Moreover, I didn't yet find appropriate textbook citations.) - Jochen Burghardt ( talk ) 23:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Term (logic) : or possibly with Rewriting#Term_rewriting_systems .  The phrase is used frequently in academic literature, but isn't notable enough for a standalone article.  Owen× ☎ 12:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  There's no problem with having a very short article, if multiple independent reliable sources are cited which discuss the topic.  Merging small topics into a subsection of a longer article is often worse in the longer term, because it prevents them from expanding to discuss more aspects of the specific topic that would be out of scope at the parent article.  – jacobolus (t) 18:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Many of our current articles started their life as a section in another article before being spun off.  The problem with Fresh variable isn't that it's short, but that it lacks evidence of notability sufficient for a standalone article.  Under such a limitation, the only viable alternative to merging as a section in another article would be deletion, which I think you'll agree would be a loss.  Owen× ☎ 20:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Merging into another article would be OK for me.  I'd prefer variable (mathematics) to the above-mentioned Lambda_calculus#Capture-avoiding_substitutions , Term (logic) and Rewriting#Term_rewriting_systems , since the latter three cover just one application field each, while "" variable (mathematics) "" sounds pretty general.  However, I'm not sure that a merge (no mather where) wouldn't result in undue weight of the new ""Fresh variable"" section.  - Jochen Burghardt ( talk ) 10:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In the interests of consensus, I am not wedded to Lambda_calculus#Capture-avoiding_substitutions , it was just the best single target I found at the time.  If this is a unified concept used in a number of different subfields, turning this article into a broad-concept article WP:BROAD may be the way to go.  This could be a disambiguation/list class sort of article, introduced with the formal/broad definition of fresh variable you mentioned above.  But we'd still need a source for that broad definition to avoid synthesis.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 12:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think this concept's uses are too wide and varied for merging it with anything to be a good idea, and it has plenty of coverage that would allow it to pass WP:GNG . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and disambiguate As there are 3 suggested redirect/merge targets, disambiguation may be a better idea -- 94rain Talk 05:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disambiguation would lead to another 3 articles ""fresh variable (xxx)"", plus the DAB article itself, which would be definitely too many for this topic.  - Jochen Burghardt ( talk ) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We don’t need any articles named fresh variable (XX) to disambiguate.  Something like Clazz will do.  94rain Talk 21:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Fabiana López: Didn't win a medal.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Olympics ,  and Mexico .  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like she might be discussed here .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment she is silver medalist at the 1986 Central American and Caribbean Games (foil team) and also medalist at the 1987 Pan American Games.  As she was internationally active in the 1980s, sources should be searched at off-line Spanish-language sources.  All-in-all, together with the source provided by BeanieFan11 I would say a weak keep .  109.37.152.36 ( talk ) 10:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 00:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Gandhi Under Cross Examination: Ratnahastin ( talk ) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft keep .  I can find two independent sources covering this book: this Vice article and this review in the journal Encounter .  (I can find no evidence that the article ""New Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon"" cited in the book's page actually exists.)  Coverage from two independent sources is enough per WP:NBOOK .  The journal Encounter does not appear to be very notable, lacking a Wikipedia article.  The review's author Rufus Burrow, Jr. seems to be semi-notable but also lacks a Wikipedia article.  Astaire ( talk ) 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Astaire.  And per the cover image, Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama, et al .  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Two sources have been provided above but Vice is an unreliable source for notability.  Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from just 2 sources.  If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability.  ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 03:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Vice is ""no consensus"", not unreliable for the purposes of notability , and IMO this article doesn't fall into Vice's typical pitfalls so it is probably fine.  Encounter looks like a decent journal.  My issue is the Vice article is an interview - though it does have commentary on the book outside of that, so... eh?  I was able to verify the ""Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon"" source exists and what it said but it is a press release and doesn't count for notability.  Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since there is no consensus over the reliability of Vice, it cannot be used for establishing notability at all.  The source has to be undoubtedly reliable.  I agree that the Vice source is insufficient even if the website was a reliable source.  ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , no coverage is secondary reliable sources, vice and semi-reliable journal don't prove the book's notability.  Artem.G ( talk ) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not enough coverage, there is just 1 dubious source and 1 semi-reliable source.  NavjotSR ( talk ) 07:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.  This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.  This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.  Sources ""Gandhi Under Cross Examination book review"".  Humanism Ireland .  November–December 2009.  pp. 22–23.  This book verifies that Humanism Ireland reviewed the book: ""638. ""Gandhi Under Cross-Examination,"" book review, Humanism Ireland , Nov/Dec 2009, pp. 22–23"".  Burrow, Jr., Rufus (Fall 2009).  ""Gandhi Under Cross-Examination"".  Encounter .  Vol.  70, no. 4.  Christian Theological Seminary .  pp. 61–72.  ProQuest 216773616 .  According to this link : Christian Theological Seminary has published Encounter: A Journal of Theological Scholarship continuously since 1940.  In each of three annual issues, the journal offers scholarly articles, sermons, and reviews of recently published monographs.  Encounter is a peer-reviewed journal to ensure that its contents meet the highest standards of scholarship and relevance.  In particular, the journal publishes works in biblical studies, the history of Christianity, theology, and the arts of ministry, including counseling.  The review notes: ""I was shocked when renowned Martin Luther King, Jr. scholar, Lewis V. Baldwin of Vanderbilt University, asked if I was familiar with the work of an author who argues in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2004), and the book under review, that Gandhi was consistently racist toward black South Afrikans during his roughly twenty-one years of living there and leading the Satyagraha campaign for racial justice essentially for the Indian community. ... The book under review is my first exposure to G. B. Singh's contention that Gandhi was a racist and that his story of being subjected to violent racist treatment during his 1893 train and coach ride from Durban to Pretoria was nothing more than a sham, a fabrication, “a ruse, a charade, and theatrical revelry of Academy Awards proportions..."" (215).  It is not clear just how much the co-author, Tim Watson, actually contributed to the writing of this book. "" Johnston, Paul (2008-08-04). ""Montreal - Gandhi Was a Lying, Racist, Freemason Asshole (Says This Guy)"" . Vice . Archived from the original on 2024-06-20 . Retrieved 2024-06-20 . After reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media , I consider Vice to be sufficiently reliable in this context. I found the list of awards Vice won as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? to be compelling. The review notes: ""But Tim Watson and G.B. Singh don't buy into the hype.  In Gandhi Under Cross-Examination, they create an imaginary courtroom where they can put the screws to an imaginary Gandhi over his non-imaginary racial views, his rampant careerism, and the lies and fabrications at the foundation of his movement for the ""firmness of truth."" ...  I still have no idea what compelled them to put Hillary Clinton on the book's cover. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi Under Cross Examination to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your first source Humanism Ireland fails WP:V and we don't even know how much coverage there was. Your 2nd source is semi-reliable as already discussed above.  Your last source Vice is a totally unreliable source and it cannot be used for establishing notability. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 07:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Humanism Ireland source is verified by this reliable source . It spans pages 22–23 so it is likely significant coverage. Based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? , I disagree that the Vice article is a ""totally unreliable source"". Cunard ( talk ) 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are supposed to verify the source yourself. It can be ignored since you haven't done that. WP:VICE is clear that there is no consensus over reliability of Vice, and that's why it cannot be used for establishing notability. I consider Vice to be totally unreliable because most of its articles (including the one cited here) are misleading. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#2009 book review of Gandhi Under Cross Examination in Humanism Ireland for more information about the Humanism Ireland source. I maintain that Vice is a suitable topic for this subject matter. Cunard ( talk ) 09:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like the Humanism Ireland review was reprinted in the Midwest Book Review , December 2009 if that is easier to access. Astaire ( talk ) 15:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. As noted here , there is a 1,582-word review of the Humanism Ireland review reprinted in the Midwest Book Review in December 2009. This verifies that the review is significant coverage. Cunard ( talk ) 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity . Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard. I stand by my opinion Vice is fine for this topic, and there is review material in the article. The Humanism source is fine + the journal mentioned before. It's peer reviewed and looks reliable, it doesn't matter that it's obscure. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Three reliable and in-depth published reviews is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Vice, an unreliable source, hasn't actually provided any review for this book. Christian Theological Seminary journal has a doubtful reliability while Humanism Ireland is not accessible for us right now. This is far from meeting WP:NBOOK . The book  has failed to attract any reviews from the experts of this subject. Orientls ( talk ) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The interview contains critical and review material outside of the actual interview which does count here I'd believe. Vice is not an unreliable source, they are a source that has historically varied in reliability in different topics and editors have not been able to come to an agreement, that does not mean it is unusable for notability. Just because we can't access the source doesn't mean it doesn't count for notability, see WP:NEXIST . You've provided no evidence the other journal would be unreliable except it is somewhat obscure - there are plenty of obscure reliable journals. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And now we have the source, and it's 1500 words. That is sigcov. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources given above are more than enough for notability. Not liking this ""conspiracy theory"" isn't sufficient to have an article deleted. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It is well known that almost any controversial book can attract initial coverage from various sources but we also need to look at the quality of sourcing. The book has attracted no reviews from the academics, let alone any experts from this field as Orientls put. Capitals00 ( talk ) 05:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria nor Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline require ""reviews from the academics, let alone any experts from this field"".  Cunard ( talk ) 11:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Books don't need academic coverage to be notable.  Any reliable review will do.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Daenerys (given name): The subject is not notable enough to be featured as a stand-alone article on the encyclopedia.  At best, a blurb can be added to the page Daenerys Targaryen if necessary regarding its popularity as a baby name in the aftermath of the series.  Due to notability concerns, I am proposing Deletion of this article.  TNstingray ( talk ) 01:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To amend my original suggestion, this article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK .  I am proposing a Redirect of this article and Khaleesi (given name) to Daenerys Targaryen , using the information and sourcing to strengthen an existing article rather than diluting valuable information across three pages.  Neither name is notable in and of itself: they are intrinsically tied to the character, and such information should be listed on the character article.  I should note that the opposition is not rooted in policy beyond establishing that it is a notable fact that these are popular baby names; this does not warrant the existence of stand-alone articles in violation of WP:BADFORK and WP:CRYSTAL as established in the discussion below.  TNstingray ( talk ) 14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose.  It is referenced and is clearly notable.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 01:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject appears to contain enough WP:SIGCOV with which to pass the WP:GNG , such as from New York Magazine and the NYT.  Nothing has seemed to change from the last AfD.  User:Let'srun 02:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Also meets SUSTAINED with various pieces of coverage over many years ranging from 2014 to 2023.  — siro χ o 03:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG easily met and a proper stub.  Nate • ( chatter ) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fictional elements ,  and Science fiction and fantasy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep contain enough WP:SIGCOV -- Tumbuka Arch ★ ★ ★ 12:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why does the subject warrant its own unencyclopedic stub article rather than redirecting to a section under Daenerys Targaryen ?  That would greatly increase the value and conciseness of both subjects.  I honestly should have boldly converted the page to a redirect rather than nominate the article here.  TNstingray ( talk ) 14:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is about usage of the name, not about the character, and it is referenced and notable.  I would also object to a redirect.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The usage of the name is exclusively derived from the popularity of the character.  All of this would better serve the article and the encyclopedia to add a sentence or two to the Daenerys article.  I think it is notable to say that the popularity of the character resulted in parents naming their kids after her.  But Wikipedia does not need a stand-alone article to accomplish this.  A redirect is a perfect compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies.  TNstingray ( talk ) 16:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't agree and I am opposed to a redirect.  It is referenced and it is notable.  Thus far, yours is the only vote in favor of deletion.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 17:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely agree that the information itself is notable, but this is a WP:BADFORK , specifically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that should never have been separated from Daenerys Targaryen .  The value of the encyclopedia would objectively strengthen if the minuscule amount of relevant information included in Khaleesi (given name) and Daenerys (given name) were added back to Daenerys Targaryen .  The subjects are 100% exclusively tied to the character, and should never have been separated into their own articles.  While I must assume good faith, it is possible that the voting majority just saw the sourcing without considering the subject material, part of a larger recurring problem with Wikipedia bureaucracy.  Imagine creating a separate page for ""Frodo (given name)"", diluting the encyclopedia rather than simply adding a sentence to Frodo Baggins to describe the character's cultural legacy, strengthening an existing article.  WP:NOPAGE At times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic) TNstingray ( talk ) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still don't agree.  The article is about the name and its usage, not the character.  There are several thousand girls named either Khaleesi or Daenerys.  As they come of age, some of them will undoubtedly have Wikipedia articles about them and be listed with the article as examples of people with the name.  If and when there are several thousand boys named Frodo and the name receives significanr mainstream coverage, the article !  Frodo (name) can be created.  i oppose deletion of both articles and also oppose redirects.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 06:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that you want to defend an article that you created.  But the names Daenerys, Khaleesi, and Frodo currently have absolutely no stand-alone value that warrants separation from the characters who inspired parents to name their children after them.  The argument you are using now is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL .  In these cases, the usage of a name is 100% entirely, exclusively, intrinsically tied to the character.  Such information should be used to strengthen the existing character articles.  Currently, the only worthwhile, policy-based argument for keeping these articles is that they have sourcing, which I am completely fine with using to support and strengthen an individual point in the Daenerys Targaryen article.  TNstingray ( talk ) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree not because I created the articles but because the article is about the history and usage of the names, not the character.  Articles about names have merit in and of themselves.  i continue to oppose deletion or redirection for both.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Having both a Daenerys (given name) article and a Khaleesi (given name) article seems like a rather misguided approach to covering this topic on Wikipedia.  It is to my eye a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation.  I would suggest consolidating the information at a single page, whether that be the Daenerys Targaryen character article, an article about given names from A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones (or even popular culture more broadly), or some other article altogether.  It is uncontroversial that popular culture influences what names parents choose for their children, and creating separate articles for each individual example is not exactly a good idea.  I don't know that this is the best venue for discussing the issue, but insisting that a poorly-conceived article should be kept (as opposed to merged, or some other solution) because of notability is not particularly helpful and doesn't lead to the encyclopaedia improving.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't object to a broader name article that discusses the general popularity of the names from Game of Thrones, since several of the referenced articles mention more than one name that increased in use because of the books or TV series.  i don't think deletion or redirection to the character article would be appropriate.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have copied text and sourcing from Daenerys (given name) , which is virtually the exact same text from Khaleesi (given name) , and pasted it into Daenerys Targaryen#Recognition and awards , visualizing what this approach would look like as a compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies.  I should also comment that Khaleesi by itself already redirects to Daenerys Targaryen .  Consensus here demonstrates that the information itself is notable and should be kept, and as such I have amended my position.  I understand wanting to defend one's article, but one of our priorities as editors on Wikipedia is considering how best to help the readers understand it, per WP:NOPAGE .  It is clear to me that in this case, the way to do so is strengthening one article rather than separating out redundant information into two incredibly weak paragraphs.  To condense these conversations and respond to your last statement in the thread above, this article about a name does not have merit in and of itself; as I have already mentioned, any ""history and usage of the names"" entirely involves the character.  There is absolutely zero notability outside of the character, and as such, it should be listed there and redirect there.  TNstingray ( talk ) 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I still cannot agree to redirect it to the character article.  A stand alone article about all the Game of Thrones names that rose in popularity and is categorized with appropriate Game of Thrones and name categories, maybe.  Arya also rose in use and, to a lesser degree, so did names like Tyrion, Theon, Sansa, Brienne, etc., as mentioned in some of the references.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 23:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But that doesn't warrant unique articles for the given names Tyrion, Arya, etc.  If such a naming trend is observed and reported by reliable sourcing, that blurb of information can be added to the legacy sections of existing character articles.  A stand-alone article about names does not exist yet (nor am I aware of one for any other fictional series, but I must respect WP:WHATABOUT ), so the best place from my outlined policy perspective for both Daenerys (given name) and Khaleesi (given name) is to redirect and strengthen the article for Daenerys Targaryen .  After my recent edit at the latter, I must emphasize that the information from your articles are still present on the encyclopedia.  TNstingray ( talk ) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but I still oppose deletion and redirection toban article about the character because these are articles about names.  The reason I created these particular articles and not an article about Tyrion (name) or Sansa (name) , etc., is because of notability.  Daenerys (given name) and Khaleesi (given name) both have significant usage.  Khaleesi has ranked among the top 1,000 names given to American girls since 2014 and use has continued after the show ended.  This is also why that particular name has had media coverage.  The top 1,000 names list is one indication of notability.  The other character names increased in use but are not in the top 1,000 and remain rare, except Arya (name) , which has other origins as well.  These articles both pass general notability guidelines and are sourced.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 02:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are going to keep talking in circles.  I'm trying to explain the disconnect between what you think the articles are versus what the articles actually are.  These are not articles about names.  These are articles about the legacy of the character, and as such are WP:BADFORKs .  The name ""Arya"" warrants its own article because of the stand-alone historical/cultural significance outside of the fictional character.  Neither Daenerys or Khaleesi are in the same category in the slightest.  They were invented by G.R.R.M. and at the moment are entirely tied to the legacy of that character and universe.  Neither are acceptable content forks.  I am agreeing with you that the information is generally notable and sourced enough to include at Daenerys Targaryen , as I have already done.  But the fact that 100 babies were named ""Daenerys"" in 2021 and 2022 (out of over a million baby girls born each year in the US) absolutely does not warrant its own article.  I have provided numerous pages of policy and guidelines, none of which have been addressed.  Your only rebuttal has been that the information is sourced and notable, which I have acquiesced and made the necessary changes to compromise between our opinions.  TNstingray ( talk ) 12:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we are going in circles.  I simply don't agree with your stance and I am not going to.  if you want to discuss a separate article covering all the Game of Thrones names under a Game of Thrones category, I am open to that Not to deleting these articles or redirecting them.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 16:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have moved past the deletion option.  You have yet to respond to any of my points derived from Wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:BADFORK .  Consensus here is to not delete the information, which I have respected and added to Daenerys Targaryen .  I am open to discussing such an article, but in the meantime, the best option for both articles is to redirect, as they are both redundant forks .  TNstingray ( talk ) 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am answering; we just don't agree.  I don't agree the appropriate option is to redirect it because the articles are about the usage of the names, including statistics, not the character.  They're certainly related, whuch is why it's aporopriate to include them under the Game of Thrones category and a link to the article about the character and to other articles.  The usage stats for each name are distinct, for one thing, and Khaleesi has greater use.  There is an argument to be made for an article about the use of all the Game of Thrones names with redirections to that article frm the current Daenerys and Khaleesi articles.  That had originally been suggested but never got done, for some reason.  My main issue is that itshould be a separate article about the nams.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 20:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as per nomination.  the name's notability is inseparable from the fictional character.  Llajwa ( talk ) 20:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Daenerys Targaryen#Recognition and awards per WP:NOPAGE : ""Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article"".  No compelling reason has been given to fork this content into its own article, especially two different ones.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 17:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Daenerys Targaryen as above.  Mbdfar ( talk ) 20:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  For what it's worth, I tend to agree that real people's given names are a fundamentally different topic than fictional characters that inspired the name, and don't think WP:NOPAGE applies in such situations.  A good comparison here is Jessica (given name) vs Jessica (The Merchant of Venice) .  Despite the brevity of the prose at Jessica (given name) , I don't think we would seriously consider a merge.  — siro χ o 16:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that's self-evidently not an apples-to-apples comparison.  I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the real-world use of the name ""Jessica"" today is inherently a reference to the fictional character or that the real-world use of the name ""Daenerys"" today is not.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 17:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How so, pray tell?  It's a name that is in use for thousands of real people, some of whom were named simply because their parents liked the name and not in reference to Game of Thrones.  I've talked to some of the parents who chose the name on that basis, by the way, though I wouldn't include it in the article.  The statustics are in reference to the name, not the character per se, and it's been in use for 15 years or thereabouts.   Jessica originated as a Shakespearean invention based on Iscah but it clearly should have a separate article.   Neither of these articles should be deleted or merged with the character article.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A fairly simple reason it's not an apples-to-apples comparison is that Jessica (given name) is a list article whereas Daenerys (given name) is not.  The number of articles about notable real-world people with the given name ""Daenerys"" is at present 0, whereas the number of articles about notable real-world people with the given name ""Jessica"" is substantial.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The number of people named Daenerys or Khaleesi under the age of 16 probably accounts for that but I continue to argue that a name article is notable in and of itself and the references listed show it is notable because one ranks among the top 1,000 names and because there is a great deal of independent coverage about the use, history, image, etc. of the name.  Statistics about how many people were named Daenerys or Khaleesi would be out of place in the main character article.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 18:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Irrespective of the merits of this article, the comparison is a poor one as the situations are entirely dissimilar.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, not.  They are both articles about the meaning, history and usage of a name, written in exactly the same format and including references to articles or books that mention them, just like hundreds of other existing name articles on Wikipedia.  Eventually there will likely be notable people named Khaleesi or Daenerys who will be mentioned in a list linking to articles about them.  Right now there are not but the number of articles written about people with the name makes it notable and warrants separate articles.  They should not be deleted or merged with the character article.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 18:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In other words, you acknowledge that the situations are currently dissimilar, but you expect that they will not be in the future.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That argument violates WP:FUTURE .  Sure, there could be notable individuals years or decades from now named Daenerys or Khaleesi, but right now, there are not.  The sourcing about people with the name makes the fact notable, not the presence of the article .  The sourcing is derived from the popularity of the books, the show, and the character therein.  As such, it would not be out of place to list this on the character's article as an extension of their legacy and impact on culture.  That is a very different situation than Shakespeare originating Jessica five-hundred years ago.  TNstingray ( talk ) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I do not.  I think both merit articles based on the notability of the topic — popularity, usage, and references discussing meaning, history, and usage.  The name Jessica would also merit an article without a list of people with the name.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If Wikipedia existed in 1598, it wouldn't have.  The name Iscah would have had an article, as well as Jessica (The Merchant of Venice) .  TNstingray ( talk ) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge outside of its connection to the main topic, isn't much to say about this topic, per WP:NOTDICT .  I don't see enough separate coverage to justify an article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Daenerys Targaryen , as it does not contain any unique insights and is entirely a WP:OVERLAP , a valid reason for merging.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  Someone closed this as keep and one of the editors involved in the discussion above, TompaDompa , just reverted the keep move.  I'm going to reiterate that all of the arguments that applied in the discussion about Khaleesi (given name) also apply to this one.  This is a separate, referenced article about usage of the name for thousands of existing people.  It is related to but distinct from the article about the character.  Statistics about real world usage of the name would be inappropriate and out of place in the article about the fictional character.  In this case, some of the redirect arguments donappear to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT .  This should not be merged or redirected.  Keep.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 18:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) @ Bookworm857158367 : I don't particularly appreciate the insinuation on your part, and if you're going to levy implicit accusations of that nature against me you should at least ping me properly rather than adding it in a second edit so I don't get pinged .  On the issue at hand, the ""someone"" who closed the discussion was 96.246.158.82",no consensus
"Preslaysa Williams: Of all the twelve sources, only the Columbia College school paper mentions more than one piece of information about her; all the other sources are nothing more than single mentions of this person.   No source seems to exist that gives an overall biography or other similar information, as needed for WP:NBIO .  Sourcing to qualify for WP:NACTOR does not seem to have changed/increased since the last deletion discussion for this article/individual (2020-11-26): WP:Articles for deletion/Preslaysa Edwards --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors , Journalism ,  and New Jersey . –– Formal Dude (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom's arguments. Kazamzam ( talk ) 17:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She qualifies under WP:AUTHOR , hence the new content that prompted me to resurrect the article. The OP here is ignoring the prominent book reviews she has received, which are sourced in the new article. natemup ( talk ) 18:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . She isn't just an actor, as the page clearly notes. Meet notability guidelines for being a notable author. natemup ( talk ) 01:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your WP:COI in having close relations to her should be noted in this discussion. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess you've noted it.  We have collaborated online and met once in real life.  natemup ( talk ) 23:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You also didn't address what I said here.  It invalidates your deletion request.  natemup ( talk ) 18:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm assuming that you think she qualifies under number 3 of ""Creative professionals"".   I think that is really a stretch: ""..a significant or well-known work..""  I guess it depends on what defines a work as being ""well-known."" --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I found two reviews of her work in Publishers Weekly ( link 1 and 2 ), one review in Kirkus (it's not a paid review so it's valid for notability), two reviews in Library Journal ( link 1 and 2 ), and additional reviews in Booklist and AudioFile Magazine that can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library.  In addition, Booklist selected one of her novels for their Editors' Choice 2021 of the best books of the year.  I agree that Williams didn't meet notability guidelines for an actor when the previous AfD was decided in 2020.  However, since then she has released two well-reviewed books through HarperCollins, so per WP:Author she now meets notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To review SouthernNights' sources and argument as proposed.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 18:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Publisher's Weekly ones are synopsis articles, they don't really review the books, Kirkus is about the same.  I can't find the other two (Booklist, AudioFile Magazine)...  It's still a ! delete for me.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are standard reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus.  You can find the others in Wikipedia Library.  SouthernNights ( talk ) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  natemup ( talk ) 18:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm really trying to find things in RS.  This interview in Writer's Digest [15] and the tiniest of mentions on NPR [16] are about all I can find.  Still not seeing AUTHOR notability.   Probably TOOSOON, her books only came out in 2021 and 2022.  Not much chance to gain critical attention in two years I suppose.  This book mentions her in passing [17] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are several reliable sources already cited.  Not sure what you're talking about.  natemup ( talk ) 21:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not meeting notability under actors or writers/authors.  Sourcing is scant.  Books have not gained much critical notice.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 09:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"J. C. Greenburg: Cannot find any independent sources.  The GreenwichTime article is a user-submitted listing of events and is not independent.  Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lost .  Johnj1995 ( talk ) 19:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , Science , United States of America ,  and Connecticut .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I don't see enough independant coverage to warrant an article, but as an WP:ATD could redirect to her more notable husband at Dan Greenburg .  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions.  While it might come to this closure, I am adverse to the frequent ""Redirect woman's article to that of her husband"" resolutions that often appear at AFD.  If that is the consensus, so be it but one opinion is not consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreed with relister about redirecting to husband idea.  At minimum, it should be a merge.  Also, she did win an Eleanor Cameron Award .  Robina Fox ( talk ) 11:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Is the award sufficient?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Golden Duck Award#Eleanor Cameron Award .  Not a ""well-known and significant award"" ( WP:ANYBIO ) or ""major literary award"" ( WP:BKCRIT ) to establish notability for a stand-alone article, but this target has a little info about the author.  (And I don't know where this article would be merged to.)  SilverLocust 💬 22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can only find the Greenwich articles as mentioned, nothing else.  The award might be notable, but with no sourcing, we can't have an article.  Could perhaps redirect to the list of Golden Duck winners?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Robina Fox.  I think that the award is notable.  The article neede more sources but I don't think deletion is a good idea.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 03:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I lean towards Redirect/Merge as an alternative to a No consensus closure but there isn't an agreed upon target article.  But I don't think Redirecting a biography article to an award article is the best option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I agree it's not ideal, but absence of anything other than the award, I stand by my original suggestion of Dan Greenburg being the target for a redirect/merge.  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 23:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  When there's not a suitable redirect target, then we don't need to have one at all.  Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep based on reviews and a scholarly source added, and some further coverage on ProQuest, as well as the award (recognized by Booklist ) helping generally support notability as an author for the Andrew Lost series of books.  If the full version of """"Andrew Lost in the Garden"" By J.C. Greenburg"", Advocate; Baton Rouge, La. 24 May 2003: 8-D.  (Abstract only available on ProQuest 415677651 ), can be found, this may help further bolster author notability.  If there will be a redirect, I think the Golden Duck Award#Eleanor Cameron Award is preferable, because the subject and her work are mentioned, and it seems generally preferable to target the redirect to her career accomplishments than to her spouse.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 18:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Razib Khan: Most of the notable sources describe the event with the New York Times, but that single event is not notable.  Most of the individual's notability comes from his own publications, but Wikipedia requires notable secondary sources.  Waters.Justin ( talk ) 14:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Biology , Bangladesh ,  and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep There appear to be several secondary sources (books and articles) already cited in the story.  Entirely separate from coverage the New York Times incident, notable RS already cited include Regalado (MIT Technology Review), Gonyea (NPR), Walker, Cussins, Rieland, and Newton.  There's also Dunbar-Ortiz , page 43, which could be added.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As Mr. Razib Khan is a global researcher, published too many research papers and coauthor of several books, owned a identity in google scholar or like other renowned research publisher (Find several secondary sources: Google (books · news · scholar etc) and also got remarkable citation against his publication.  For this why his biographical story can be include for getting information by others through a common platform like wikipedia.  As per WP:ACADEMIC WP:SCHOLAR Article may need to remove from deletion list to keep this in wikipedia.  Thanks - Md.  Giashuddin Chowdhury ( talk ) 20:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"John Viega: Almost every reference is a paper co-authored by Viega himself.  Out of the three that aren't, two don't mention his name at all, and one uses a single quote from him.  ben ǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Technology ,  and Computing .  ben ǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] John is the most respected people in the software security space.  Author of numerous books on the topic.  I have just spent the afternoon researching and updating this.  Will post next.  81.100.30.32 ( talk ) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Viega seems to have been one of the major influencers of computer security.  WP:ACADEMIC applies here, as his work in the field is highly influential, whether or not he has been the subject of mutliple independent media stories.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as passes WP:ACADEMIC criteria 1 as google scholar shows highly cited works here .  At WP:ACADEMIC Specific criteria notes: Note 1 states:"" the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.""  Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey, I don't have an account, though I am the subject of the article.  I've been lucky enough to be in a position to do work that had impact on the industry, even if I haven't gone around promoting myself heavily (I am pretty private generally).  Certainly, it was mostly a combination of dumb luck (right places, right times) and privilege.  I'm definitely grateful to those looking to keep, and whoever has put this up and kept updating it over the years.  But, if you're looking for notable mentions in third-party press, two things do come to mind:  1) a popular science article about me playing Defcon Capture the Flag the hear before we hosted it ( https://www.popsci.com/gear-gadgets/article/2005-04/i-attended-hacker-conference-and-all-i-got-was-all-data-your-hard-drive/ ).  2) A bit of the software security stuff, along with a mention of the sale of my first startup to Fortify was mentioned when I was quoted in the Economist in the March 2008 Technology Quarterly (page 14).  Also, GCM does have its own page, and I think does merit it.  For GCM mode, simply being the default cipher mode for TLS 1.3 (plus having hardware support in Intel and ARM architectures) has made it ubiquitous.  The 2021 F5 Labs data ( https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/threat-intelligence/the-2021-tls-telemetry-report ) seems to indicate ~80% plus of all TLS connections globally were using it; I've anecdotally (from people at a major CDN) that it's above 90% now.  Also, NIST is looking to update the GCM standard.  https://csrc.nist.gov/News/2023/proposal-to-revise-sp-800-38d It's not going anywhere any time soon.  Either way, thanks for the consideration.  It does feel good to be thought about, even if I don't make the cut!  68.129.210.33 ( talk ) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Gonzalo Lira: Legitimately promoted from draft.  May pass WP:NAUTHOR .  scope_creep Talk 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Delete, same as the last 4 times.  ""This is the 4th time in AfD, I'd salt liberally if this goes towards deletion, again. ""  Tired of seeing this pop up, he's not covered in any RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll go to bat on this one.  I wholeheartedly disagree that 4 prior AfDs mean that this must be deleted again, there's nothing in the policy that states this.  In fact, setting that into policy would just open it up to abuse.  Reviewing the deletion discussions reveals barely any consensus and it would be inappropriate to salt based upon such a weak foundation (this isn't a Chris Chan situation with obvious harassment).  I think your comment is a little misleading, Delete, same as the last 4 times is what you've voted for the last 4 times, not that there's been a consensus to delete 4 times.  I doubt you had any bad intent by this, but its an important clarification since not everyone is going to dig through the past AfDs.  We have one draftify, one keep, one WP:GS/RUSUKR delete (which says nothing about notability), and one delete a decade ago.  Regarding WP:BIO , we have New York Daily News, The Independent, NBC, Los Angeles Times , and Business Insider just to name a few.  Yes, the article could be better written, but this was more than enough for it to be passed out of the draftspace initially.   🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a non-notable journalist/relationship coach that only got coverage for passing away.  Nothing in his career warranted an article here, passing away doesn't get you notability.  There have been multiple attempts to use semi-reliable sources in each of the last 4 noms, with nothing ever found each and every time.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Passing away doesn't get you notability , show me the policy.  Passing away in a notable way does, in fact, get you notability (as just one exception that could apply here).  Plus it's been a perennial discussion that he is a notable author/public figure (see below and prior discussions).  The only time there's been a consensus he's not notable was in 2014, which was a full decade ago and not reflective of the current article.  ""Nothing ever found each and every time"" is blatantly false and salting is an extreme length to go.  🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 00:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dying isn't notable, NOTMEMORIAL.  It's been happening forever, and we aren't a necrology.  We need sourced that talk about the person extensively, in reliable sources, which we don't have.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTMEMORIAL Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.  Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements .  Yes, but notable murders, heavily publicized deaths, etc. have long been an exception to this (See Alan Berg as just one example from List of journalists killed in the United States ).  There are frankly hundreds of examples to call upon and Lira's death is somewhat controversial to say the least.  Regardless, my argument is that he is notable outside of his death and the vast coverage of his death is a symptom of that notability.  🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 00:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] agreed, but he wasn't notable in life, so doesn't get so after dying.  He's been discussed 4 times here already and was never deemed to be notable is my point.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But nowhere in the policy does it state that prior AfDs are indicative of an article's viability come a new AfD.  The 1st and 4th AfDs are nonstarters since they were a decade old and a procedural matter, respectively.  The 3rd AfD ruled "" As there's some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow, the argument to draftify is more persuasive than that supporting outright deletion. "" (similar in the 2nd AfD) which lends to the credibility that 2 years ago he was already straddling the line of notability.  At this point, seeing that Fox News, South China Morning Post, and maybe the Daily Beast (Which are relatively reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources ), have all run pieces on him in just the last 2 days, what's to say we can't call his detention/death notable?  The aforementioned list I gave you has many similar articles that were kept but have even less coverage than Gonzalo (Meaning that Keeping this article is in line with precedent and policy).  The only reason this keeps going to AfD is because it's politically contentious; given 10 years I doubt we'd find the same amount of scrutiny.  Frankly, we've kept articles for less.  🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 19:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] in what world would Fox News be considered reliable on the subject of Russian propaganda?  Elinruby ( talk ) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I stand corrected.  I was unaware of the recent 2023 downgrading until I went looking.  Fox used to be a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS source, but this has since changed.  This doesn't change my broader opinion since there are many better sources brought up below, but it was a good catch.  Thanks!!  🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 21:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not only that but debunked: [23] Tucker Carlson, you guys.  Elon Musk.  I can't believe I still have to point out that these are not reliable sources.  The man denied the Bucha massacre for crying out loud, in the face of massive coverage by actual RS.  Somebody who cares so little about facts is emphatically not a ""journalist"".  Elinruby ( talk ) 20:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not Wikipedia's job to determine someone's profession, if the sourcing calls them a journalist than that's final.  We are meant to be dispassionate, not feeding our own biases; lest we perform a No true scottsman .  One a personal note, I detest Lira's journalism, but it is not our place to gatekeep.  🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] yeah?  Produce an RS that does this.  An actual RS.  Elinruby ( talk ) 21:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here [24] , it's a video produced by journalist Kim Iversen for The Hill discussing Lira, in which he's called a journalist.  The New York Times called him a 'American commentator"". The Independent calls him a self-described journalist. Perhaps the title 'political commentator and self-described journalist' would be a happy medium? 🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 22:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The NYT might support ""wannabe propagandist"". I've been laughing too 😂 hard to check the video out yet. I'd have to check on the Independent's reliability since it was sold but it is moot because they don't claim he's a journalist in the first place. Elinruby ( talk ) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly, the current prose in the article ... Chilean-American novelist, film director, commentator, YouTuber and life coach blogger is more than sufficient. The current article never calls him a journalist at all (only using the word journalist once to refer to someone else), which makes me wonder what the issue is with this term. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Several editors say so here and some of the better sources refer to the Kremlin's attempt to portray him as such. It's what they do -- portray their useful idiot as a prisoners of conscience on free speech issues. That's why. Elinruby ( talk ) 11:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lira, has, in my opinion been notable enough in all four cases of previous deletion to have a Wiki page. Although, in the previous four cases, there was too much vandalism for the pages to be worthy to keep. This time appears to be different. Also, Lira wrote his own Wiki page at least one of four those times, to my knowledge. In short, I disagree with your argument and believe this article should be kept. NesserWiki ( talk ) 23:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The only really good source on this guy is a Newsweek article, which, tellingly, has the title ""Who is Gonzalo Lira. "" The article was only released because Lira died recently, see WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM . The article was moved to mainspace too quickly - we should have waited to see if any other mainstream sources started reporting on. As is, Lira is only really notable within the Pro-Russian corners of the internet, making finding sources on him difficult - the problems with the non-pro-Russian sources about him have been amply discussed in the previous deletion discussions and on the talk page ( Daily Beast , for instance).-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This comment is confusing to me. What does the title of the article have to do with its status as an independent top level media profile? The rest of your argument stands but wouldn't every thing that's notable have gone through a phase where they weren't, and then they became notable, and spawned articles with titles like ""Hey check out this thing that wasn't notable until now"" or the conceptual equivalent? WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 20:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fyi Newsweek is on the Perennial Sources list as generally not reliable after 2013 when it was sold. Elinruby ( talk ) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Added by scope_creep Talk 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) for brevity. [ reply ] Lira honestly and accurately reported on the corruption and brutality of the Zelensky regime being propped up by Biden.  He was arrested, tortured and murdered by the Ukranians for his beliefs and being one of the very few to present an opposing point of view to the US State Department narrative.. And even if one disagrees with that assessment, he had a large following on YouTube and if Wiki can mention the passing of other YT 'stars' and product influencers as well as the deaths of horses, turtles, manatees, etc as done in the past, it can mention Lira's biography as well 2601:58C:C180:4E10:6586:AFB9:C125:3204 ( talk ) 18:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this is the only contribution to Wikipedia from this address Elinruby ( talk ) 20:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Being murdered for your beliefs, a perfectly common occurance, doesn't make you automatically notable. Wikipedia is not the place for a memorial article. This article needs WP:SALT ED. The subject seems to be non-notable. scope_creep Talk 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] People keep pushing these YouTubers as notable. The article should not have been created once let alone five times. On my phone, longer policy-citing reply to follow, but notably article seriously skews tbe facts, sources are awful for the topic area, and as someone asked already, how is misogyny a career highlight? Also, ""director""??? /me scoffs Elinruby ( talk ) 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please examine his life before he became a YouTuber. Fairly significant career. He got a million dollar advance for a novel he wrote. Thriley ( talk ) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the source for the million dollars is an archived image of a paywall. It looks like a fantastic source until you click it. Elinruby ( talk ) 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m seeing it: “ If you nurse a secret novel in your sock-drawer, and with it dreams of publication and literary immortality, you should meet a beacon of hope by the name of Gonzalo Lira . Chilean-born, now living in Los Angeles, Lira is the author of the novel Counterparts , which just helped him to a $1-million (U.S.) two-book deal from Putnam in New York.”  Thriley ( talk ) 23:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh. Do you subscribe? Are you on a phone? I've definitely gotten a paywall twice but i'll try again later. Elinruby ( talk ) 00:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am logged on the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library . Very helpful for access to an overwhelming amount of material. Highly recommend you join if you haven’t already. Thriley ( talk ) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Been there done that but thank you. In return may I point out that you can get 100 free searches a month at JStor just for creating an account? However while a lot of the sources used here might be eligible for sourcing something extremely uncontroversial like, for example, the agricultural products of Oregon, this is not that. The Ukrainian war and its propaganda are  controversial enough to require special handling in and of themselves. This is a BLP whose best sources call the man a liar and a shill, and that's before we start looking at a plurality of the sources, if not a majority being unreliable, and what appears to be some very organized coordination happening somewhere. Sourcing that just barely reaches an absolutely minimum standard is not what we need here and at the moment we don't even have that... That's the issue here as I see it. Elinruby ( talk ) 11:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) of [ reply ] Many folk get big advances for work but don't make it as authors. There is no book reviews at all, outwith the normal trade reviews for libraries and what so, so he pass WP:NAUTHOR . Getting lots of money isn't a criteria of notability. scope_creep Talk 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Elinruby : It seems to. The first 10 references are a joke. Anything you send me will be appreciated. He is not film director either. As far as I can determine he is directed one film and a short. That doesn't make you a film director. 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Moving this from draft was probably premature. I imagine major newspapers will cover his death eventually. If this is deleted, it should be moved back to draft. Thriley ( talk ) 18:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see at least three sources with significant coverage: one is the mentioned 2024 Newsweek article , two from 2022 Chilean article ""What is known about Gonzalo Lira and his mysterious disappearance in Ukraine"", another one: [25] , hence WP:RECENTISM argument is invalid. - Altenmann >talk 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. I have just added the fourth in-depth article from a 2023 Ukrainian source: [26] , and I am pretty sure google search for Ukrainian spelling Гонсало Ліра will give more valid refs. - Altenmann >talk 18:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P.P.S. the here is fifth in-depth 2023 article from Times of India : [27] , and cited in the wp bio, too. Concluding: delete-!voters thoroughly failed to exercise due diligence  when claiming lack of coverage in WP:RS. - Altenmann >talk 19:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Considering that Lira had a mostly western audience, what weight should we give a source like the Times of India? The article in question is mostly just a regurgitation of Tucker Carlson and also contains wonderful quotes like this The former Fox News anchor also highlighted how people in the UK have been losing lives due to hypothermia in the absence of cheap Russian energy. In what world is that reliable? Show me any other reliable source reporting on people dying of hypothermia in the UK due to a lack of cheap Russian gas.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 19:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That India is irrelevant is an invalid comment, I would say. Although you are right. The article meticulously says it is retelling Tucker Carlson. - Altenmann >talk 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What on earth? Lira's audience is mostly in the West, not India. He palled around with other Western pro-Russia online personalities like Scott Ritter and ""Donbas Devushka"" trying to reach people in the West. That's besides the obvious problems with what you initially described as ""an in-depth article"" that just repeats Tucker Carlson's inane nonsense.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already agreed that it is retelling Carlson, hence I agree it is not an additional source to be counted against notability. But judging who has rights to make comments on what is none of Wikipedian's business. - Altenmann >talk 19:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From Perennial Sources list: ""The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable.  It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage"". And if it's pro-government, it's worth pointing out that India is energy-reliant on Russia. Elinruby ( talk ) 00:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P.P.P.S, And here is the 6th 2022 Daily Beast in-depth article, How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine . I am done digging here. The above is more than enough for all three criteria WP:COVERAGE : depth, duration, and diversity of sources.  - Altenmann >talk 19:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Problems with the Daily Beast have already been discussed on both the article talk page and I believe in previous deletion discussions. I mentioned it in my comment above.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 19:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if we remove the Daily Beast as a source for this article altogether, there are still other reliable sources covering him. Death Editor 2 ( talk ) 19:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked in Talk:Gonzalo_Lira#""Daily_Beast""_article_not_reliable_source and I see in favor of arguments there that the accusation is false. - Altenmann >talk 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then how do you propose we use a source that calls Lira a ""Pro-Putin shill"" without calling him those words due to WP:BLP concerns?-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLPPUBLIC . That he is Pro-Putin is claimed in many sources. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP means Biography of LIVING Persons. Or do we have to wait until the New York Times confirms that he is dead? 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:F817:F206:1084:4987 ( talk ) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that it has to be drafted again. This page is a mesh of editions and it can affect the impartiality of the matter. For example: in his career we can see that the misogyny in his videos is treated like a highlight in his career. How the hell is that a highlight and not a controversial element? Also, there's a ton to depure in the article that can be resumed in a few words without losing anything important. SupaaWiki >talk 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the only contribution to en wiki from this address Elinruby ( talk ) 12:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ....independent significant coverage in reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly....(;) including, randomly, El País (Costa Rica). ... Helsinki Times ... Hora do Povo ... TF1 , etc, etc. (And Afds should be about deletion not cleanup)- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The El Pais piece is sourced directly to Sputnik (news agency) . The Helsinki Times article is obviously not reliable for reasons I have already laid out in the article talk page (""Zelensky regime"" ""eight years of bombing of the civilian population of Donbas by Kyiv""). The ""Horo do Povo"" article is also obviously unreliable: it describes Lira uncritically as a ""journalist"" and contains ""Kyiv regime"" in its headline and again appears to rely entirely on Sputnik for a source. Other sterling journalism from this paper is a headline about ""Fascist Netanyahu"". TF1 appear to be reliable though, but again, its just debunking Tucker Carlson.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ......No comment except that one can add PLENTY of other existing sources in various languages, including, again, almost at random, Diario de Yucatán , La Tercera , Hungarian Conservative , El Correo , etc, etc, etc. And I'll leave it at that if you don't mind. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ...and I bet I can show how each one of them is also an unreliable source. "" Zelenskyy regime "", uses Sputnik as a source , uncritically uses Carlson, Lira himself, and Alex Rubinstein as sources of information . I can't access the final one, as it's behind a paywall, but I'm sure it would be the same.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TF1 is probably the best source there, but it's basically fact checking other sites, so isn't strictly about Lira. Newsweek, El Pais aren't acceptable for the reason listed. Daily Beast isn't a reliable source. Unsure of the Helskinki Times article. I'm not seeing notability with these sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ... Per above. I agree that removing this out of the draftspace was premature but not necessarily disqualifying, Mushy Yank put it better than I could. Honestly, we've kept articles for less and I remain unconvinced by Oaktree's argument that 4 prior AfDs must mean that we blacklist/salt this article in perpetuity. In addition, only 2 of the AfDs actually resulted in deletion. One is from a decade ago and one was a procedural deletion due to sanctions. There's been no consensus that this guy is not noteworthy and at this point, it feels more like beating a dead horse than anything productive. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Several important sources such as Newsweek reported on his death. The case is controversial and has had quite an international echo. I note that the article has been translated into 11 languages [28] including English and that between 12, 13 and 14 January alone the English article made 1348 views, which denotes that there is substantial general attention. [29] -- Mhorg ( talk ) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On January 15, the article had 15,500 views. [30] The article has been translated into another language, a total of 12. [31] Mhorg ( talk ) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Newsweek is not a reliable source Elinruby ( talk ) 00:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . With two novels published by major publishers, each of which received multiple reviews at the time, he meets WP:NAUTHOR , regardless of his later notoriety. His activity in Ukraine has certainly garnered the most in-depth coverage, and even though the reliability of some sources is contested ( WP:DAILYBEAST , WP:NEWSWEEK ), I believe we have enough reliable source coverage to include that part of his life as well. Here are the best sources: Reviews of Counterparts Zvirin, Stephanie (1997-12-15). "" Counterparts "" . Booklist . 94 (8) – via ProQuest. (173 words) Steinberg, Sybil S. "" Counterparts "" . Publishers Weekly . 244 (47): 53 – via ProQuest. (222 words) Perez-Stable, Maria A (December 1997). "" Counterparts "" . Library Journal . 122 (20): 154 – via ProQuest. (160 words) Reviews of Acrobat Smith, Roger (January 2003). "" Acrobat "" . Magill's Book Reviews – via EBSCO. "" Acrobat "" . Publishers Weekly . 249 (9): 54. 2002-03-04 – via EBSCO. (282 words) Wall, Patrick (2002-01-03). "" Acrobat "" . Library Journal . 127 (4) – via EBSCO. "" Acrobat "" . Kirkus Reviews . 70 (3). 2002-02-01. Pitt, David (2002-03-01). "" Acrobat "" . Booklist . 98 (13): 1096. (starred review) Other reliable-source coverage Reisman, Rosemary M. (January 2007). ""Gonzalo Lira"" . Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works . (460 word biography) Bowden, John (2023-12-12). ""Meet the 'Putin propagandist' Tucker and Elon Musk want freed in Ukraine"" . The Independent . Retrieved 2024-01-15 . ( WP:INDYUK ) Jfire ( talk ) 22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . This article seems to have been restored entirely because of the news of Lira's death. But death does not confer notability. If he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward. And the vast majority of reporting about him seems to be from very unreliable sources. But I suppose this is a weak delete; I'm open to Jfire's argument that he's notable as an author. — Red XIV ( talk ) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] >  But death does not confer notability. If he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward Is this actual policy? I can think of many examples of how the manner of death itself could certainly confer notability, and a political killing is high on that list. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] you spelled pneumonia wrong. How is pneumonia"" a political killing?  Elinruby ( talk ) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To rebut these arguments: > he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward The sources above (from me) and below (from Bedivere) show that he was notable (as an author) prior to his death.  > the vast majority of reporting about him seems to be from very unreliable sources Notability is based on an evaluation of the reliable sources.  The existence of unreliable sources, in any volume, does not imply that a subject is non-notable.  Jfire ( talk ) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If he can source it yeah maaaaybe Elinruby ( talk ) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG .  As a writer he received lots of coverage in his native Chile.  The National Library has archived and released at least 24 articles related to Lira and his work, available online here [32] .  That includes articles from El Mercurio , Las Últimas Noticias , La Tribuna de Los Ángeles, Qué Pasa magazine, among many others.  These are all reliable sources from Chile and should suffice.  And that does not count the coverage of Lira's activism, which has been called ""one event"" by commenters above.  -- Bedivere ( talk ) 00:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR with four books, two of which received enough coverage and were published by major publishing labels.  He's received plenty of coverage in Chilean media, including in major news outlets, and compounded with the recent influx of news from English media regarding his antics in Ukraine and regarding his death, this is clearly a WP:ONEEVENT situation.  — Knightof theswords 04:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Same reasons as last four times and other comments above.  As User:Redxiv points out death does not confer notability - if he didn’t pass notability last four times then probably still doesn’t.  As User:Ermenrich points out, the closest we have to an actual RS here is Newsweek which… isn’t an RS (though some people mistakenly think it is because it once was… like 15 years ago).  The rest is junk like Sputnik or its derivatives or other obscure sources.  This guy was/is well known within certain online circles but that’s not enough for an encyclopedia article.  Volunteer Marek 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Respectfully, the National Library of Chile link above contains several articles from the 1990s, all from reliable Chilean sources, making this person pass NAUTHOR, and completely disregarding their recent years.  Bedivere ( talk ) 10:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Meeting the author criteria is enough, I am convinced.  The more current coverage however is also sufficient in my view.  And lastly of course the manner of someone’s death can be relevant to their notability.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 11:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, although we need to watch out for biased sources so as to maintain NPOV.  Even prior to the attention he received recently, Lira passed NAUTHOR.  And contrary to what some people suggested, I think his involvement in the Ukraine situation definitely is relevant to his notability.  2804:214:86BB:1774:4E45:EE50:F8E0:C061 ( talk ) 12:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) violates WP:GS/RUSUKR . -- Ermenrich ( talk ) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Editor is a WP:SPA .  scope_creep Talk 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Wikipedians famously have very low threshhold for GNG and tend to confuse a lot of sources as enough, when they often don't look at the quality of those sources.  There's also clear confusion above, where thinking notability is derived.  Just because his novels or films were reviewed is not proof the author himself is notable.  And the paltry reviews are not enough to justify even articles on the novels.  The novels and author are separate subjects.  As an author, youtuber, and filmmaker he's a nobody who had little impact or notice.  He would potentially be notable for the events leading to arrest and death.  The poor sourcing of the article is a reflection to how few actual honest to goodness news sources have covered him.  Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Salon, are very fluffy internet focused sites that I do everything to avoid in proper articles.  Newsweek was once a solid source like 20 years ago, but in the internet age has degraded to being declared outright unreliable.  A brief notice in NBC News piece is the only proper source in the entire article.  Harizotoh9 ( talk ) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] he's also a cowboy, an astronaut and  a ballerina. <g> Elinruby ( talk ) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think he passes WP:NAUTHOR .  The  book reviews aren't particularly decent.  There is no literary journals or critical theory journals.  There is nothing in contemporary magazines where you expect to find a good reviews.   Kirkus isn't something you would normally use, Publishers weekly is a industry trade journal and effectively non-rs for the most part in this context, its never used as a review source.  The Library journal is an industry journal, again.  Mcgill, I'm not sure about but not get the right signals from it.  It looks like a trade journal.  Booklist is the same.  Its not rs. scope_creep Talk 14:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not much has changed since the last vote.  He is still not notable enough, and his death did not make him more notable.  Bear in mind that this is the 5th nomination, and this article was deleted every time.  BeŻet ( talk ) 14:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""this is the 5th nomination, and this article was deleted every time"" is not accurate.  Only one of the prior nominations closed as a delete on notability grounds: the first one in 2014 .  The second closed as ""no consensus"", the third closed as ""draftify"" and the closer noted ""some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow"", and the fourth was a procedural delete on non-notability grounds.  So the only time the article has been deleted for lack of notability was ten years ago, prior to Lira's activity in Ukraine, in an AFD that did not locate nor discuss the English and Spanish language coverage of Lira's writing career.  Consensus can change .  Jfire ( talk ) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not accurate.  All the votes following the first when happened after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Lack of notability was clearly established during the third vote (""draftify"" simply means to delete the article, move it to a draft and wait for a change in notability).  The fourth vote was ""delete"" because nothing has been changed.  I still believe that he is not notable.  BeŻet ( talk ) 16:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] aw shucks somebody has turned up a passing mention of him on a New York Times list of ridiculous propaganda claims, and he got a whole paragraph!  Then there is the archived image of a Globe and Mail paywall referencing the million dollars; that's good to go, right?  Seriously, that's with only a very cursory click or two.  Don't let me get started on a full-scale source verification here, none of us has time for that and I already have a backlog in source verification...  Elinruby ( talk ) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Story was reported on in Newsweek, Fox News and the New York Post, his case has been addressed at State Department briefings and by the Russian foreign minister multiple times, and by other notable (if not always reliable) commentators, he was mention in multiple other outlets before his arrest and death.  Can't see how this doesn't pass WP:GNG ( EDIT as of 1/20: this has been a learning experience for me in terms of which sources are considered reliable by consensus, however there are still plenty of sources that are reliable/in-depth, many of which I or other editors have added to the article since 1/16.) JSwift49 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Newsweek, Fox News, and New York Post, are all crap sources and I try to remove them from any articles I find.  This article is just piling crap tabloid and internet sources on top of each other.  Harizotoh9 ( talk ) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The New York Post is not an acceptable source, nor is Newsweek or Fox News [33] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Chilean newspapers, The Bulwark, The Independent, Business Insider, New York Daily News, Kyiv Post, Europa Press etc.  JSwift49 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NYT, LA Times, NBC, TF1.. .  If we want to remove those sources you mentioned we can have a discussion about that, but he is mentioned in many in which there is no dispute of reliability, so how does this warrant a deletion of the article?  JSwift49 16:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] JSwift49, I was in the other discussion.  These are biased pro-Ukrainian editors, who are sealioning this either discussion to waste your time.  They do not like that Lira's death makes the Ukrainian government look bad.  They literally cite YouTube videos by this Jake Broe guy who had a spat with Lira on Twatter over e-celeb crap.  I hate to deflect but I don't see any of these editors looking at the Sarah Ashton-Cirillo's (related to GL Ukraine situation) Wikipedia article which is all just tabloid LGBT magazines, Fox News Las Vegas, The Daily Beast, and Twatter...but I don't think she should have her article deleted either.  Entire discussion is ridiculous...  Thegreatmuffinman ( talk ) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR . -- Ermenrich ( talk ) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This account is an WP:SPA .-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do agree a good chunk of sources were sourced from Russia/unreliable outlets so should have been removed, but yeah there clearly are enough reliable sources so the article should be at most fixed not deleted.  We should not apply a higher standard to this article than the vast majority of others.  JSwift49 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : mIght have a pass at AUTHOR, but the reviews are flimsy and we'd need more than those for sourcing.  I still don't think we have enough in RS for notability, Daily Beast and Newsweek are depreciated.  TF1 isn't strictly about Lira.  Rest are sourced to Sputnik or in non-RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a WIRED article that stated one of his novels' movie rights had been bought by Miramax, not sure if helps but put it in.  JSwift49 17:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are they deprecated?  They both seem to be labeled ""with additional considerations"" (Newsweek reliable on ""on a case-by-case basis"" post-2013, the Daily Beast for being biased towards left-wing positions) on the list .  Neither are listed as deprecated.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, they are not deprecated.  WP:DAILYBEAST is ""no consensus"", and WP:NEWSWEEK is ""evaluate on a case-by-case basis"".  Jfire ( talk ) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  He certainly does not pass WP:AUTHOR : no, he is not regarded as an important figure by his peers or successors; his books being reviewed is not really a proof.  However, he might pass our general criteria as someone who appears in multiple sources.  But most of these sources are weak, as noted, for example, by Oaktree just above and some others.  He also does not appear as anyone of significance other than promoting a ridiculous misinformation and being arrested.  And the history of creation and deletion of the previous versions of this page seems to indicate at promotion.  Hence, I am leaning toward ""delete"", although have no strong opinion (he does appear in multiple sources after all).  My very best wishes ( talk ) 15:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think a source review is needed here at least for the first block which may settle it.  I'll do it tommorrow.  scope_creep Talk 16:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply listing the sources, as some people do above on this page, is not enough.  One should check what they say about the subject.  For example, I noticed a NYT article.  It says "" Alex Jones , the American conspiracy theorist who often spreads lies on his Infowars platform, during his online show on Monday suggested that Ukraine would detonate a dirty bomb within its borders and then blame Russia as “a pretext to bring NATO fully into the conflict” and start World War III. “My analysis is, about 90 percent at this point, that there’s going to be full-on public war with Russia, and at least a tactical nuclear war in Europe,” ... And on YouTube, Gonzalo Lira, an American commentator who lives in Ukraine, said that “all the evidence” pointed to a “deliberate provocation that is being staged by the Americans.” . Such mention does count as a citation of Lira, but it says little of substance beyond noticing that Lira repeated/supported the claim by Alex Jones who is indeed a notable conspiracy theorist. My very best wishes ( talk ) 23:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Gonzalo is notable person, his view were supressed and yet his views reached tens of millions worldwide. Some parts of the article do not base the claim on primary sources. Reviewing the telegram and subsequent youtube does not prove doxxing of other journalist during the initial phases of invasion of Russian forces. Also the claim that he did sent the positions of the troops to tiktok is not that easy to believe as he did not have tiktok channel and there is no evidence of that, there are points in the article that are not provable altough the fact that he was prosecuted in the ukraine remains important. For definition of doxxing I am using [1] maybe going through all the evidence of the ideas of the author he presented [2] and making the article more detailed would certainly improve the quality and lower the biased citations that stand contrary to the alredy established definition on wikipedia e.g. the doxing article Krypto Švejk ( talk ) 21:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Scope creep : Note the recent Arbcom request for modification of the sourcing expectations for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area. I advocated extending it to the Holocaust in Lithuania as they did but also to eastern Europe in general, which seemed to get some support, except that it's difficult to enunciate a standard for the war in Ukraine in particular beyond saying (me) that it is a HUGE problem. For which this article is a poster child. Elinruby ( talk ) Elinruby ( talk ) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Lira is notable by the sheer amount of literature about his passing, though he was quite famous even before. There are many newspaper publications about him from 2022 and earlier. Tiphareth ( talk ) Tiphareth ( talk ) 19:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR .-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing ^ https://t.me/realCRP This account is an WP:SPA .-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, My account is not single purpose. I am on wikipedia for more than 10 years. I did only contribute here less than on my local wikipedia, but this is not truth. rather your comment is against wikipedia rules as your comment is sort of personal attack. please restrain from further rules violations Krypto Švejk ( talk ) 21:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry but having a single edit in 2016 does not keep you from being an SPA.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 21:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I dont have single edit, I also dont violate the general test. Please make yourself familiar with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account Krypto Švejk ( talk ) 22:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Before today, yes you did only have a single edit . Then you suddenly reappeared after eight years to vote in this AFD.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:P%C5%99%C3%ADsp%C4%9Bvky/Krypto_%C5%A0vejk for reference. I already said that I am originaly a local account holder and you did not verify it and falsely claimed that I have only one contribution. And then you used false tense and again falsely claimed nonsense. I am beginning to think your account is for trolling purposes Krypto Švejk ( talk ) 22:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can think that, but the fact is you have basically zero activity on en.Wiki besides mysteriously showing up to vote in this AFD. And that link shows you basically have no real activity in Cz.Wiki until you started editing Lira this year as well.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 00:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are at least three reliable sources that discuss him in specific in depth. He wasn't notable in 2014, he is now. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lira was featured on Tass which referenced Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk.  Not a reliable source but the Daily Beast wrote an article entitled, How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine.""  There is controversy about Lira going way back to alleged sexual predation at Dartmouth.   Lira is whatever you want him to be depending on your worldview.   He is a journalist to some, a fraudster, an opportunist, a propagandist, an economist, a writer, film maker, a narcissistic opportunist, a pro-Russian shill, or a hero.   How do you write an article about this human chameleon in a way that is accurate and balanced.  73.27.57.206 ( talk ) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR . -- Ermenrich ( talk ) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Off topic The following discussion has been closed.  Please do not modify it.  This editor is a WP:SPA , who has no understanding of the WP policies.  scope_creep Talk 01:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dick.  73.27.57.206 ( talk ) 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And you've just proven the point, we don't name call here please.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I appreciate all the good faith feedback and discussion here, I’ve come to agree the original article needed improvement and my submitting it was premature.  However I and other editors have now worked on it quite a bit so I’d like to request any decision be taken with these changes in mind.  I more than ever believe the article adequately demonstrates notability (has a good number of reliable sources, and tons of articles on Wikipedia are of far less significant people), so it should not be deleted, especially given how different the previous four AfD submissions were.  JSwift49 03:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The request for deletion is clearly a politically-motivated attempt to ""memory-hole"" relevant historical events and a public figure, however minor or unpopular, who has actively contributed in SIGNIFICANT measure to reporting and discussion of events leading up to and during the Ukrainian/Russian conflict from 2014-2023.  The fact that he was a dissenting voice outside the MSM makes his reporting more relevant, not less so.  Moreover, as the manner of his incarceration and death, foretold by Lira himself at the end of July, 2023, possibly or even likely involves crimes and human rights violations by both Ukrainian and US authorities, the request to delete, particularly at this time, is a clear attempt to hide the circumstances of his death and to censor dissent; to deny the public ready access to significant factual historical information.  The page should not only be retained, but expanded, improved and ELEVATED in significance, at least until the Ukrainian conflict is settled.  Whoever requested deletion, particularly at this moment when the circumstances of his death are still an active topic of discussion in the public realm, should probably have their own significance and moral integrity questioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10AE:10:9E66:15A7:B596:232B:39FB ( talk ) 07:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR . -- Ermenrich ( talk ) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a WP:SPA scope_creep Talk 08:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 'Single purpose account' everyone knows what you are doing now.  You are not arguing in good faith and cannot address any of the points as your sealioning trolling has been called out.  Fact is, you don't need an account to edit a lot of Wikipedia articles.  Where is your scrutiny towards the sources of the Ashton-Cirollo article?  Like I said already that article is all Daily Beast, Twatter, Fox News Las Vegas, and LGBT tabloid magazines.  Their article still should not be deleted, but I don't see the usual suspects on here trying to brigade delete this article doing the same there...  Also, your opinion doesn't matter if you think GL is distasteful, many people find Scott Ritter distasteful (convicted sex offender), does that mean that they should not have a Wikipedia article?  Cause if that is the case then theirs should be deleted too.  Fact is, are they notable?  Yes, people can be notable by being infamous.  Thegreatmuffinman ( talk ) 11:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) — Thegreatmuffinman ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] This is a WP:SPA .  Seems to be off-wiki canvassing.  scope_creep Talk 12:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a fellow editor, it is important to use non-confrontational wording in discussions, as hostile wording rarely leads to resolution.  My recommendation is to edit your comment for tone.  Ca talk to me!  12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's nothing confrontational about that?  SportingFlyer T · C 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete he hasn't been notable before, and I don't really see anything here which pushes over the threshold.  Don't see the WP:NAUTHOR , and the whole thing seems fringe and WP:NOTNEWS .  Would also salt.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think he was notable before, as his first books received significant coverage in Chile as shown above Bedivere ( talk ) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry but I completely agree with scope_creep here.  SportingFlyer T · C 19:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't intend to participate in the vote, as I'm not an editor, just a Wiki reader from Germany (not Russia, lol).  My understanding is that Gonzalo Lira was arrested and prosecuted for voicing political views that were prohibited by the Ukrainian state and then died while being imprisoned.  That in itself makes this a matter of public interest in my personal view, as freedom of expression is generally protected in European countries and citizens normally cannot be arrested or imprisoned for voicing political views, whether true or false.  2A01:C23:8CAA:900:4CCC:1BE:F5EF:7A5C ( talk ) 15:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the only post to Wikipedia from this address Elinruby ( talk ) 05:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the lack of statements from the White House about the survival or death of Lira, shows that something strange has happened to the journalist, making this character more interesting in the encyclopedias and in this one it also has numerous sources and a great development encyclopedic my opinion stay.  57ntaledane9 ( talk ) 16:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR . -- Ermenrich ( talk ) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This account is an WP:SPA . Also none of the reasons mentioned have anything to do with WP:NOTABILITY .-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ermenrich I am not an account for a particular purpose.  I was the one who created the article in simple English and who is having a general query.  You can leave your opinions https://simple.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_Lira# My decision is that it remains with reliable sources and is an article that has other websites such as German, Portuguese and Arabic.  57ntaledane9 ( talk ) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per",no consensus
"2021 Muskogee shooting: No lasting WP:EFFECTs .  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 01:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events ,  and Oklahoma .  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 01:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Second deadliest shooting in the state, seems notable.  Sourcing is solid...  What do others think?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see what makes the second-deadliest shooting in a state inherently notable?  Six deaths unfortunately isn't particularly unusual in the American context (there were 11 such shootings with at least 6 victims in 2021, and of the four other shootings with exactly six victims, two don't have articles).  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :I think if you check state newspapers you'll find things like anniversary coverage and more follow up coverage.  I don't have the articles in front of me, but as a regular reader of the state's media coverage I've seen it pop up a few times.  I'd have to do a WP:before of the Tulsa World and The Oklahoman 's archives before I'd feel comfortable voting.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 03:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some Trial coverage, but was honestly surprised I didn't find much more.  I tried to find a state representative statement or response, but couldn't find any comments from public figures other than mayor Marlon Coleman .  Also, I didn't find much anniversary coverage either.  But there is probably a little more trial coverage than what I added.  While technically deadlier than the 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting , the response and sustained coverage appear to be a bit less, at least looking at state sources.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - This is the very edge of WP:NTEMP .  Notability is pretty well established at the time of the incident (NYT, AP, USAT), and regional coverage continues (Fox in 22 and the Phoenix in 23).  Unlike other mass shooting events, this seems to have regional repercussions which just barely satisfies WP:NEVENT in my view.  If TulsaPoliticsFan can find more regional sources, then I would move to a much stronger Keep ! vote, but I think it squeaks by with cited WP:RSs .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC) • Weak Delete - TulsaPoliticsFan 's research didn't turn out and WP:SIGCOV or WP:SUSTAINED outside already cited, and my own research simply didn't turn out anything for notable WP:EFFECTs of this event.  Without that, we're left with WP:RSBREAKING as pointed out by other editors.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as discussed, there are some lingering coverage/articles about the event.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless any retrospective sources are found.  Sources about this topic are all WP:RSBREAKING sources, either for the initial event or for the subsequent trial, and do not count toward GNG.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 02:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notability doesn't expire.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The deletion argument centre on the fact that notability (from an |NEVENT viewpoint) never existed, not that it lost notability over time.  Based on TulsaPoliticsFan 's dive into regional sources, I am scratching my ! vote to keep (see edit above).  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : My concern is the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage and discussion of the event.  Unlike the 2022 Tulsa hospital shooting , this shooting did not generate push for reforms or long term coverage.  The death count is high, but it is just a shooting at a home that the reporting indicates happened because the perp is mentally unwell.  It generated substantial local coverage (expected from a smaller town), some state-wide coverage (but much less than other shootings I'd call notable), and national headlines immediately after (the strongest case for notability).  If there was more state-wide coverage from Oklahoma papers, I'd vote keep, but from my research this doesn't appear that notable outside of Muskogee.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : NOTNEWS.  Six people getting shot is routine these days in the USA.  Zero coverage found, 2 yrs later.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies for perhaps not replying in the intended format but I wanted to share my 2 cents on this anyhow.  I'm in favor of keeping it.  The gravity of this topic may not be meet notability standards relative to American news context, as was pointed out elsewhere here, but from a non-American standpoint (such as mine) it still seems notable enough considering OK is a relatively quiet state and I think (not sure) this is the most severe assault since the 1995 OKC bombing.  Kindly reconsider deletion, thank you.  Alfredvanderzwam ( talk ) 14:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This comment on it being the deadliest violent event since the Oklahoma City Bombing appears to be mostly true.  The only deadlier event (than the Muscogee shooting, not the bombing) we have an article for since is the 2023 Henryetta killings .  On the other hand, I wouldn't call us a quiet state; I mean it is an open carry , or constitutional carry if you wanna be technical, state.  Shootings aren't uncommon here.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 17:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  User:Oaktree b can you cancel out your duplicate vote so it's easier to see where things stand?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED.  Sadly, not an uncommon occurrence these days in the United States.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 04:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Duplicate ! votes corrected, sorry.  Wiki formatting still buggers me up sometimes.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — A rampage murder of this scale isn't unique, but remains uncommon.  The event currently stands at #64 in List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States) .  On that list there has been ONE such mass murder since this one happened in February 2021, and just eleven since 2010.  (Yes there are other kinds of mass killings in the USA as well, but again we're speaking of under ten a year at this scale.)  Separately, there has been at least some follow-up coverage marking the anniversary of the killing [16] , [17] . -- Carwil ( talk ) 03:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Bhola Maheswar: Non notable television series aired by a now defunct channel.  ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 02:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:02, 9 October 2023 (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 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Clive Ramaciotti: He appears to be famous for setting up ""Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation"" but that just redirects to his sister's article.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Agree, especially given some reference is made to him on his sister's page.  Delete per nom, fails WP:ANYBIO .  Cabrils ( talk ) 12:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge : Yet again, LibStar nominates an article for deletion without considering first whether a merge might be the more appropriate outcome; and being wilfully blind to local cultural context in evaluating sources (as per discussion below with SproulesLane ) Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where are the sources to establish notability?  I did a search so ""being wilfully blind to local cultural context"" is wrong.  LibStar ( talk ) 09:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, can't find sources for this, Karnataka ( talk ) 17:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * KEEP or at very least MERGE with Vera Ramaciotti or create a Ramaciotti Family article as they are one of the most extraordinary philanthropic families in Australian history.  They are fascinating given their non-Anglo background at a time when Sydney and the whole of the country was very “White Bread”.  SproulesLane ( talk ) 01:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How does he meet notability guidelines?  LibStar ( talk ) 03:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Google Clive and Vera Ramaciotti and see that they have funded close to $100 million to biomedical research alone and I think you have your answer.  I’m happy to merge them and list it under the name of the foundation if editors think I should but I’m certainly not going to go to the trouble if others end up deleting the article.  SproulesLane ( talk ) 04:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please provide actual sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation : Fails GNG and BIO, but there appears to be enough SIGCOV in ProQuest to support an article about the foundation and enough refs to support sections for the founders, Vera Ramaciotti can also be moved here.  The end result will be a solid article, but there are not sources to support two stand alone bios.  // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  None of the cited sources are enough to pass WP:BIO , and no other sufficient coverage can be found.  If Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation is actually a stand alone article, I'll vote for redirect, but before that article is created, deletion seem to be the only viable option.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 19:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep at least until someone can explain why the Biographical cuttings on Clive Ramaciotti held by the National Library of Australia are not good enough.  Even if after examining them and they are found wanting then deletion is still not needed.  Whether covered in an article on the foundation or his sister and redirecting or merging there then no reason to actually delete.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on The National Library of Australia determining that Clive Ramaciottii is sufficiently notable to hold a file of his biographical cuttings.  On googling his hame alone I find 101 mentions before it gives up the ghost … In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 101 already displayed.  If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.  Even though 10 of those are Wikipedia copycat biographies 90 mentions of Clive indicate that he has made a very notable contribution to biomedical research all over Australia.  The many SMH & Age articles written about him after his death aren’t available on Trove but some from News Limited and The Australian are.  SproulesLane ( talk ) 00:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You cannot ! vote twice.  WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping.  You must specify precise sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m not an expert on Articles for deletion as clearly our serial deletionist LibStar is but we are now very clear on his viewpoint on this matter but I have changed my view.  I have deleted my original comment and would appreciate it if I could do it myself rather than being bullied by another editor.  My understanding is that this isn’t a Vote so much as a community consensus and I look forward to hearing what our wider community thinks on this call for deletion.  In the meantime, LibStar thank you for teaching me as a fellow editor how to blank out my original thoughts on this matter.  I truly appreciate your assistance.  SproulesLane ( talk ) 02:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not bullying you, I'm suggesting how you can improve your keep argument.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Further thoughts on either the sources or the National Library of Australia cuttings?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation redirects.  At the moment, there's nowhere to merge this so that cannot be considered.  One more spin for some policy based input and less finger pointing.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation , together with Vera Ramaciotti .  Neither of them are independently notable, but the foundation is. (Also, it redirects right back here, so a move is a perfectly acceptable outcome.) – brad v 00:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Shoreditch TV: It is not clear that the BBC reference cited in the article even relates to this station.  Previously PRODded.  Stifle ( talk ) 13:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Stifle ( talk ) 13:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apparently created this article however I have no knowledge of doing so!  Then again it was 17 years ago.  If you search for '""shoreditch tv"" cctv' you do see some relevant articles from other outlets so apparently I didn't fabricate the entire thing.  Dan Huby ( talk ) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the avoidance of doubt I am certainly not accusing you of fabricating anything, merely stating that the TV station described does not appear to meet our notability requirements to have an article.  Stifle ( talk ) 08:17, 20 June 2023 (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 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"2028 Tasmanian state election: CycloneYoris talk!  02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia .  CycloneYoris talk!  02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep All ""next election"" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted.  AveryTheComrade ( talk ) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources?  None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article.  Tar nis hed Path talk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable?  Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable.  And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article.  MyacEight ( talk ) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election?  I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?  Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV ?  Demonstrate it is notable with sources.  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose Every other state/territory had their ""next election"" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @ AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease.  Tar nis hed Path talk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one.  Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections.  All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles.  MyacEight ( talk ) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion.  Tar nis hed Path talk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Tasmaina only had an election 2 months ago.  Significant coverage of the next election is years away.  Similar AfDs of premature election coverage has appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination.  Teraplane ( talk ) 02:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is ridiculously WP:TOOSOON .  The last election has only just happened and this is almost four years off.  Tar nis hed Path talk 08:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The next election is not set in stone at 4 years away as the Tas Parliament states Term: the length of time House of Assembly elections - since 1976 this has been a maximum of four years.  and that's why I do agree with previous comments that it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election instead.  It should be noted that both previous elections went early at about 3 years each 2018 Tasmanian state election and 2021 Tasmanian state election .  And with a hung parliament as described in the article that potential is high again.  MyacEight ( talk ) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Next Tasmanian state election .  The next election in a democratic state is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL .  I also agree with the rational of the other comments supporting a keep position.  -- Enos733 ( talk ) 15:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename per Enos733.  Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL : only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place .  SportingFlyer T · C 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election.  How can anyone possibly argue that this passes WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing?  Tar nis hed Path talk 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election.  AveryTheComrade ( talk ) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources.  How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that?  Even if it were to be renamed to Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds.  At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is.  Tar nis hed Path talk 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as not too soon, but consider moving to the less definite title.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing to say about the election than ""it will happen sometime"".  If kept, support moving to next Tasmanian state election instead.  Stifle ( talk ) 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Stepove, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast: Not a single in-depth source so fails WP:GNG , and no sourcing to show this meets WP:GEOLAND .  Onel 5969 TT me 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : my searches in Ukrainian and Russian did not turn up any in-depth sources.  The only useful source I can find is this order of the Presidium of the UkSSR ""On Preservation of Historical Names and Clarification and Arrangement of Existing Names of Village Councils and Settlements of Dnipropetrovska Oblast"" .  Also, if the article is kept, it should be renamed, because the title is ambiguous with the other (currently populated) village of Stepove in Synelnykove Raion (the naming issue arose following the merger of Pokrovske Raion into Synelnykove in 2015).  Akakievich ( talk ) 15:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The locality appears in Apple Maps, Google Maps, [12] , Bing Maps.  [13] It is recorded as an existing named place, and they must have got it from some geographical database, presumably from Ukraine’s official data (I can find nothing to confirm it right now: as far as I can tell, Ukrainian public topographic resources are restricted because of the invasion).  — Michael Z .  23:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that the history of it, including its abandonment is unfinished.  Not that there is a lack of proof it exists LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 00:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep, barely The Russian version of the article cites the ukase mentioned above and also cites a map which does show the town as it once existed.  The other key datum (the date of founding) is uncited but probably could be turned up by a determined researcher with better Russian than I have.  The apparent story is of a village set up in the salad days of the Supreme Soviet, which was eventually renamed after its collapse into something a bit more like a real town name, and which went away some years back for reasons unknown.  All of this would constitute OR if it were to be added to the article, but I feel there is just barely enough as it is to justify keeping something.  I have no opinion on the renaming suggestion.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - the 2 keep ! votes are not based on policy, since neither points to an official source actually showing it is a legally recognized place.  Onel 5969 TT me 00:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is an ukase not an official source?  Mangoe ( talk ) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Bruxton ( talk ) 04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I won't oppose a Delete at this time, and let it be recreated if/when WP:GNG is met - I was able to find sources that apparently attest to the village's existance and abandoned status.  I'm not from the area and cannot be 100% sure of the validity of the sources, but assume they exist in good faith until otherwise proven.  Invinting @ Akakievich and Onel5969 : to weigh in.  Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the tag.  My logic is as follows: in order to satisfy WP:GEOLAND , a source is needed which discusses Stepove when it was inhabited .  I haven't been able to find a single detail about Steopve during this period – if you find anything, please share it, because it would change my view.  Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history .  In order to satisfy WP:GNG , an in-depth source is required, which I likewise haven't found.  Akakievich ( talk ) 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Verifiability is met but notability is not.  Stifle ( talk ) 08:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG .  -- Wesoree ( talk · contribs ) 13:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : on basis of comments by Mangoe .  Notability also bolstered by the reliable source pointing toward this village being contested during the Ukraine war, this is enough for GNG.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please could you link to the ""reliable source pointing toward this village being contested during the Ukraine war""?  I can't find it on either this page or the article in question.  Thanks, Akakievich ( talk ) 22:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , listed here as a recognised settlement (ID UA12140050130089429) within Velykomykhailivka rural hromada and thus passes WP:GEOLAND .  Mupper-san ( talk ) 21:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GEOLAND makes provisions only for populated places, therefore I'm not sure it's applicable here.  Akakievich ( talk ) 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Akakievich - I think that the following sentence applies here: ""Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.""  Since this village is abandoned, and apparently legally-recognised according to the ukaz that you mentioned above, I believe that WP:GEOLAND still applies, though I'm unsure as I don't know if there exists any proof that the recognition overlapped with the period in which it was populated, or if such a thing is important (though I'd imagine so).  Mupper-san ( talk ) 04:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Battle of Amman (1970): Article title barely supported by any reliable source.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Jordan ,  and Palestine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Pointless content fork.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The clashes took place in several places other than Amman such as Irbid , Ramtha and Ajlun .  The nominator did not provide any evidence that the article is identical to Black September.  This discussion is unnecessary and it would have been better to focus on other matters.  1 , 2 3 , Dl.thinker ( talk ) 18:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Black September refers to all of these incidents.  Breaking them up into new articles with identical content is called Wikipedia:Content forking .  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 23:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK .  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 02:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Estar8806 : Can you elaborate how it is a CONTENTFORK?  You need to explain. -- Dl.thinker ( talk ) 03:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The conflict began in 1970 and ended in 1971, while this battle extended from September 6 or 17 until September 28. The Black September article is big enough. The creation of the article was based on WP:Splitting .-- Dl.thinker ( talk ) 02:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article Black September isn't actually all that long.  The readable prose size is only 34kB which, according to WP:SPLIT , is not enough to justify a split.  Because of that, any efforts to split should absolutely be discussed rather than boldly done.  This article should be deleted, but I don't see any reason a split discussion can't occur (though I don't see any reason for a split).  estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 04:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this is a CONTENTFORK, but not a POVFORK, then redirect or merge seems in order as an ATD.  Preserving history would facilitate split discussions, and also allow for editors to merge content or examine sources in the future.   — siro χ o 05:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] siro , what target article are you proposing?  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Target Black September .  — siro χ o 02:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick glance at the nom's contributions reveals that there is a potential conflict of interest.  The article is expandable and was still under construction when it was arbitrarily nominated for deletion!  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 02:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dl.thinker , please focus on addressing problems with the article that have been brought up, not by casting aspersions.  That is not a winning tactic in AFD discussions.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : Maybe you should direct this to that editor.  I did not slander them, on the contrary, I said what is clear to everyone.  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 18:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, you are better off focusing on the discussion rather than engaging in ad hominem.  Editors can be subject to discretionary sanctions when editing articles under WP:ARBPIA , such as this one.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 07:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - IMO, it's worth pointing out that this article could be expanded into a large article which can stand on its own: For instance, the battle for the city is discussed in some detail in books like Armed Struggle and the Search for State ; Divided City: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis ; Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 ; and Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace .  So there is enough content for a full overview focused only on this clash instead of the entire Black September.  Of course, the current article lacks this level of detail.  Applodion ( talk ) 12:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:Notability , for a topic to have its own article, it would need to have significant coverage in reliable sources.  I have looked at the mentioned books and none of them have significant coverage of a battle in Amman, other than being mere mention in the first book page 263 ; while second book is an autobiography; no mention of an Amman battle in the third book; and the fourth book doesn't mention a battle in its own right.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 13:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, I'm confused.  How do you not find the battle in these books?  In Armed Struggle and the Search for State , the battle is covered on pages 263-266; in Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 , the battle is discussed on pages 336-340, and in the fourth book it is covered in the ""Civil War"" chapter.  There are also newspaper articles providing details, like this one , this one or this one .  Naturally, there is an overlap with the wider Black September, but at least some sources see the fighting in the city as one operation within the overall war.  Perhaps one issue is the article's name; in different articles and books, the event is also described as ""battle in Amman"", ""clashes of Amman"", ""clashes in Amman"", and ""battle for Amman"".  Applodion ( talk ) 15:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see them but nothing about that content warrants a standalone article.  Wikipedia guideline speaking, notability is yet to be demonstrated by existence of significant coverage in reliable sources.  Every detail about the “battle” or clashes is covered in the Black September article.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it isn't.  The details on the battle itself, such as the back-and-forth clashes over certain locations in Amman, are completely missing from the Black September article (and would not belong into an article on a war anyway).  It's fine if you consider details on urban warfare uninteresting, but claiming that ""every detail"" of this confrontation is covered in the Black September article is just objectively wrong.  Applodion ( talk ) 09:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please show me which sentences or details in this Battle of Amman (1970) article that are not covered in the Black September article?  And please demonstrate how these details warrant a new standalone article, because they are so extensive that they cannot be introduced to the Black September article?  Also and most importantly kindly demonstrate existence of significant coverage on the topic as warranted by WP:Notability , such as for example a dedicated chapter on the clashes/""battle"" in Amman, or even a subchapter?  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 11:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the aforementioned sources (as well as others such as Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict and Patrick Seale 's Assad and Abu Nidal ), the tactical planning of both sides for the battle as well as strategic dimensions are discussed: I.e., how long a battle would take, which forces had to used, which areas should be secured, who planned what and which group had advantages in which area.  This is not featured in detail in the Black September article, and would not fit there either way.  Then there was the actual progression of and conduct of the urban warfare, such as how the Jordanians attempted to retake PLO-held areas with tanks and artillery, and individual clashes for certain areas .  This article could also cover reports by the civilian residents of Amman, who certainly had something to say about their homes getting destroyed .  There were also the sieges of the two hotels, most importantly the Intercontinental Hotel, which are barely mentioned in the Black September article, but received substantial news coverage and could be covered in this article.  Applodion ( talk ) 12:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Intercontinental Hotel siege occurred in 1976 and is not connected to Black September, it could be mentioned if there's a reliable source connecting the two, but it should not be covered in the article.  This does not satisfy guidelines in WP:Notability , which are the criteria to deciding whether or not a topic deserves a dedicated article: 1-""  Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content .""  No significant coverage as demonstrated by lack of dedicated papers, chapters or even subchapters.  2- ""Sources should be secondary sources , as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."" which excludes all the New York Times articles mentioned.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 14:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is established.  We are past that point.  Your arguments are not satisfying.  You pointed out first that it was contentfork and later argument about notability.  There was a clear effort on both sides to impose control over the capital, as it is a center of gravity and includes state institutions.  A great article could be created on this topic and perhaps nominated as good.  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 15:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re.  the hotel comment by Makeandtoss : Just to note this, several sources I found stated that two hotels, including the Intercontinental, were besieged during the fighting in Amman in September 1970.  In fact, one of the journalists mentioned above mentioned it as well; these sieges were not the same as the hostage incidents of 1976.  Applodion ( talk ) 15:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting, didn't know that.  Point remains notability hasn't been established, and the effort in creating this non-notable article involves heavy original research.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 17:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I fail to understand how dozens of sources providing details on this matter is original research.  Not every notable topics needs an entire book devoted to it to matter.  And it's not like that these sources just mention the clashes in passing.  The newspaper articles included as examples above, for instance, are almost exclusively about the battle.  Heck, one is even titled ""JORDANIAN ARMY AND GUERRILLAS BATTLE IN AMMAN"" .  Applodion ( talk ) 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Primary sources cannot demonstrate notability.  For the remaining sources excluding NYT, secondary ones which are few, they don’t even have a subchapter dedicated, thus the content is only extractable via a sentence here and there; i.e. lack of significant coverage and lots of original research.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 00:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we fundamentally disagree on what primary sources are, and what constitutes substantial coverage.  For me, dozens of pages in several scholarly books constitute substantial coverage.  I don't think we will ever agree on this issue.  Applodion ( talk ) 09:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.  It's not what I think, and what you think.  WP:PRIMARY : ""Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event , and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved "".  IAll New York Times articles cited are primary sources.  The rest are not ""dozens of pages"" dedicated to the ""battle"" in Amman, but rather dozens of pages about the Black September conflict, which as the name suggests, is about the fighting that occurred in September 1970, mainly in Amman.  WP:SIGCOV : ""Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail , so that no original research is needed to extract the content. And again, per WP:Notability, notability is yet to be demonstrated by presence of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 10:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand quite well how Wikipedia works. ""A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events"". The newspaper articles of the time didn't just report stuff, they also tried to analyze the situation ; being a newspaper article does not automatically make it a primary source. This is a question of interpretation, and you have a certain view, which I respect but disagree with. And, again, I stand by ""dozens of pages"". In the examples I gave, the focus is often more on what was going on in Amman rather than the ""whole"" Black September which also involved fighting in many other locations. In Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 alone, two pages are devoted to the planning of the battle in Amman, two more to a strategic analysis mainly focused on Amman, and the rest of the Black September section mainly splits its attention between Amman and the Syrian invasion. You consider this a lack in ""significant coverage"", while I would argue that this means the topic was being addressed ""directly and in detail"". Obviously, we interpret it differently. Anyway, we won't agree on this issue, and that's fine. People don't always have to agree. Ultimately, someone else might chime in and voice their support for your or mine position; then we will know whose interpretation was considered more logical. Running circles around each other isn't helping either of us; let's just wait for the vote to come in. Applodion ( talk ) 22:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. An analysis article in 1970 is still a primary source. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 10:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not per Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources : ""Examples of news reports as secondary sources: [...] Analytical reports: [...]  This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an ""analyst"" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information. "" I would argue an analysis by John L. Hess , which is used as example above, qualifies for this. Applodion ( talk ) 13:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the essay, not policy, that you cited: “An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down”. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 20:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I argued based on the essay, as Wikipedia:No original research does not properly define primary sources in relation to newspapers, listing one possible definition by Duke University Libraries as an example which could be used . And for your quote, please note the phrase ""could be read"".  Either way, we can both find arguments for and against our positions in the rules; they were written that way on purpose, to allow for interpretation and exceptions.  I again want to emphasize that I do not think your views are wrong; I merely disagree with them.  Applodion ( talk ) 10:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist given the new sources that have been brought into the discussion that imply a possible expansion of this article so that it is no longer a fork.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Devora Radeva: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Bulgaria .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Nominator nominated 49 of these in 30 minutes.  No discussion has followed.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Gold phosphide: Keres🌕 Luna edits!  20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  Keres🌕 Luna edits!  20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You might be a bit hasty.  A lack of evidence for existence is not evidence that something does not exist.  If you want to claim that AuP [1] it isn't a real thing, you really need to cite contemporary work.   The citations in the extant article are a wee bit long in the tooth.   While the historic claim may have some interesting tidbits someone might dig up, it really is more the fact that there really is such as thing as gold phosphide (even if not AuP, but rather Au 2 P 3 [2] [3] [4] ).  So the page has some definite need since they are spelled the same, even if they are different things.  Per one site ""Gold Phosphide is a  used in high power, high frequency applications and in laser diodes."" [5] I don't have access to the chemistry literature that this page would require.   There isn't anything in PubMed, which includes a lot of primary chemistry literature as well.   So it is pretty obscure, but that doesn't mean we cannot make room for it in our hearts, esp. if it plays some important role, e.g. in high power/high frequency laser diodes.  I would suggest making it a chemistry stub/draft and seeing anyone in the chemistry club wants to adopt it.  The PubChem CID 19094837 is not at all convincing.   Just as a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, having an unambiguous identifier for something doesn't mean its real either.   The two SIDs 56368501 , 162106709 are probably for something real (even if they are the worst entries ever in the history of PubChem).  2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE ( talk ) 06:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) (This is User:DrKC MD editing logged out.  Binksternet ( talk ) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) } [ reply ] American Elements is NOT a reliable source WP:VENDOR , due to their commercial interest.  All the information we can find about it is in archaic literature, when concrete characterization such as X-ray diffraction or even Raman spectroscopy had been developed.  I change my stance to rename to gold phosphides to broaden the scope to other actually characterized gold phosphides like Au 2 P 3 .  [6] Keres🌕 Luna edits!  16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/19094837 ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022459616302675 ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/56368501 ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/162106709 ^ https://www.americanelements.com/gold-phosphide ^ R. Prins; M. E. Bussell (2012).  ""Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity"".  Catalysis Letters .  142 (12): 1413–1436.  doi : 10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7 .  Keep Hypothetical compounds can be notable ( Xenon octafluoride , Nitrogen pentafluoride , ...), and while the sourcing here is not of the first water, it seems easily sufficient to demonstrate minimum required coverage.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 09:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG see [27] [28] [29] -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 15:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this deletion discussion about something called Gold phosphide or about something with the formula AuP?  Most of the hits for the former are for Au 2 P 3 , and people commenting here have interpreted things in different ways.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 15:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This deletion discussion is supposed be something with the formula AuP.  Keres🌕 Luna edits!  16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is exactly the problem, the sources cited all seem to be talking about different things.   References 4 and 5 flatly contradict each other (one says gray solid, one says black with metallic appearance).   Hypothetical compounds can be notable but we would have to make the article about a specific compound and be sure our sources reflect that.   Since I'm not sure we can do that, I would support a rename to gold phosphides and rewriting of the article; failing that, delete.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) Rename to gold phosphides per previous ""keep"" and ""rename"" arguments.  Choucas Bleu ( T · C ) 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Sonic user interface: It doesn't seem to be notable as opposed to individual topics that would fall under this definition such as Screen reader and Virtual assistant .  ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Computing .  ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added some references.  The term also describes the ""voicemail hell"" offered by many call centres as a way of serving customers without getting a human involved.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The question is not whether a few sources which mention the term exist, but whether they are substantial enough to comprise significant coverage and support the content.  Although the sources mention SUI they don't go into detail about the concept itself and none back up the definition given in the article.  Two of them only include the term once.  ― novov (t c) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Is there any distinction between sonic user interfaces and voice user interfaces ?  Might be worth making this page a redirect to voice user interface if there isn't.  🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 22:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to voice user interface .  That is a much more commonly used term.  It is unclear what the difference between a ""sonic user interface"" and ""voice user interface"" actually is, and we don't have sufficient reliable sources to justify drawing such a distinction.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 01:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games – Individual Event: Also fails WP:NOTDB .  I would also support a redirect to Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Malaysia , Myanmar , Singapore ,  and Thailand .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is essentially a list.  The article kind of has to be as it is.  How would this be fit into ( Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games ) considering no other match results are listed there?  The fact that we have any sources at all on this is a feat.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a valid keep reason.  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 18:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sportsfan 1234 - The results are all sourced and we can assume there's more out there, but we also know we have limited access to it currently.  How would this fit any other way?  There's also some additiona references listed on the German page of the competition - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdostasienspiele_1975/Badminton .  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it's common practice to create separate pages for individual and team events to remove burden on the main page.  See other SEA Games Badminton articles where singles, doubles, team all have distinct articles.  You can find more sources when searching for this subject in NewspaperSG .  This is a page related to Southeast Asian Games, where badminton is a hugely popular sport and the mass reporting was done on local newspapers, some of which are available at newspapersg.  So when you say that this is an ""indiscriminate"" collection of facts, you are completely wrong.  It has a high importance when looking it from the view of Badminton World, being a significant regional event.  zoglophie 06:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Blatantly fails WP:NOTDATABASE .  The above claims of ""high importance"" and this being a ""significant regional event"" are not substantiated by the sources themselves, which are all listings of results and contain no prose.  Avilich ( talk ) 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This page is essentially a part of main page as said already, it was separated to reduce the weight on main article.  Also, do you mean nothing knowing that top 5 players of the World at that time participated in this competition?  zoglophie 09:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not how notability works, and split articles are still required to meet GNG.  Avilich ( talk ) 15:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games is not a large enough article that this split is a valid one.  I don't agree with deleting the information, though - just the stand-alone article bit.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This looks like a perfectly valid sub-article, and the sub-article does not necessarily need to meet the general notability guideline if the main event meets it; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handball at the Goodwill Games for a similar discussion.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed on the logic, but the original article is so small no split is necessary.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with 1975 SEAP Games .  The ""parent"" article is very short, so I think the split into different events is premature.  Also, while the content of the article is currently very much on the line of WP:NOTDB I think it's plausible that more information could be found.  The article has only been around for about 6 months now.  Hopefully if the merge goes through, having that info moved out of an obscure sub-article will encourage searches for more in-depth sources.  CarringtonMist ( talk ) 11:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Indian Lakes Estates, California: This location seems to be a subdivision; only passing mentions in ads and legal notices were found.   No secondary coverage at all.   Without legal recognition this site fails WP:GEOLAND and without secondary coverage it fails WP:GNG .   This is another of the many low-effort stubs, sourced only to GNIS (which does not establish notability), created by the user Carlossuarez46 during a brief mass-creation spree in 2009.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - non-notable.  My search found nothing to establish notability.  2 government documents refer to Indian Lakes Estates as a ""subdivision"", confirming WeirdNAnnoyed 's assessment: [21] , [22] .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a third that says the same.  Uncle G ( talk ) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Should have been deleted last time.  Reywas92 Talk 03:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The GNIS record for this doesn't pass verification, and the only source for this is false .   The record reads ""Occidental College. Accessed from classic.oxy.edu on 15 December 2005"".   Noting that classic.oxy.edu just redirects to www.oxy.edu, if we go to http://classic.oxy.edu at the Wayback Machine (archived 2005-12-15) there is not a mention of ""Indian Lakes Estates"" there.   I have brought this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GNIS regurgitators .   We seem to have a bunch of things that someone put into the GNIS saying them to be from Occidental College that fail verification against the WWW site that they are purported to come from.  Looking around, I find a commercial map from 1966 showing that this is the name of a small housing development which the map says is in Coarsegold, California , and that latter is the actual name of the place.   Which agrees with where the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino seems to think that it itself is, despite what was argued in the prior AFD discussion.  Sadly, the prior AFD discussion also argued that this must be a distinct place because From Indian Lakes is named after it.   But the source in that article itself says ""in a small mountain community just outside Yosemite National Park"", and doesn't actually support what our article says.  Coarsegold, California is ""a small mountain community just outside Yosemite National Park"".  The penultimate nail in the coffin is that a Fresno State College document from 1972 by R. R. Mead turns up in a search, listing this as a subdivision of ""Coarsegold South"".   This is exactly the ""just suburban neighborhood"" mentioned in the prior AFD discussion.  The final nail in the coffin is that the external hyperlink to Google in the prior AFD discussion turns up only a horse ranch in Nevada, an apartment block, and Pangong Tso (a lake in India!).   Vague handwaves in the direction of Google are not citing sources.  It's incredibly tedious cleaning up GNIS mess at this level, especially in the wake of vague handwave zero research AFD discussion.  Uncle G ( talk ) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as additional sources verify this is a ""real"" unincorporated community near Coarsegold of 485 homes (2000 Fresno Bee article says 485; 2016 article says ""about 500"").  Newspapers.com finds coverage over the years about the Indian Lakes Estates water distribution system and concerns about sharing water and Road 417 with the Chukchansi casino.  Pinging Uncle G for giving up too easily.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the work you put into finding those news articles.   At least now the article says something .   Still, those references are just trivial news reports on mundane community matters that happen in every settlement of any size: Someone is worried about traffic.   Not everyone wants the new business in town.   None of it really describes the community in any meaningful sense.   Perhaps I'm splitting hairs but I think WP:NOTNEWS applies here.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Trivial to you, perhaps, but significant enough to merit dedicated coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, and I would hardly call development of a casino next door as WP:ROUTINE .  Also WP:NOTNEWS applies to current events and does not apply here.  Maybe you've been staring at these @ Carlossuarez46 stubs too much – happens to the best of us.  I suggest slowing down and/or getting more cross-training in other parts of Wikipedia.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The development of a casino next door is most definately routine coverage.  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Going to make it noted that this is not its own unincorporated community, but rather a neighborhood fully-within the Coarsegold CDP.  Don't know if that makes it any less notable or not, but maybe the article for it could somehow be merged into the Coarsegold article, if so.  Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As of 2003, Indian Lakes Estates was an unincorporated community per Fresno Bee .  When did it become part of Coarsegold CDP?  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to this census map , Indian Lakes Estates does NOT appear to be part of Coarsegold CDP (14288), but rather, lying outside of it.  (At first I thought it was considered part of T2775 or Picayune RNIA T2775 (and maybe it is)...but this map has all the streets of Indian Lakes Estates lying slightly outside of that, too (where all the letters are).  @ Uncle G Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the coverage found and expansion work by Cielquiparle.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Delete- I am going to have to agree with WeirdNAnnoyed , the coverage found is either non-sigcov, or just news.  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 14:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How many towns and community articles on Wikipedia have information about their relations with local Native American tribes?  Not many.  It's a fairly unique story.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 19:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting rather than closing this as No consensus (yet).  I do want to applaud editor participating in these location/place discussions whatever your stance is, you do much more research into the article subject than I see in most AFDs.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to Coarsegold, California .  I'm going to approach this from a ruthlessly logical perspective.  Either this is what we colloquially know as a ""subdivision"" and it's part of another legally recognized sub-county-level place, such as Coarsegold and can be merged in part; or the term ""subdivision"" is being used by sources in a different way (perhaps as a stand-in for ""administrative subdivision"" or ""political subdivision""?), and this is a legally recognized unincorporated community and should be kept by WP:POPULATED .  — siro χ o 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Unity Christian Music Festival: Can't find any reliable sources that even mention it.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 00:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Religion .  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 00:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's several more mlive links and at least two more presumably RS listed in the 'news' tab of find sources, above.  Not what I expected to find, but it appears to be an ongoing thing with regional coverage.  Jclemens ( talk ) 01:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The other sources under news don't really seem fully reliable to me.  If MLive is the only RS (which it might not be), I would argue an issue of WP:GEOSCOPE .  According to Google Trends, the only people who look it up are from Michigan, and specifically Muskegon and Norton Shores.  It doesn't seem notable at all outside of these two small cities.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please explain the disconnect between this and your nomination statement, Can't find any reliable sources that even mention it.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant ""other sources,"" obviously excluding anything already in the article.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 06:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Christianity ,  and Michigan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as MLive Media Group seems to be a reliable  source as they publish articles from their physical newspapers and Grand Rapids Magazine is also most likely a reliable source, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Lord Roem ~ ( talk ) 15:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Marta Paoletti: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Italy .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"English for Integrated Studies: It was deleted in 2009 after an AfD, and has bee in CAT:NN for 14 years.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Huh.  I was going to ask about the previous AfD, but apparently that was raised by me, back in 2009.  Anyway, in the 15 years since, it appears to have been subject of a huge amount of academic papers (check the Google Scholar results), so things have certainly changed.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 10:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I can't read the article or sources closely enough right now to be sure, but this really does look like a notable topic based on my search results - lots and lots of them.  But anyone making a keep argument should be careful to check that sources aren't pay-to-publish journals.  I noticed Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences in the list.  Pretty sure that's a plausible-sounding but fake/predatory journal.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Thonburi University , a university publication. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 14:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion on extant sourcing regarding this article's subject would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Donald Maclean, 1st Laird of Brolas: Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (the 3rd Laird of Torloisk has a second genealogical book reference, also written by a Maclean): Lauchlan Maclean, 2nd Laird of Brolas ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Donald Maclean, 3rd Laird of Brolas ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Lachlan Og Maclean, 1st Laird of Torloisk ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Hector Maclean, 2nd Laird of Torloisk ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Lachlan Maclean, 3rd Laird of Torloisk ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Donald Maclean, 5th Laird of Torloisk ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) John Dubh Maclean, 1st Laird of Morvern ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Ewen Maclean, 9th Laird of Ardgour ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the 2009 output of an editor with extremely problematic understanding of sourcing , these do not meet WP:NOTGENEALOGY .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 10:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep/merge Arguments for deletion are A) only one source, but the ones I've looked at have more than one.  B) The last name of the author is the same as the BIO topic.  C) The author of the articles had significant issues with notability, which is not a reason for deletion.   Things appear to meet WP:N and no accurate and policy/guideline based rule has been given and at least some of the articles appear to meet WP:N.   That said, merging topics by the area they were Laird of would be a reasonable way forward.  Or into an article on such areas.  Hobit ( talk ) 14:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rebuttal .  BIO isn't a ""policy/guideline""?  Also, I don't know which articles you've been looking at, but - as I stated - only one has a second (dubiuous) source, and both being written by Macleans implies that they're not neutral/independent.  I've removed one entry, as I didn't notice that the 2nd Laird represented his shire.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [13] has three sources.   And I don't think being a descendent of someone from 400 years ago makes John_Patterson_MacLean a non-independent author.   I did miss the link to WP:BIO due to the (fairly amusing, I will admit) joke, my fault.   Still, I tend to believe that 100s year old historical figures should have a much lower bar for inclusion and I stick by the notion that merging folks by area they were laird of would be a fine way forward.  Hobit ( talk ) 16:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- While I have only checked the primary article nominated, I see nothing in this but genealogical info.   I see no substantial reason to object to the one source for COI or as a non-RS.   However Bio-articles need to record what a person has done, not merely that they existed and had relatives.   Being a laird is not a title of nobility, only gentry.   My reason for deletion is that the subject is NN.   Possibly the subjects could be listed in the articles on the places of which they were lairds.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"UL 365: Sources in article are primary, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS , addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source that meets WP:GNG .  I am also nominating the following related pages: UL 2610 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) UL 294 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Standards_for_Alarm_Systems,_Installation,_and_Monitoring ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Never used talk pages before, is this how we ""talk"".  I need to google many of the terms in your talk comments?  Reply No need for Google, I have wikilinked the above terms and you might find Wikipedia:Glossary helpful for any other terms you come across.  // Timothy :: talk 23:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Will be back in about 20 hours, and will reply then.  Some things may be a bit circular at the moment, please bear with me. I am adding the content as I can at work, estimating a week.  Background, I am a security architect, and for work I needed the information I am authoring.  I am not affiliated with UL.  I have discovered that the information I and my colleagues needed, is (mostly) not found on the internet.  It is many, many closed areas.  I feel this information should be in Wikipedia as #3 of the Wikipedia:Five_pillars states.  I am privileged to have access to many of the usges of these standards, and the standards themselves.  Theses standards are an unseen impact on security, but very large impact they do have.  See businesswire.com's ""Global Alarm Monitoring Market Report 2021 Market to Reach 57.7 Billion by 2026"" [3] for some ideas as to the scope.  Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline I see ""If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.""  Maybe the items I am putting together should go in one page.  But ""Wikipedia has no firm rules"" Jpyeron ( talk ) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, regarding the secondary sources - there are many non public secondary sources.  At the same time a standard is measured not by its citations, but by its usage.  Look at many devices, see the stickers?  Here you can see all the companies saying they are compliant with UL 2610: [4] https://www.google.com/search? as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22UL+2610%22#ip=1 Jpyeron ( talk ) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to continue spending my time improving the content, but I would like to get some community consensus on that the articles are kept or merged .  I am thinking they should be merged in to one page covering the security standards.  Based on my reading of WP:GNG it is not applicable (passes), and WP:SIRS is uniquely narrow for this case.  Again, 5th pillar.  Can someone cite specifics?  Will follow up in a day.  Jpyeron ( talk ) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see the AFD is now classified as ""could not be categorised due to insufficient information in the article"".  I want to continue putting in the information, but: I do not have responses to my above clarifications, and I am not going to put significant investment if it is just going to be deleted.  If the insufficient information is the reason, isn't incubation the proper remedy?  Jpyeron ( talk ) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will merge the articles tomorrow, the new article will have this AFD at the top and the other pages will redirect to it.  I think this addresses the ""You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to ""hide"" the old content from scrutiny by the community.""  The new merged article Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring will also eventually have other non-UL items, such as ISO/IEC 22237-6:2024 .  I will follow up tomorrow.  Jpyeron ( talk ) 21:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Friday got away from me, doing the merge now.  creating Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring and then setting the redirects.  Jpyeron ( talk ) 17:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure if you know, but you left the article deletion tag in the new article.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I did put it there on purpose, because ""removal is not allowed"" until consensus.  The new article is a merger of the old 3.  Jpyeron ( talk ) 18:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have completed the merger and redirects - I will follow up Monday Jpyeron ( talk ) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: We need more participants here besides the content creator and the nominator.  It looks like the nominator didn't set up any deletion sorting, can a helpful editor like Wcquidditch take care of that for this discussion?  Many thanks.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Engineering , Technology ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominated articles were merged and changed into a redirects two days ago.  It's discussed in the above ""thread"" but that's just Jpeyron making a series of comments and nobody objecting.  I don't think this is how things are supposed to be done even as part of a good faith effort to resolve the deletion rationale.  I think the appropriate thing is for @ Jpyeron to revert the changes and then propose a merge with a rationale given.  The merge article can be moved to draftspace.   Note that there are rules about WP:Copying within Wikipedia that may also be at play.  Oblivy ( talk ) 01:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to do so, it is hard to do the right thing in a vacuum.  Regarding the merge, I created the pages separate, but after reading up on the AfD and associated items the merger process seemed to be the best logical organization.  But I am a bit confused on the ""copying"" thing.  See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed .  Note, this week is going to very busy for me, had dedicated time last week for putting the content in.  More time after 3-Jun.  Jpyeron ( talk ) 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In general, the preference is for leaving pages for deletion in place so they can be assessed by participating editors.  On the other hand (and I do this a lot), editors are encouraged to work on improving articles to prevent deletion.  It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect.  I guess copying rule doesn't apply.  I hadn't looked through the history to see that you were the only editor of those pages.  I'm happy to vote merge -- it does seem to be a good outcome, and if one of the sub-subjects turns out to be notable someone can create a WP:FORK over your redirect page.   In which case the copying rule would apply!  Oblivy ( talk ) 05:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would prefer merge as well.  re: ""It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect."" it is why I added the AFD to the top of the new.  Should I revert?  It is much easier to edit in the new doc, and continue to add to it.  I am going to hold off on the busy work reversion until there is a clear request/preference to revert.  Jpyeron ( talk ) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge General members of the public rely on alarm system standards to assess the quality, safety, and effectiveness of systems they procure, often looking for certification marks to ensure trust in these products.  This article provides an overview of these standards to satisfy the curiosity of those who wish to understand the gist without delving into technical details.  For industry stakeholders, it highlights how adherence to these standards facilitates compliance and maintains a competitive edge, serving as a gateway for further detailed exploration of specific standards and best practices.  Jpyeron ( talk ) 16:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Please clarify for me, what is the Merge target article here?  It can't be one that is also nominated for AFD deletion.  Are all articles to be Merged to the same target article?  Please be very specific on what outcome you want and do not usurp the discussion and Merge and Redirect before this discussion is closed.  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, this was discussed above.  I am new to this process and trying to do the most meaningful work.  Do you want me to revert the redirects at this time?  Do you want me to remove the AFD from the new target article ?  Jpyeron ( talk ) 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz as far as I can see, @ Jpyeron created a set of pages for these UL specifications, then when @ TimothyBlue nominated them for deletion they in good faith decided to merge them into a single larger article at [Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring]].  When it was relisted, I tried to untangle this and got frustrated by the redirects, which led to my comment above.  A comment which could have been more welcoming of the efforts as I can't see why the combined article wouldn't be a better outcome assuming it's properly sourced.  @ Jpyeron I can't speak for Liz, but I think the AfD notice should be removed.  You pasted it in when you created the merge article.   I'm going to be bold and remove it as it doesn't belong to that article.  Oblivy ( talk ) 02:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Zack Cooper: Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability.  I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written.  Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , California , New Jersey ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete I don't find anything independent about him.  In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on ""Zack Cooper"" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals.  If you add ""Japan"" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits.  There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits.  (In VIAF he's ""Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c  (Researcher in security studies)‏"".  With the 2 keep ! votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed.  Lamona ( talk ) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Thanks, I overlooked that.  I still don't think he meets NPROF.  His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors.  I see no indication that meets: ""The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.""  I don't see awards.  For AUTH we have "" is known for originating a significant new concept,"" ""has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"".  Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough.  I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge.  Lamona ( talk ) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is certainly a borderline case.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify.   With respect to @ Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline.   No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc.  Oblivy ( talk ) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations.  What do you think of it?  I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]].  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] I don't see a google scholar link.   Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability?   Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability.  Oblivy ( talk ) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text.  It will work if you click it.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches?  I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy ( talk ) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per WP:NPROF #1.  clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [33] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. -- hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ...  I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper ( via Google Scholar ), as this is one  of the main elements of contention.   The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies ) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper.  Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record.  The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security ) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist.   Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance.   With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author: with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy , the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.  2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies , this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.  ...and so on.   My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF 's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey.  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers.  What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page.  The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area.  In this sense, the subject is clearly notable.  128.252.210.1 ( talk ) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as ""No consensus"".  As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What are your reasons?  See the note on your talk page by Liz.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Comment .  The delete ! votes further up are heavily focused on evaluation per PROF, but, as I said above, foreign policy and/or govt/ngo analysts do not fit neatly under this heading.  Much of their work is not circulated publicly like academic work, so tends not to have the same citation statistics, and may even be classified in certain instances.  Most of these folks would not be notable under PROF, though Cooper arguably is.  Here, I think further weight should be put on the article creator's record as an expert in this area, the high-level positions this person has held at DoD etal, and the fact that in several other WP articles in this space refer to him by name.  128.252.154.1 ( talk ) 18:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PS .  I am 128.252.210.1 above.  128.252.154.1 ( talk ) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this is an interesting policy question.  We have policies for WP:ANYBIO , which requires evidence that the person has ""made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"".  It isn't clear to me how we would determine that.  Assuming that we don't look at this as a WP:NPROF then we have WP:AUTHOR .  That has ""The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"" and then ""known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique..."".  Unfortunately it doesn't say how we determine that the person has had the requisite impact on their field.  One way is to look for citations, another would be awards.  The only other way to determine this, AFAIK, would be if there are articles about the person in reliable sources that make this case.  With this person, what evidence do we have to make this determination?  Lamona ( talk ) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as someone who can make a prima facie claim to being regarded as an important figure and/or has published impactful publications.  Also it's good the article doesn't suffer too badly from hype language.   Trying to measure impact by citation count, asking whether co-publications count the same, etc., runs the risk of driving the discussion into a kind of pseudo-empiricism that masks the larger question of whether he has enough notable real-world activity that the encyclopedia benefits from having verifiable information about him.  I'd rather this close as keep than no consensus, as NC tends to invite do-overs and the way forward will be no more clear nxzt time (unless he gets a named chair or something) Oblivy ( talk ) 01:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Leslie Butterfield: No evidence of WP:notability under SNG or GNG.    Basically a promotional -resume.   The lead just says that he is a British brand and communications expert.  The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him.   Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source.  Some concern that the creator has 28 lifetime edits, all on this article.   Article was tagged for UPE concern by somebody else and the tag was quickly removed by an IP.   The IP that removed it has 2 lifetime edits...one removing the tag and the other putting a link at another article to this article.  North8000 ( talk ) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Advertising ,  and United Kingdom .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I looked at a couple of sources and they do seem weak: mostly quoting him on other things and mentioning him briefly, but he appears to have been awarded the Order of the British Empire ?  Mrfoogles ( talk ) 03:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Being a commander of the Order of the British Empire is a strong hint that he's notable.  The article 2007_Birthday_Honours#Commander_of_the_Order_of_the_British_Empire_(CBE) includes a listing for Leslie Paul Butterfield , Managing Partner, The Ingram Partnership.  For services to the Advertising Industry.  See also https://www.campaignindia.in/article/interbrands-global-chief-strategy-officer-relocates-to-china/418253/amp and https://en.everybodywiki.com/Leslie_Butterfield_CBE (unreliable source but good for context).  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be nice to know what it was awarded to him for, though.  The current sources could be better.  Mrfoogles ( talk ) 03:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A CBE has usually been considered to be notable per WP:ANYBIO #1.  See here .  People are not awarded such a high honour for nothing.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . ""CBE"" is prestigious title and award. Meets WP:ANYBIO . Maxcreator ( talk ) 21:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral . I don't think an article about a person should be kept purely on the strength of a CBE. Dozens are given out every year. The article needs to make a claim of notability. At present it reads like a CV. Deb ( talk ) 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, looking at it again, I think it's obvious that there's an undeclared COI here and I'm going to tag the article accordingly. 07:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Dozens every year in a country of 67 million is not many! These are highly prestigious honours. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I think that wp:notability does unofficially take real world notability into account a bit, for biographies the core of it is about available of GNG sources from which to build an article.   As I noted in the nomination ""The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him.  Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source. "" Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 15:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here.  Either a being award a CBE is sufficient or it isn't.  Is there any specific guideline on honors such as this and notability?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral - I added the Authority control template at the bottom of the article.   For what it's worth, that did kick up VIAF hits in multiple languages that show his woks are in various international libraries.   Seems to me that makes him notable.  — Maile ( talk ) 14:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Neutral.   I am not British.  and not knowledgeable on the subject matter.  — Maile ( talk ) 15:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Isaac Roosevelt (businessman): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , as FDR's grandfather it would be nice to keep the page, so hopefully more about his life will be added.  He did own the Isaac Roosevelt House , so seemed very successful.  The page just needs the reasons why.  Maybe this RfD can be mentioned on the FDR talk page and other pages to possibly attract editors who would know more about this Roosevelt.  Thanks.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I added a career section with relevant details to his education, medical career and farm.  I think the article should not be deleted but be renamed to ""Isaac Roosevelt (physician)"" or ""Isaac Roosevelt (farmer)"" DACC23 ( talk ) 17:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DACC23 : Thanks for the hard work here!  Do you have thoughts on which of the new sources meet WP:SIGCOV ?  I took a look at the references I can access, and they seem to be minor mentions in much larger works.  For example, the Chicago Tribune article focuses on the family's larger history and has this to say about Isaac in total: "" James' son, another Isaac, preferred a less public life. He studied medicine, married Mary R. Aspinwall, and to them was born James, father-to-be of Franklin Delano. "" For another, the death notice is two sentences long.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DACC23 : Making sure you've seen this ask.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now meets GNC after excellent work by DACC23.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 10:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have these numerous ongoing nominations of U.S. presidential relatives at least been listed on their presidential talk pages?  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 05:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Roosevelt family .   None of the sources have any in depth coverage that I can see.   The NYT death announcement is a mere notice not an obituary; and his mentions in the family history pieces by Life and the Chicago Tribune are just a couple of sentences.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 04:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 11:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to the history section of Isaac Roosevelt House .  BD2412 T 20:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Three relistings?  Should be a no consensus at minimum.  As for merging to his house, hopefully ""merge"" means that almost all of the article will be moved to that page (""merge"" is much more than a redirect, it's the merging of two related pages without losing any information or cites).  But there seems enough here to meet GNG.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Randy Kryn , there would probably be fewer relistings if we had more editors participating in AFD discussions.  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - we have to make a judgement call and I think on such cases we should lean towards inclusion.  The fact that the subject's house may be considered less controversial in terms of notability than its owner seems ridiculous in my opinion, and indeed that article would be something of an orphan (although not technically an orphan article) without this article connecting it to articles for more famous relatives such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Roosevelt family .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Nemglan (Gaelic God): Two sources in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.  BEFORE showed mentions, but nothing with SIGCOV.  No objection to a redirect to Conaire Mor .  // Timothy :: talk 01:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Ireland .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or (as AtD and per nom) redirect to Conaire Mór .  Of the sources in the stub, only one even mentions the subject by name.  The other describes the subject as an 'indistinct figure in Celtic myth'.  Hardly a ringing endorsement.  As per the nom, my own WP:BEFORE throws up a few sources where the mythical (fictional) character is mentioned - but only in passing and always in association with Conaire Mór or Mess Búachalla .  And often, at that, not even by name.  A redirect to a related character or topic would be in keeping with related convention for fictional characters (as discussed in the WP:NFICT essay).  Guliolopez ( talk ) 02:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Actually, a WP:BEFORE search shows a lot of hits.  Many of them only give a short description.  But e.g. The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore , p. 354, and Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology , p. 246, each have a paragraph directly on the deity.  So by no means a mention in passing.  As Wikipedia aims to be a general and specialized encyclopedia, if these specialized encyclopedias have an entry on Nemglan, so should we.  Granted, neither of those is very long, and the second is partially based on the first, but they still already allow is to write a short, reliably sourced article.  But we can actually write more: Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies , p. 75, has some commentary how Nemglan relates to kingship.  "" Shades of Arthur: The Irish Legend of Conaire "" comments on the name Nemglan and the relationship of the figure to older Greek deities, as does Heroic Saga and Classical Epic in Medieval Ireland .  ""Shades of Arthur"" also tells us ""For a further discussion on the figure of Nemglan, see Tom Sjöblom, “Advice from a Birdman: Ritual Injunctions and Royal Instructions in TBDD” (1996).""  So while I could not access that myself, an academic paper tells us that there is more in-depth discussion still.  And these were just a small selection which I have actually looked at.  Daranios ( talk ) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: @ TimothyBlue : I have now supported things with what I assume are reliable secondary sources, which I think solves your first objection.  I hope listing all those sources above solves the second.  What do you think?  Daranios ( talk ) 10:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Conaire Mór .  Firstly, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this figure was a god of the ancient Irish.  Secondly, he only appears briefly in the tale of Conaire Mór's birth in Togail Bruidne Dá Derga .  That article could and should be expanded a great deal, with sections about its themes and characters.  Mess Búachalla could also be merged into Conaire Mór.  – Asarlaí ( talk ) 13:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asarlaí : At least some secondary sources like this paper or The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore call Nemglan a god (perhaps in a wide interpretation of ""otherwordly figure""?), so I think the article should contain that.  I don't think this needs to be in the title, though.  I think we should move this to Nemglan to reflect that the figure is not always recognized as a god, and because it's simpler, and because there is no more prominent topic of the same name.  Daranios ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Conaire Mór .  Hansen Sebastian Talk 17:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I was hoping to see some assessment of the sources brought up in this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Conaire Mór .  Spleodrach ( talk ) 10:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A WP:BEFORE search is more than enough to demonstrate notability.  Pladica ( talk ) 4:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no conensus here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As nom, I think Merge with Conaire Mór a good AtD.  // Timothy :: talk 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To note admin, TimothyBlue is nominator.  She (never 'he') wants to vote twice even titled as 'comment'.  49.237.39.216 ( talk ) 00:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep Clearly notable god and rename to Nemglan .  A quick WP:BEFORE search brings up dozens of sources [37] , way more than enough to demonstrate notability.  His single entry can be found at The Celtic Encyclopedia , Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology and many more.  Why people are using AfD as a weapon?  49.237.39.216 ( talk ) 00:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Sources that support that view follow: O'Connor, R. (2013).  The Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel: Kingship and Narrative Artistry in a Mediaeval Irish Saga.  United Kingdom: OUP Oxford.  (28 mentions over 9 pages, no question this is significant coverage)  Mountain, H. (1998).  The Celtic Encyclopedia.  United States: Universal Publishers.  (half a page, debatable, but I'd call it significant coverage)  Bane, T. (2013).  Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology.  United States: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers.  (only a paragraph, but I think enough to bolster notability)  Plus a lot of mentions in Google Books.  Weak because only one of the sources above is unquestionably SIGCOV.  CT55555 ( talk ) 01:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Colleen Brown (artist): As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books .  But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, ""staff"" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc.  -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.  Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Authors , Women ,  and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions.  Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia.  (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of ""Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:"" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024 , so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.)  Pam D 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.  And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her.  And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims.  Bearcat ( talk ) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability?   As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations.  Pam D 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station.  So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.  It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency , so they're still affiliated sources.  The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement .  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, reluctantly.  It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries.  I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article.  Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found.  Curiocurio ( talk ) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep per PamD .  This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview.  BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry.  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown.  Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision.  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST .  The nominator's report is spot on.  After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion.  Wikipedia is not a directory of artists , nor a collection of indiscriminate information .  And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] why are you discarding the CBC interview?  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What adequate sources?  I see exactly one.  Curiocurio ( talk ) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage.  Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline.  Don't we have more serious things to worry about?  Carrite ( talk ) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional.  She has very little reliable third-party coverage.  Swordman97 talk to me 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references.  Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability (""She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials."") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI.  2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E ( talk ) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not finding any RS online to add to the article.  She does exist as an author and artist but fails WP:Artist .  WP:TOOSOON .  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] above people mentioned Guleph Today and CBC, both are RS FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist , her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ♠ PMC ♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say ""passed xyz standard"", or ""fails XYZ standard"" is handy to have.   But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist.  Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment.    Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one.  As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here.  We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other.   I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'll concur with Maile66.  I see sufficient anchoring sourcing (Guleph Today and CBC) and plenty of less independent stuff (which may be used to detail the subject once NOTE is met, which I now assert).  Given the usual dearth of direct detailing of visual artists in media, this sourcing is pretty good.  BusterD ( talk ) 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Homophobia in ethnic minority communities : If we keep this article, it definitely needs to be renamed or split off into two on the US and UK (and deleting the current title).  Thoughts?  GnocchiFan ( talk ) 19:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Ethnic groups ,  and Sexuality and gender .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or WP:TNT or rename , the entire premise of the article is problematic, for the reasons outlines by @ GnocchiFan CT55555 ( talk ) 20:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United States and United Kingdom , then.  The topic in those two countries is well-researched.  Homophobia in countries where homophobia is government policy might be covered better in a separate article or series of articles.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does the research focus on that topic (the homophobia within ethnic minorities in the UK and US"" collectively?) CT55555 ( talk ) 02:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename - The claim that the article is inherently NPOV is problematic; it implies either that the concept of homophobia is itself impossible to discuss without a POV, or that it becomes impossible within the context of minority populations. Neither is true. There are unique drivers (and lots of unique RSs) within all sorts of minority communities. As for the US/UK centric, deleting an article for that reason will leave us with a very small encyclopaedia. This should be a fork from Homophobia that deals with Homophobia in Minority Communities as a whole. The Homophobia article is already too long, and there is enough distinction in RS for a valid fork if we remove the 'ethnic' limiter. 'Ethnic' is, itself, a problematic term as well. Removing 'ethnic' might expand the editor pool to communities where 'ethic' might be problematic: Are Dalits ethnics? How about the Afd and III Path or anyone else on the Radical Right in any country? Widening the scope might widen the editor pool. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This seems to be a textbook case of either WP:DINC or WP:DIC : Why not include examples from latin american countries? Iterresise ( talk ) 22:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Split : Not sure if this one can be saved via WP:TNT , because the term ""ethnic minority"" completely depends on the subject countries. This article generally only covers two countries where the ethnicities discussed are minorities, therefore I find it more appropriate to split the article into Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom and Homophobia in ethnic minority communities in the United States to at least have some sense of WP:NPOV . Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Incorrect. The title is neutral. The problem is the lack of examples outside of the United States and the United Kingdom. ""ethnic minority communities"" is correct. On the other hand, we wouldn't say ""deaf minority communities"" even though the deaf community is a minority. Iterresise ( talk ) 16:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hence my suggestion to remove the 'ethnic' adjective entirely. If this were simply renamed Homophobia in Minority Communities , it would broaden the base of editors who might contribute, including communities like those with hearing or visually impairment, various stripes of social separatists, castes and classes, etc., none of which are clear-cut ethnicities. Regardless, this is not a ripe article for deletion; it is an opportunity to improve our encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So this would include sexual minorities including bisexuals and homosexuals who are homophobic since they are minorities and some of them form their own communities. I guess that would make sense since some homosexuals are confused before them come out.... What is the point of changing the title and thus/therefore the scope of the article when the research is about ethnicity and race? Iterresise ( talk ) 17:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there are RS on self-fear amongst homosexuals of homosexuals, I think it would be a good addition to a wider, more robust, more sustainable article. The point of changing the title and thus/therefore the scope of the article when the research is about ethnicity and race would be to expand the scope of the article and thus improve the pool of sources (and especially editors) whose contributions would improve Wikipedia. It is possible that the sources are about ethnicity and US/UK-centric because the intersectionality of race and seuxality are at the centre of the culture war in both countries. Perhaps widening the scope would open the door to diverse RSs (and editors) focused on homophobia by socioeconomic segment, caste, class, disability, etc. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It might, but the scope is about ""Homophobia in ethnic minority communities"" [own emphasis].  This phenomenon is found in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, etc.  .  Homophobia in the disability community is uncommon and probably nonexistent.  They face work discrimination and that is their primary concern.  Iterresise ( talk ) 21:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I understand the current scope of the article.  I think the scope definition is a key part of the problem here, and the reason that this is even under consideration for AfD.  I proposed renaming it to expand that scope.  Yes, getting more input from other parts of the Anglosphere would be great (and, yes, I know what et cetera means), but I don't think adding to the 'width' of worldview is enough to make this a viable, valuable article without added depth.  It's too shallow and too easy to fall into the US/UK culture war churn.  FYI: Your assertion that Homophobia in the disability community is uncommon and probably nonexistent is profoundly misguided as I can tell you from personal experience even though I haven't searched for RS on that.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 00:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any RSs to support your assertion?  Iterresise ( talk ) 14:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  This article is either irredeemable or the start of a worthwhile, expanded article.  More opinions would help.  Also, a discussion about a possible rename can occur if this article is Kept, it's important not to think it has to happen simultaneously with this deletion discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename Elttaruuu ( talk ) 14:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, split or rename This is not a case where deletion improves anything.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Elastic scoring : A redirect to Arrangement might be appropriate.  Noahfgodard ( talk ) 01:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:10, 10 April 2023 (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 02:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Dead Hendrix : Started in 2020 and I see no charted music, albums release on major record labels, or significant coverage.  There is a good article in The Source but one article is not enough to establish notability.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Canada .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - This is a reluctant vote because the rapper surely has an overactive hype team swamping the internet with promotional junk like how he's ""taking over"" (e.g. [2] ).  But he has gotten some real notice from reliable magazines, including The Source (already cited), which contrary to the nominator's statement, is not the only one out there and is instead just the only one currently in the article.  Here are some more appearances in the reliable or semi-reliable music media: [3] , [4] ; while the collab with Levi Zadoff has gotten a fair amount of attention: [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] .  It's quite early in his career and coverage is limited to just a couple of releases, but he may have enough for a stub article here under a lenient reading of WP:SIGCOV .  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first two sources you link to are clearly marked as being written by a publicist.  The rest is about a collab and not in-depth about the subject of this page.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Read the vote more carefully.  I said the first link was unreliable hype, and described the second as ""semi-reliable"" and it is now dead regardless.  I don't think you're correct about the collab-related sources not covering Dead Hendrix, but my vote is a reluctant ""Weak Keep"" anyway.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did read what you wrote carefully.  The problem is that I did not state clearly what I meant and apologize for such.  I was referring to the first two sources that you stated were reliable (one of which you stated semi-reliable).  Both links are working and both were written by publicists.  Hope that clarifies. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not enough coverage, I've tried to find mentions in sources here [9] but nothing else comes up.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning keep per Doomsdayer.  I think the coverage is just about enough to justify the stub.  NotAGenious ( talk ) 08:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point out the coverage that you feel shows notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN ? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source article is certainly good, but the collab articles (esp. 5, 6, 7) look convincing, as they are non-trivial, more than Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates .  But, if needed we can send back to draft, as coverage can indeed be further developed overtime.  NotAGenious ( talk ) 17:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft .  This strikes me as a bit of a WP:TOOSOON case, but one for which future developments lending to notability are at least plausible.  BD2412 T 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify as was the case until recently.  This is no reflection on NotAGenious, as there is slim credibility in some of the sources provided, however I concur with concerns around the origin of some of the source material.  I am also not seeing how this is passing WP:MUSICBIO at present.  Sending back to draft not only affords a little more time to see if stronger references surface, but also respects the weak keeps as the article isn't deleted outright.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Mazakuka mosque shooting : Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Terrorism ,  and Nigeria .  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Given the political situation in Nigeria, this almost certainly can be selectively merged/redirected somewhere (and given the relatively high death toll and the fact it's terrorism I feel it should be noted, somewhere, though not as its own article) however there is not enough detail in the article itself for me to suggest a target.  Hm.  I'll look into that later.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT .  LibStar ( talk ) 10:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Satisfies WP:GNG .  Seventeen deaths is significant.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The number of deaths is not a criterion for notability and needs lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT . LibStar ( talk ) 22:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Say that about any such attack in a western country and you'd be laughed out of court! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As an admin you should know it's not a criterion.  Secondly, WP:NOTNEWS overrides GNG, otherwise every event reported in the news would get an article.  Have you found any lasting coverage?  LibStar ( talk ) 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Really?  WP:SYSTEMIC isn't a criterion now?  I beg to differ.  And since when does anything override GNG?  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 07:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There was a fire near my home that was reported in the media, it may satisfy GNG but it is definitely a case of not news. Have you found any evidence of lasting coverage of this shooting? Did you bother to look? LibStar ( talk ) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article may meet GNG but consensus is showing NOTNEWS. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Ujjain rape case . LibStar ( talk ) 08:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relevant how? A single rape against the multiple murder of seventeen people. Both horrendous but not comparing like with like. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 20:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] knowing you, you would argue GNG in this rape case.  Have you found any evidence of lasting coverage of this shooting?  LibStar ( talk ) 22:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How about this shooting?  2023 Beverly Crest shooting , meets GNG but NOTNEWS applies.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I take it from you avoiding the question of finding lasting coverage of this shooting that you did a thorough search and could not find anything.  Or you'll invent some sort of excuse.  If 17 deaths is significant, is 2 or 3 deaths insignificant?  Or if you can point to a notability criteria that grants notability for 17 deaths.  Thanks in advance.  LibStar ( talk ) 08:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] knowing you, you would argue GNG in this rape case.  You don't know me.  Stop making incorrect assumptions and WP:AGF .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Know you? I think to clarify I know your voting intentions to always vote keep. LibStar ( talk ) 03:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you actually found lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT ? It is extremely disturbing that you continually avoid this question. The Beverly Crest shooting got deleted as per NOTNEWS even though it might have met GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 09:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also refer to WP:SUSTAINED which also says we don't create articles on news events. LibStar ( talk ) 11:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2021 in Nigeria . If we end up with WP:SUSTAINED coverage in the future, we can always spin this back out. -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTNEWS , WP:LASTING , WP:DEPTH .  LizardJr8 ( talk ) 00:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Asilvering , or smerge (selectively merge) as needed.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Nigerian bandit conflict#2021 .  This seems to have been part of Nigeria's banditry/ethnic issues more broadly, and the sources discuss it in that context.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  There is no consensus here, there is even more than one Merge/Redirect target article mentioned here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Francis William Lascelles : It is not clear how he might meet WP:BIO .  His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability.  Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability.  The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest.  Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud.  Meets WP:GNG .  Meets WP:ANYBIO #1.  This deletionism is frankly getting silly.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Holding an ""important"" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "" Sir Humphrey ""); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The ""achievement"" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not ""the politically unimportant house of the legislature""! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution.  Political power lies in the House  of Commons.  In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk.  Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You clearly do not understand the concept of being honoured for reaching the top of one's chosen profession.  It's no different from any other knight.  Sir Ian McKellen , for instance, has also been knighted for reaching the top of his profession.  The difference is simply that his profession is high-profile and that of a parliamentary official is not (or, at least, not to the general populace or those who write on the internet - although given he died in 1979 even that wouldn't be relevant).  Neither is any more or less notable within their profession.  And that's what we should be looking at if we don't want to further degenerate from a genuine encyclopaedia to a catalogue of pop culture, as we sadly appear to rapidly be doing.  That's one of the reasons for the existence of WP:ANYBIO #1 - to catch people who are not high-profile but still notable enough to receive high honours.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  Mztourist ( talk ) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Historical Vaikundar : I've reviewed the sources and the extensive citations used, not seeing critical discussion of the individual's work that is needed to determine notability.  Nothing for GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 04:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is complicated, and might require a subject-matter expert to way in.  It's not about if sources exist, but whether this subtopic is sufficiently distinct.  Definitely at least a little bit of TNT needed, but I'm leaning weak keep--I can see it being more passable if it was very well written.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 06:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Everyone, This refers to the two articles published in the following links of Wikipedia under caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vaikundar .  The two divergent articles referred to above, according to me has inherent contradictions in both, and does not reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar, who was reportedly the incarnate of Lord Narayana if one go by the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is akin to Veda Agama to the followers of Lord Vaikundar as the contents in them are reportedly dictated by the Lord himself to his disciple Hari Gopalan.  The observation that ‘few events referred to in the mythology have yet to be validated historically’, events mentioned in the historical Vaikundar, mention that ‘Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker’ cast doubt whether Lord Vaikundar was indeed divine incarnate or a human being like a preacher?  Ayya Vaikundar was certainly not a healer or miracle worker like preachers, but divine incarnate and cured the suffering by his divine power like Perfect Masters of yester years.  Expressed view that ‘The mission of the Destruction of Kali involves a joint role of Lord Narayana and Ayya Vaikundar’ leaves a feeling that Lord Ayya Vaikundar and Lord Narayana were two different personalities whereas Lord Vaikundar was incarnate of Lord Narayana himself.   The divine nature of Lord Vaikundar got revealed when the cruelty and tortures inflicted by the King of Travancore had in no way affected divine Lord Vaikundar who was in human form, instances of which find no mention anywhere in these articles.   Mention as Akilam and Akilathirattu confuse one to believe that they were two different texts.  Therefore in my opinion is that the contents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai alone, which is the primary source for all.  If what I have read, understood and found in several sources was that Lord Vaikundar was undoubtedly Lord Narayana’s incarnation, manifested on earth in human form to end the misery and sufferings of eighteen classes of oppressed and suppressed.  Therefore it would be appropriate if the life glory of Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool without any deviation and historical events involving his presence his acts in human form can be classified year wise beginning from his manifestation, followed by different phases of penance, complaints of missionaries to the British Govt, acts of King of Travancore, imprisoned in jail and his release, marriages (Thirukalyanam), Muthiri Kinaru, establishments of Nizhal Thangals and Thuvayal Thavasu etc on various occasions.  They could come as historical timeline or historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any.  I would recommend deleting this page and redraft the contents in Ayya vaikundar page to reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar as per primary source holy akilathirattu and other supporting documents wherever they are available.  Also read, http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx https://www.ayyadharmapathi.com/history https://ayyavaikundar.in/ https://temple.dinamalar.com/news_detail.php? id=11667 contact: @ Illayaram sekar Thanks.  Illayaram sekar ( talk ) 16:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Hi Everyone, This refers to the two articles published in the following links of Wikipedia under caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vaikundar .  The two divergent articles referred to above, according to me has inherent contradictions in both, and does not reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar, who was reportedly the incarnate of Lord Narayana if one go by the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is akin to Veda Agama to the followers of Lord Vaikundar as the contents in them are reportedly dictated by the Lord himself to his disciple Hari Gopalan.  The observation that ‘few events referred to in the mythology have yet to be validated historically’, events mentioned in the historical Vaikundar, mention that ‘Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker’ cast doubt whether Lord Vaikundar was indeed divine incarnate or a human being like a preacher?  Ayya Vaikundar was certainly not a healer or miracle worker like preachers, but divine incarnate and cured the suffering by his divine power like Perfect Masters of yester years.  Expressed view that ‘The mission of the Destruction of Kali involves a joint role of Lord Narayana and Ayya Vaikundar’ leaves a feeling that Lord Ayya Vaikundar and Lord Narayana were two different personalities whereas Lord Vaikundar was incarnate of Lord Narayana himself.  The divine nature of Lord Vaikundar got revealed when the cruelty and tortures inflicted by the King of Travancore had in no way affected divine Lord Vaikundar who was in human form, instances of which find no mention anywhere in these articles.  Mention as Akilam and Akilathirattu confuse one to believe that they were two different texts.  Therefore in my opinion is that the contents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai alone, which is the primary source for all.  If what I have read, understood and found in several sources was that Lord Vaikundar was undoubtedly Lord Narayana’s incarnation, manifested on earth in human form to end the misery and sufferings of eighteen classes of oppressed and suppressed.  Therefore it would be appropriate if the life glory of Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool without any deviation and historical events involving his presence his acts in human form can be classified year wise beginning from his manifestation, followed by different phases of penance, complaints of missionaries to the British Govt, acts of King of Travancore, imprisoned in jail and his release, marriages (Thirukalyanam), Muthiri Kinaru, establishments of Nizhal Thangals and Thuvayal Thavasu etc on various occasions.  They could come as historical timeline or historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any.  I would recommend deleting this page and redraft the contents in Ayya vaikundar page to reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar as per primary source holy akilathirattu and other supporting documents wherever they are available.  Also read, http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx https://www.ayyadharmapathi.com/history https://ayyavaikundar.in/ https://temple.dinamalar.com/news_detail.php? id=11667 contact: @Illayaram sekar Thanks.  Illayaram sekar ( talk ) 12:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is very low participation.  Please focus on policy issues and not theology.  This is not the place for it.  Actually, there is nowhere on Wikipedia where these long, unsourced posts on the divinity of Lords are appropriate.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Sprudge : The reason I am not sure is that although I haven't found very convincing sigcov sources, I have found several instances where other news orgs have referenced Sprudge, lending them at least a degree of credibility: eater 1 eater 2 capitol hill seattle robb report tasting table the verge fox news I was nearly going to just remove the notability tag but I know the requirement for significant coverage needs to be met, so I figured it's worth at least testing here.  ASUKITE 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Internet , Websites , United States of America ,  and Oregon .  ASUKITE 17:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - I am inclined to delete due to poor sourcing and formatting, but I am open-minded.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  20:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Subject by sources seems to be the doxing of ""The Bitter Barista"", what about a topic change?  ""2017 Webby Award Honoree"" (for what it's worth) might influence Notability (web).  IgelRM ( talk ) 19:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 02:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I don't see strong arguments for either Keeping or Deleting this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 06:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep, based on coverage and recognition received, plus use by Eater and other other media outlets.  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 11:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Delete.  Noms source assessment is correct, there are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.  // Timothy :: talk 20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep This argument relies on some good faith, but the use of Sprudge by various media outlets suggests that it is a significant website for the industry.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - a source can be unreliable itself, yet still be notable.  Bearian ( talk ) 13:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure what you mean above, but can you post links the three best sources you found, I'll take a second look.  // Timothy :: talk 13:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The most reliable sources all appear to be about the firing, rather than directly about the subject itself.  But it's use by other sources within its topic area, are a positive.  It's close to keep, of not completely there.  -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 19:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"The XY Factor : Tagged for notability since 2022.  Previously deleted in a PROD in 2022, but REFUNDed shortly afterward.  No improvements made to establish notability since then.  Donald D23 talk to me 22:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sexuality and gender ,  and United States of America .  Donald D23 talk to me 22:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Orphaned article.  A quick Google suggests that this is not notable and that there are other things that might even have a better claim to this article title (not necessarily a good claim, just a better one).  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 23:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  I've added these sources to the article: Kalina, Paul (2004-03-04).  ""Thursday"" .  The Age .  Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 .  Retrieved 2023-04-07 .  Bellman, Annmaree (2004-04-08).  ""Thursday"" .  The Age .  Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 .  Retrieved 2023-04-07 .  Stewart, Susan (2002-03-16).  ""The XY Factor"".  Vol.  50, no. 11.  TV Guide .  p. 49.  ProQuest 236448459 .  Yarborough, Trin (2005).  Surviving Twice: Amerasian Children of the Vietnam War .  Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books .  ISBN 1-57488-864-1 .  Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Google Books .  ""TV Highlights"".  Philadelphia Daily News .  2001-09-07.  p. 70.  ProQuest 1894860965 .  Washburn, Mark (2001-09-08).  ""Mark Washburn Recommends"" .  The Charlotte Observer .  Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 .  Retrieved 2023-04-07 .  Washburn, Mark (2002-01-26).  ""Mark Washburn Recommends"" .  The Charlotte Observer .  Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 .  Retrieved 2023-04-07 .  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The XY Factor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 07:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't see this as significant coverage.  It is reasonable for use as verification, and it does move us a little closer to demonstrating notability, but I don't think it gets us over the line.  We have some one paragraph descriptions and extremely cursory reviews in TV listings, which I see as routine coverage.  The book gives it a single passing mention.  Admitedly, I don't have access to all the sources listed above but, unless the ones I can't see are very substantially better than the ones I can, I still feel that is only good enough to support a mention somewhere else and not a stand alone article.  DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says: """" Significant coverage "" 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 sources ""addres[s] the topic directly and in detail"" so are sufficient to allow The XY Factor to meet the notability guideline. I was able to significantly expand the article with these sources. Cunard ( talk ) 08:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging Nfitz ( talk · contribs ), who requested a WP:REFUND of the article. Cunard ( talk ) 07:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I wasn't able to find any significant coverage of this series. I don't believe that any of the sources listed by Cunard (including the ProQuest sources, which I have access to) provide significant coverage; none of them are more than a paragraph long, and most of them are simple episode summaries with very little critical commentary. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Stewart 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStewart2003 ( help ) provides 133 words of coverage about the subject and Bellman 2004 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBellman2004 ( help ) provides 124 words of coverage about the subject. This meets the ""significant coverage"" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . Bellman 2004 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBellman2004 ( help ) includes this sentence of critical commentary: ""This fascinating, almost pulp, instalment of the US documentary series is frank and revealing, although there's little attempt to examine the lot of the prostitutes. "" Cunard ( talk ) 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion , the article can be merged/redirected to List of programs broadcast by History (American TV network)#Documentary Films , where The XY Factor is mentioned.  I prefer a standalone article over a merge because it is unclear how much of the article's content can be merged to that list, which currently has only a list of the programs' titles without providing any further information about those programs.  Cunard ( talk ) 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I asked for a refund, as I felt that at a minimum it's a redirect to the network.  Now I see how that article has been improved and referenced, I believe it should be kept!  Nfitz ( talk ) 06:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Felix Omobude : No sourcing in the article, none found in RS either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All coverage is either interviews or PR pieces.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Per GNG as there are plenty of sources.  E.g. [5] , [6] , [7] .  Central and Adams ( talk ) 12:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - there appears to be a AFC submission that Whinyharedy arbitrarily redirected to this page.  D u s t i *Let's talk! * 15:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources are press releases, what PFN states, interviews with Omobude or what he states so are not independent .   I also note the draft was declined four times prior to it being copied into mainspace.  S0091 ( talk ) 16:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per creator and notability.  Dannyjade ( talk ) 7:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC) sock strike Girth Summit (blether) 10:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note this is the article's creator.  S0091 ( talk ) 18:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  17:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this is among the several non-notable articles created by Dannyjide.  Every article is either paid for or an interview.  Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 14:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to lack of reliable independent coverage.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notifications made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evangelical Christianity , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Former President of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria , a big deal.  This doesn't mean he's some sort of Pope of Nigerian Pentecostalism - instead, he was the head of the council of most of the Pentecostal denominations and megachurches.  [1] [2] As a prominent Pentecostal voice, his name comes up in multiple journals on either new African Pentecostal movements or Nigerian politics - Google Scholar results (note: he's not an academic and these aren't his papers; he's in the papers) Over 100 Google News articles returned.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Katsaura, Obvious (May 2023).  ""Architecturations of Pentecostal Power: Contribution to a Sociology of Pentecostal Auditoriums"" .  Space and Culture .  26 (2): 268–278.  doi : 10.1177/12063312221130241 .  ISSN 1206-3312 .  Retrieved 5 August 2023 .  ^ Omorogbe, Paul (3 March 2021).  ""Bishop Wale Oke emerges new PFN president"" .  Nigerian Tribune .  Retrieved 5 August 2023 .  @ A. B. the sources you cited are only brief mentions and/or statements by him or PFN.   I took a look at the first page of the Google News results and a handful of the Google Scholar results but seeing the same.   I also searched ProQuest which had 370+ hits and checked dozens.   It's clear he is influential but I haven't found independent secondary in-depth coverage about him.   I am happy to reconsider if I am missing something or other sources are presented (ping me).  S0091 ( talk ) 16:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as according to the above sources he has scholarly journals coverage including 10 pages in one, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per G5 .  The article's author is a sock of",no consensus
"Afrikaans exonyms : Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY .  Pepper Beast (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons.  WP:NOTDICTIONARY , and even if it were, these are mostly unsourced:: Albanian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Arabic exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Armenian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Azerbaijani exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Basque exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Bulgarian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Catalan exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Chinese exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Cornish exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Croatian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Czech exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Danish exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Dutch exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) English exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Estonian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Finnish exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) French exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) German exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Greek exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Hungarian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Icelandic exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Irish exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Italian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Japanese exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Latin exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Latvian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Lithuanian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Luxembourgish exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Maltese exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Old Norse exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Norwegian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Portuguese exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Romansh exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Russian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Serbian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Slovak exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Slovene exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Spanish exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Swedish exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Turkish exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Ukrainian exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Vietnamese exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Welsh exonyms ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Why have you linked to this discussion from the Cornish exonyms article ?  Tewdar 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Anyway , my opinion on the 'X exonyms' articles: delete the fucking lot, or delete none of 'em. Just don't single out Cornish for deletion, like some legacy admin. Tewdar 23:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I linked it from Cornish exonyms because I was rolling a whole list into one nom. Pepper Beast (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I've temproraily blocked Tewdar for the personal attack above. Sandstein 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any personal attack in what Tewdar wrote: what exactly did you mean? Athel cb ( talk ) 10:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Against whom was the personal attack supposed to be? -- Licks-rocks ( talk ) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've explained this on Tewdar's talk page. Please continue any discussion about the block there. Sandstein 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've read this, and I still consider it absurdly sensitive to call ""like some legacy admin"" a personal insult. A (trivial) generic insult, maybe, but not directed to any particular named person, so not a personal insult. Athel cb ( talk ) 18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Raised at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#48 hour block of Tewdar by Sandstein Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all. Unsourced ( WP:V ), WP:NOTDIC . Sandstein 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tewdar has a valid point, most of the attacks are by EDL types who insist on airbrushing out first nation Cornish ethnicity, language etc. So not surprisingly there will always rightly be reactions against racism, racism in any form is never OK. 85.94.248.27 ( talk ) 08:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all , for the reasons given. As the Cornish article is specifically mentioned above, I had a look at it, wondering what the exonym for Devon (the neighbouring county and my birthplace) was. It's not there, though there is one for the more distant Somerset! Plymouth (fair enough) and Exeter are there, but given the great number of places in Devon to which Cornish people (including my great^12 grandfather Robert Cornyshe) moved over the centuries (that's why ""Cornish"" is a common surname in Devon) there must surely be other exonyms. This suggests that it is just a haphazard list of the ones the creator happened to know. Athel cb ( talk ) 11:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the Latin list , at least; it's actually useful, and you can't just look these up in a dictionary; you'd need quite a lot of sources to hunt them all down, if you could even do it, and that's just not practical.  It should, however, be fairly easy to document individual entries knowing what the equivalents are, and that's just cleanup, for which there is no deadline.  AfD is not cleanup.  For that matter, many of the entries could simply be linked to articles about the places, that already give their Latin names in the article leads.  The Latin names are relevant in a way that those in many of the other languages may not be, because most or all of these places were settled or colonized in Roman times, and are found under their Roman names in sources about Roman history. I can't offer much of an opinion on the other lists nominated here, because I don't know much about those languages or the reasons why the lists exist, but as a member of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome , I feel confident that the Latin list has a good reason to exist.  I was going to say that the Greek list has a similar justification for keeping, but looking at it, most of the places included are modern names for places that didn't exist as part of the Hellenistic world; this distinguishes it from the Latin list, which consists primarily of places that had Latin names in Roman times. P Aculeius ( talk ) 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does it add anything beyond Category:Lists of Latin place names ? (Genuine question.) Pepper Beast (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think organization by place (most of the lists of Latin place names) makes more sense than organization by linguistic type (...by exonyms). Therefore, I think the place names in Latin exonyms should be merged to the other lists before deletion. That said, delete all , per WP:NOTDICT . Exonyms for an individual place may be interesting, significant, or notable. And we should definitely mention famous exonyms like 旧金山 somewhere. But having a list of them seems more like a geographic-dictionary thing than an encyclopedia-thing, to me. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It does look like they overlap to the extent that merger is practical.  I haven't gone through the whole list to check, but whoever merges the list presumably would.  Ironically, however, despite frequently needing the Roman names of various places, I don't think I've seen these lists before, and wouldn't have today had it not been for this discussion! P Aculeius ( talk ) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Kill them all, let Deletionpedia sort them out, for the reasons stated.  High time.  I have asked on many of their Talk pages what use (or interest) they have, and got a few replies to the effect that they are useful, but none of them said clearly how they are useful. —Tamfang ( talk ) 01:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, shouldn't the heading say ""(nth nom.)""? —Tamfang ( talk ) 01:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I say keep all the pages. If a language learner wishes to have a list of place names, there should be a readily available list, considering that exonyms and endonyms can have wildly different names in between languages. While the individual pages can be edited so that they are more reliable, it would be extreme do completely obliterate entire pages worth of information instead of simply pruning them. GodenDaeg ( talk ) 05:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue  isn't reliability or usefulness. Maybe you should have a read of WP:NOTDICTIONARY . Pepper Beast (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki I checked and https://language.fandom.com/ exist.  Good place to send these too. D r e a m Focus 01:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you look at its front page?  It's for ""Philosophy and Science of Language"", not for language study. —Tamfang ( talk ) 06:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see its been abandoned for years.  I did ask the founder of it to give me administrative rights to copy everything over, but no response yet.  Since it is abandoned, anyone can adopt it, then move things over.  I have too many fandoms already, someone who cares about languages can go to https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Adoption:Requests and adopt it. D r e a m Focus 16:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Shouldn't List of European exonyms be on this list? —Tamfang ( talk ) 18:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or TNT-delete them all. Many of these articles have the potential to become encyclopedic content. Exonyms can tell a whole story of historical international relations, and for some of the languages we could present these stories in an OR-free manner based on reliable sources. But the way these articles are currently shaped (i.e. as lists), little or nothing is told about what is actually interesting about exonyms. Even List of Pokémon characters is more encyclopedic than every single one of these exonym articles, except maybe for Arabic exonyms , which has some very interesting material that is scattered unsystematically over various sections (because the exonyms are ordered by the least interesting criterion, viz. by modern countries). – Austronesier ( talk ) 20:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Always pleasant to find someone agreeing. (I pushed, once upon a time, for Arabic exonyms to be restricted to ""interesting"" cases.) —Tamfang ( talk ) 05:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Chinese exonyms I have substantially rewritten Chinese exonyms to contain more substantial encyclopedic content that is too long and not entirely relevant to be contained in Chinese language#Vocabulary . This includes information about the historical origins and changes to certain Chinese exonyms, with appropriate citations from academic sources (I will need to do more digging in Chinese sources to find more). I am open to researching and writing more content, as well as reviewing and greatly shortening the list in the article, but I am reluctant to do more work while this article is in AfD. Still, I think that there is enough right now to warrant keeping it. Richard Ye talk 13:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Richard Ye ( talk · contribs ), thank you so much for your improvements to Chinese exonyms ! I deeply appreciate your hard work and your interest in continuing to improve the article were it not at risk of being deleted. Here are two relevant guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, ""A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject .""  Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, ""One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list . The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.""  Can you find two reliable sources that discuss the concept of Chinese exonyms ? If two reliable sources can be found, we will have a very strong case for keeping Chinese exonyms . Cunard ( talk ) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be preferable to have WP:THREE . Rotary Engine talk 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only to User:Roy Smith, whoever he is. That's the guy's personal essay on his talk page, not any form of anyone's policy. — Llywelyn II 03:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be preferable to me to have 3 independent, reliable sources which each provide significant coverage of the article topic; for the reasons outlined by Roy Smith in their essay. It may also be useful to other uninvolved editors who, like me, have yet to opine. I made (and make) no representation that the linked essay is a policy, guideline, or anything other than what it is. Rotary Engine talk 08:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some secondary, academic sources on Chinese exonyms as a distinct topic (not on a specific exonym or on Chinese foreign relations). On the general construction and form of Chinese exonyms: Pierre de La Robertie, Le nom propre en chinois. Essai de morphosyntaxe (Chinese proper nouns: an essay on morphosyntax) , Corela -- see section 2.3 on Exonyms Wensheng Qu, Translation of Personal and Place Names from and into Chinese in Modern China: A Lexicographical History Perspective , International Journal for the Semiotics of Law Liu Lian’an, Gao Yu and Ji Yuan, New Developments in Formulating the Transformation Guidelines of Geographical Names from Foreign Languages into Chinese , Eleventh United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names On the history and evolution of Chinese exonyms: Magnus Fiskesjö, The Animal Other: China's Barbarians and Their Renaming in the Twentieth Century , Social Text , Duke University Press. Kaitlyn Ugoretz, Distinguishing the 'Barbarian': Chinese Exonyms and Characterizations of the Other Across Eurasia , Working Paper Yao Dali, 河西走廊的几个古地名 (Several ancient place names in the Hexi Corridor) , originally published in 西北民族研究 ( Northwest Journal of Ethnology ) Chen Dong, 论国名与国号 (On country names and representations of country names) , Journal of Xiamen University (Arts and Social Sciences) Richard Ye talk 12:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is excellent work, thank you!  I've supported keeping Chinese exonyms below.  Cunard ( talk ) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now essentially rewritten the article.  I have now greatly abbreviated the list in Chinese exonyms to ""notable"" exonyms only (though a few still lack citations, which I am slowly chasing down).  The article is now otherwise fully cited from the notable, academic sources I've listed above.  I hope this can convince fellow Wikipedians that a Keep decision is warranted for this article.  Richard Ye talk 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent work, thank you again for your hard work on this!  Cunard ( talk ) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please keep the List of Azerbaijani exonyms : I agree with the idea that most of the exonyms in all lists of exonyms are fantasy or fiction, but if you go down a little you will see how many sources are given, for example to List of Azerbaijani_exonyms#Russia , this happens because Russia changes the name of cities as soon as it conquers it.  And even now, during the war in Ukraine, you can see this, for example, the fact that Russia renamed the Ukrainian Bakhmut to Artyomovsk.  Most of the exonyms are historical and I find the use of this list useful in historical reconstructions.  I could remove all the ""garbage"" from the article if we agreed to leave the list.  Sebirkhan ( talk ) 14:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we have an article on Russian renamings in general?   That would seem the more appropriate place for such entries.   To preserve List of Azerbaijani exonyms for this reason would be like buying peanut butter so that the jars can be used to store rice; and unless the title is changed, it will attract the same cruft that led to this discussion.  —Tamfang ( talk ) 21:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify all - We need to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK here, and cases are being made for keeping individual pages, but not the full set.  It is clear these have WP:NOTDICTIONARY issues per nom.  Also, per Austronesier, there are articles that could be written about exonyms, but those arguments are not for these list articles.  It is at least possible that some (especially those being argued for) could be rewritten as encyclopaedic pages, although I don't think any of them are there yet.  If we draftify them then the ones with potential can be developed and submitted for review, and may become useful articles.  The ones that are unloved and untouched will be deleted.  This outcome would be superior to delete, which would delete some good information on a couple of the articles.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  Cunard ( talk ) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment about deletion sorting: I added this AfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China .  Would an editor who is experienced in deletion sorting add this AfD to the relevant lists?  This will inform editors who are experienced in the various languages about this AfD and give them an opportunity to improve the articles.  Wcquidditch ( talk · contribs ), you added deletion sorting templates to this AfD.  Would you be able to help or know where to post to ask for help?  Thank you.  I recommend a relist to allow a full seven days after the deletion sorting is done.  Cunard ( talk ) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added the articles to the country delsorts.  Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, Jumpytoo!  Cunard ( talk ) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment about glossaries: The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a usage guide says: ""Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook .""  The guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words says: Glossaries – alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia.  A Featured example is Glossary of Texas A&M University terms .  Stand-alone glossaries are categorized at Category:Wikipedia glossaries , as well as topically in article categories.  Shorter ones are often better handled as embedded lists , though a redirect from a title like Glossary of X can be created to the section, and the redirect added to that category.   Such embedded glossaries may split later into in stand-alone glossaries.  (See WP:Summary style for information on when to split sections into child articles.)  There are multiple ways of formatting glossaries .  See § Titles for naming conventions.  Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary , many ideas for glossaries, in which entries would be little more than dictionary definitions (""dicdefs""), may be better suited to Wiktionary .  Glossaries that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria or not-a-dictionary policy should be migrated to Wiktionary at wikt:Category:English glossaries .   Wiktionary also freely forks Wikipedia's encyclopedic glossaries for redevelopment to Wiktionary's purposes and standards, in its Appendix: namespace.  Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U , the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited.  Are these articles considered glossaries?  Cunard ( talk ) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not by any reasonable meaning of the term ""glossary"" .  The lists, broadly, do not contain definitional information; nor are they limited to terms related to a specific, notable, domain of knowledge.  Rotary Engine talk 10:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the analysis.  Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words says: ""Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U , the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited.""  So that is the guideline to follow.  If "" reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited"", then encyclopedic pages can be created from these ""non-glossary lists of words"".  Cunard ( talk ) 11:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're being too polite/deferential.  The only thing RE's comment clarified was that their opinion is mistaken.  Geographical terms in a foreign language is quite clearly a specific notable domain of knowledge.  The fact that it's an interesting and needful topic is precisely why they were created in the first place, aside from its utility to gamers and its poor (and unable to be improved) handling at Wiktionary.  — Llywelyn II 03:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The lists in the articles that I reviewed are not of geographical terms , but of place names .  Exonyms (and endonyms) in any given language might well be a specific notable domain of knowledge; and we would look to reliable sources to evidence that.  But the individual exonyms would then be the subject of that domain, not the terms of that domain.  By comparison, we might have a glossary of arithmetical terms, but we would not have a ""glossary"" of natural numbers; we might have a glossary of social science terms, but we would not have a ""glossary"" of individual's names.  There may be good reasons for these articles to be kept; some may even be based in policy, but glossary isn't one of them.  Rotary Engine talk 08:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Chinese exonyms per the significant coverage in reliable sources in academic journals and books found by Richard Ye ( talk · contribs ).  The sources definitively show that Chinese exonyms passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists , which says, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list .  The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.  Richard Ye has already make substantial improvements to Chinese exonyms that demonstrate this is an encyclopedic topic, not just a list of dictionary definitions.  Chinese exonyms can be improved through pruning and expansion.  But that can be done at any time as I understand with Richard Ye's reluctance in improving the article while at AfD.  Several times I've spent hours improving an article at AfD in the past only to have the article get deleted.  The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved.  Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion , this should be done rather than deleting the page.  Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required : Wikipedia is a work in progress .  Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles .  Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.  Cunard ( talk ) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Japanese exonyms per Jumpytoo.  The Japanese Wikipedia article for Japanese exonyms is extensively referenced to academic sources and discusses the topic in detail.  Cunard ( talk ) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Chinese exonyms per User:Cunard – there are a lot of Chinese-specific considerations about exonyms in general that are now discussed in some detail in that article.  No opinion about the other articles.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 13:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan , Vietnam , Albania , Armenia , Azerbaijan , Bulgaria , Croatia , Czech Republic , Denmark , Estonia , Finland , France , Germany , Greece , Hungary , Iceland , Ireland , Italy , Latvia , Luxembourg , Malta , Netherlands , Norway , Portugal , Russia , Serbia , Slovakia , Slovenia , Spain , Sweden , Turkey ,  and Ukraine .  Jumpytoo Talk 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Japanese exonyms , likely bad bundle , for the Japanese article speficially the Japanese version is very well cited, and is extremely likely to meet WP:GNG .  Since we now have 2 articles that clear the bar, I think it's not appropiate to do these articles as a bundled AfD, it should be nominated individually.  Jumpytoo Talk 05:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep All - Way too many nominated articles to give a proper review and joint decision on all.  Anyways, keep.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'm tempted to close this as a Procedural Keep as opinion is divided between those editors asking for all articles to be treated similarly (whether that is Delete all, Draftify all or Keep all) and those editors arguing for individual articles to be Kept.  That is one dilemma with large, bundled nominations like this, unless there is an overwhelming consensus for one particular action, they can fall apart.  It's also clear that editors asking for ""All"" anything have not had the time to evaluate each article individually and given the arguments from editors asking for individual articles to be Kept, they obviously differ in quality and substance leaving me questioning any closure that paints them all with the same brush.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course, unbundling will result in ""Why are you picking on my pet language and ignoring dozens of others ?"" (even if they are all separately nominated) —Tamfang ( talk ) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep .  The encyclopedic content of these articles vary widely.  I see the point in attempting to have one discussion about the principle, but I don't think it's doable, as shown above.  / Julle ( talk ) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All.  WP:NOTDICTIONARY.  The only reservation I have is regarding languages that do not have their own WP forks.  Otherwise why would you have Spanish exonyms on English wiki when Spanish wiki already does that!?  XMcan ( talk ) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Once when I raised that point, I got the reasonable reply: suppose I want a Greek exonym but cannot read Greek?  —Tamfang ( talk ) 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : All the ""List of"" nominations except List of Russian exonyms are actually redirects and should be corrected.  Nickps ( talk ) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Add to that Latvian exonyms , Old Norse exonyms and Slovenian exonyms which are also redirects.  Nickps ( talk ) 22:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I took the liberty to fix those myself.  Let me know if I wasn't supposed to do that.  Nickps ( talk ) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep As seen above, there are way too many considerations about the individual articles to handle in one AfD.  It's also clear that no one looked at every article.  All the participants missing that a bunch of redirects ended up in an AfD nomination for a week shouldn't have been possible.  Nickps ( talk ) 23:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The assumption we missed these and therefore did not look at all the lists at all is incorrect.  I did not register that as important.  It is the content that is being considered.  I did look at all of them.  I did not look into detail of their sourcing and individual potential sourcing, because that would have taken many hours.  That was why I suggested draftify all.  I do not think any of these are encyclopaedic as they stand, as we are in NOTDICTIONARY territory, but individual cases are being made for individual pages, and it is likely some would make individual cases for others.  I am not convinced that the individual cases are answering the NOTDICTIONARY aspect as things stand, but draftify would allow individual pages to be very quickly reviewed and republished - it would simply recognise that there is a concern to be addressed.  It appears to be a good process for allowing that individual scrutiny without defaulting to a keep option that basically says that bundled nominations are impossible.  I will say, however, that failing draftify, I oppose delete.  Draftify all is my preference.  Keep would be acceptable, but disappointing.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll admit I was a bit too eager with my conclusions.  Then again, that wouldn't have happened were this a reasonably sized AfD.  Now, onto the actual argument, draftify all to me sounds like, "" delete in 6 months "".  Lithuanian exonyms , for example, had no edits for a year prior to the nom and that's on mainspace.  Others were untouched for even longer.  We could get it done faster with separate AfDs, even if we spread them across a few months so we don't overwhelm the venue.  I also think the specific examples should be kept in mainspace and improved there, so a procedural keep still seems like the best solution.  Nickps ( talk ) 13:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ... draftify all to me sounds like, "" delete in 6 months ... Because that's all it ever is unless there's a specific editor making the request to preserve something. It shouldn't even be a thing as a policy. In this case, like you're saying, the articles should just be left active until they're separately nominated. — Llywelyn II 02:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - Latin, Chinese and Japanese exonyms are clearly notable. I'm not sure about the rest. Some can be draftified, but some are heading to deletion. This keeps coming up on my AfD feed. Can we put it to sleep and start over in April? Bearian ( talk ) 19:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. I don't think anyone has said this explicitly: Exonyms are interesting if they are not trivial examples (among innumerable) of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words, including placenames, to its own phonology and orthography.  Interesting ones are worth preserving. If they are not segregated by language, perhaps they won't attract cruft, he suggested in passing. —Tamfang ( talk ) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for procedural reasons (baby/bathwater) and particularly for sourced info at the Arabic list. There's a single editor who keeps repeating the idea to 'draftify'. That should be avoided as well: Draftspace for minor topics is just a slow bleed-out towards needless deletion of content helpful for our WP:READERS and in this case falls under WP:POINT . End this request altogether, nominate specific bad articles, and move on. — Llywelyn II 02:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a single editor who keeps repeating the idea to 'draftify'. There are two editors who suggested draftify, and I only repeated the point once in a reply to a comment after the relist. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments — A. There clearly isn't consensus and what support (""delete all"") votes there are seem to be either merely applying WP:NOTDICT without examining the articles, alternatives, or counterarguments or to be entirely mistaken (""unsourced"" or ""not a specific notable area of knowledge""). Can we get this closed? and get the actual bad articles separately and individually renominated? B. For the curious , the WP:POINT ily-enforced WP:NOTDICT alternative to these lists—which would be almost impossible for normal WP:READER s to find—would be the separate categories of exonyms by language at Wiktionary . The way they work can be seen at Category:Arabic exonyms : the lists are grossly incomplete, given in illegible foreign script without context or even transcription, and in the alphabetical order of those foreign languages. The way the application falls completely on its face can be seen at Category:English exonyms : they include terms like Kyiv and Curaçao as ""exonyms"" because one is isn't written in Cyrillic and the other doesn't have all of its Portuguese diacritics.  It's completely unhelpful for any English-speaking reader looking for this information.  These articles should be kept for the same reasons as Glossary of rhetorical terms and Glossary of ancient Roman religion unless they are literally only completely unsourced laundry lists.  Anything else should just be kept in mainspace and allowed time to improve.  — Llywelyn II 03:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Japanese exonyms and likely others as well.  There's plenty of references discussing the topic wrt Japan and likely most of the others.  Individual nominations with a proper BEFORE search for each article is the way to go.  DCsansei ( talk ) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all  1) This is an inappropriate way to discuss the general principle of these articles existing.  2) If the requirement is for every translation to be sourced, let that be the case.  That would make the articles easily salvageable.  Proposed as a bundle makes efforts to improve during an AfD impossible.  3) These lists are not dictionary entries.  They do not (and should not) contain all translations of all toponyms around the world.  4) These lists have a clear limiting criteria for inclusion: that the exonym is different from the endonym, and not as a result of standard transliteration.  5) Exonyms are not a mere curiosity; they are an issue of political significance and contention.  There is a UN committee dealing with them and the naming of places.  Some of these lists certainly need tidying up because there are entries which are not true exonyms on some of the pages (I have been purging a couple in recent times, which is how I was notified of this debate.) But that is a different matter entirely.  OsFish ( talk ) 04:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Mohammed Mustapha Namadi : Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians ,  and Nigeria .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question: He appears to be a cabinet minister at the state level.  Doesn't that pass WP:NPOL ?  Лисан аль-Гаиб ( talk ) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Usually for a WP:NPOL presumption of notability, the person would have to hold an elected office.  Here, it looks like he held state-wide appointed office.  While the appointed office is strong evidence of notability, I don't the the community usually interprets it as meeting WP:NPOL 's presumption of notability.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 17:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's no requirement for elected office in WP:NPOL - cabinet members in presidential systems at a state level in a federal entity satisfy NPOL.  See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulu Abdullahi Sifawa .  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 06:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete .  ""presumption of notability"" simply means that the page not deleted outright.  The policy says that may be deleted if if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found .  Here I see no significnt coverage: the refs cited are some random events - Altenmann >talk 15:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While the governor of each state is elected, the commissioners seem to take the role of appointed civil servants and thus don't meet the qualifying criteria at WP:NPOL .  The article also doesn't meet GNG so should be deleted.  Willbb234 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn.  Commissioners are equivalents to state-level cabinet ministers, and as such notable.  -- Soman ( talk ) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Would like to see some evidence of actual presence or absence of sourcing more broadly, on either side Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO , isn't covered by WP:NPOL due to not being elected.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JML1148 there's no provision in NPOL that excludes appointees.  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 20:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Goldsztajn : See TulsaPoliticsFan's comment above.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JML1148 See my ! vote and the reference to an earlier AfD discussion on a Nigerian state-level Commissioner.   NPOL accords presumed notability to officials of state/province level in federal systems whether elected or appointed.   A US example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) .  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 08:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Voting Keep now.  Prior consensus definitely trumps TulsaPoliticsFan's comment.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 03:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn.  Figbiscuits ( talk ) 08:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)}} Blocked user.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JML1148 , we only strike votes of socks, not of all editors who currently or temporarily blocked.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : Thanks for the heads up.  I thought that all blocked users had their ! votes struck out, apologies for the mistake.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 03:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails in WP:NPOL.  Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Echoing Eddie891's request for analysis of sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn as the subject satisfy WP:NPROF and WP:NPOL .  Ei'eke ( talk ) 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Euro Quebec Hydro Hydrogen Project : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I was expecting this to be an easy delete, but on looking for sources: nope, actually there's a ton of stuff out there.  I see half a dozen books ( e.g. ) and dozens of journal articles ( e.g. ) which discuss it. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  If anything, it needs expansion to make it more substantial, not deletion.  Retroity ( talk ) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without prejudice against a developed article.  Nom nailed it.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the Google books search actually provides some pretty substantial coverage including whole chapters on the subject.  The nom says that Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough (emphasis mine) but I don't agree that's a very valid argument for deletion.  Instead, we have to look for notability and I think this clears the WP:GNG threshold.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 00:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Pedant : Violates WP:NOTDICT .  - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions .  - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Pedantry , as per Chiswick Chap .  - Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't wish to be, er.  pedantic here, but the criterion for notability is not whether the article is poorly-cited, but whether there are suitable sources out there in the world.  Pedantry is unfortunately definitely a notable topic.  Sources include the famous essay Of Pedantry by Michel de Montaigne , alongside a mass of modern research papers on a wide variety of aspects of pedantry .  A good newspaper article is Why do pedants pedant?  in The Guardian .  There's plenty more out there.  The article needs to be rewritten, but that's not a matter for AfD.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 09:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This feels... pedantic... but I agree with your argument yet think it supports a move to Pedantry .  Orange sticker ( talk ) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That would make good sense, yes.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 16:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't necessarily disagree with the creation of Pedantry but it seems that would be a new article rather than a move of the current article.  Certainly once it's created we can redirect, but until that's the case I'm not convinced Pedant should remain.  - Skipple ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  This is just a dictionary definition with a couple of cites.  Per WP:!  , it needs expansion to be useful which might be possible.  If someone does this then perhaps reconsider.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Are there editors up for rewriting this article?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz If needed, I can put this on my backlog.  I have a few major tasks that I wanted to complete beforehand, but I volunteer to fix article up if it is kept and/or moved.  Thanks, Neuropol Talk 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Dicdef.  Desertarun ( talk ) 16:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to pedantry .  This is certainly notable, and could be expanded greatly.  Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but pedantry as a concept is a very notable topic which could be applied to the fields of psychology, linguistics, and sociology.  Deletion should not be a substitution for improvement.  Thanks, Neuropol Talk 13:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Enga Veetu Meenakshi : Karnataka ( talk ) 17:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , what do you mean by insufficient references.  The article is well sourced.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 04:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Have Notable sources and cast are also well known. -- Monhiroe ( talk ) 17:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Actual analysis of the available sources, demonstrating either the presence or lack of significant coverage, would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : It now have notable citations and cast, which are known.  CastJared ( talk ) 08:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Still waiting for Rosguill's requested source analysis.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Kyle Brazell : The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2 , both from the same publication.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket ,  and Australia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future.  Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable WP:ATDs .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article.  These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing.  In terms of SNGs, it meets WP:NCRIC as well.  Robo Cric Let's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The South Australian Cricket Association and Cricket Australia are not independent of the subject.  The former directly administers the South Australia cricket team that he plays on, and is affiliated with the latter.  Given his young age, I support draftification as an ATD, as well as the redirect suggested by Rugbyfan22.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources.  Those contain useful information, so I linked those.  However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance.  I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep.  Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect.  Thanks.  Robo Cric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify , not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future.  Redirect .  JoelleJay ( talk ) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one.  AA ( talk ) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers.  Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there.  If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play.  Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage here , though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage here .  Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Unzela Khan : The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG.  Does not satisfy WP:N — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Pakistan ,  and United Kingdom .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Television ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article is not noteworthy.  Crosji ( talk ) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet ( talk ) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I disagree with the nominator.  A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS .  Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST .  She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR .  What's then needed for an article?  Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy ping to @ Saqib , @ Crosji , and @ Kotebeet for the argument per se.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones.  See here and here .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SafariScribe , I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost.  The policy doesn't say anything like this.  Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR?  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable.  But may not require a article.  However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM.  While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV .  Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed.  Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors:  1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate.  This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made.  2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "" User:Kotebeet ,"" [ contributed approximately 80% of the content ], is no longer active on the platform.  This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor. -- Crosji ( talk ) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crosji , you are wrong here.  I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout.  I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG .  If you have any issue with the creator, then face them.  I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says ""not noteworthy"".  Meaning?  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crosji , also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here.  I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them.  However, this is a process and you can't vote twice.  Do remove any of the votes.  Thanks!  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Marthal : Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Appears to be contiguous with Thittuvilai .  May once have been a separate settlement, but may not be any more.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thittuvilai is not officially a settlement, either .  Uncle G ( talk ) 09:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion surrounding this article's subject's relationship with Thittuvilai would be helpful in determining whether there's a suitable ATD .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge?  You can find it on Google maps .  It does seem to now be a neighbourhood of Thittuvilai .  You can also spot most of the mentioned landmarks.  Most of the article are things that are nearby, which is just as relevant to the larger town.  - SimonP ( talk ) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not a neighbourhood of Thittuvilai.   And Thittuvilai is not a town.  Neither this article nor your merge target are a village or a town, and both articles are misleading.   The town here is Boothapandi (also spelled Bhuthapandy and Boothapandy), which is a town panchayat of Kanyakumari district",no consensus
"Mayfield, Tennessee : Hut 8.5 07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tennessee .  Hut 8.5 07:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A source search shows people were born there in 1878 and 1879.  The 1860 Tennessee gazetteer says it is a post office, but the categorisation in the Gazetteer is 'post office, post town, and post city' (Memphis is a post city) and there's a discussion of the postmaster there.  I don't have newspaper access to search and it's difficult to search for this place, but the fact we have book records of people being born and dying there makes it quite possible it's notable under our gazetteer function.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we want to have an article about the place which claims it was a populated place then we do at least need a source which says it was a populated place, per WP:V .  The burden of proof is on those who seek to retail the content.  A source which describes it as a post office, or mentions of people being born there, do not support this assertion without original research .  WP:V and WP:NOR are non-negotiable core content policies, they cannot be overturned through a local consensus .  Hut 8.5 17:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it could meet general notability guidelines.  It is located at the junction of two important arterial routes: Tennessee State Route 56 leading north to Gainesboro, Tennessee (indirectly Celina, Tennessee and Kentucky ) and Red Boiling Springs, Tennessee and south to Baxter, Tennessee and Interstate 40 , and Tennessee State Route 290 leading east to Cookeville .  As such, it could be a sort of landmark for rural road travelers.  --EvergreenLAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenLAM ( talk • contribs ) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Shown on an unidentified 1888 map at ""Jackson County, Tennessee 1888 Map | Jackson county, Tennessee map, County map"" .  Pinterest .  Retrieved 2023-06-12 .  .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 09:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maps are not sufficient to establish notability, per WP:GEOFEAT , and inclusion on a map certainly isn't enough to meet the general notability guideline as it doesn't constitute significant coverage.  Nor is an unidentified map posted on Pinterest a reliable source .  Hut 8.5 11:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails GNG and GEOLAND due to lack of either significant coverage or official recognition.  Appearing on a map or being located at a major intersection are not part of our inclusion criteria.  – dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - while the current sourcing is definitely not enough to establish notability, I recently ran a newspaper search, and found many sources that indicate that this was a populated and legally recognized place.  For example, these sources ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ; there are plenty more) indicate that this community at one time had a post office.  This is usually grounds for establishing legal recognition.  Bneu2013 ( talk ) 07:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  You need a subscription to see all but the first source, and that's not of much use.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Delete on the grounds all the sources are behind a paywall"" isn't the best deletion argument to make (and I'm not saying it's not an issue.) (Bneu2013: Any chance we can get the references snipped?) SportingFlyer T · C 09:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When did I say delete?  Don't put words in my mouth.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update - I've clipped the remaining articles ( 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ).  Overall, not much different than the first, but does establish that this place had legal recognition.  Bneu2013 ( talk ) 11:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The existence of a post office doesn't amount to legal recognition for a place.  During this period postal offices in rural areas could be put in just about any convenient building, e.g. a farmhouse.  It doesn't mean there was a populated place here.  Hut 8.5 11:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd argue the post office *is* legal recognition of a place.   What it doesn't prove, and I believe this to be your main point, is that it was ever a populated place.  However....  forgot to sign... 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 16:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep based on legally recognized place and [47] which shows it was known for more than just a post office.  Actually I'm divided on this and a merge and redirect to Jackson County, Tennessee , because there's nothing here that wouldn't fit easily as a one-sentence blurb in the ""Communities"" section, but maintains encyclopedic material per WP:PRESERVE .  78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 16:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Judging from the tiny amount of text I get on Google Books for that source, it just contains genealogical records which mention that somebody lived there.  If that's accurate then it doesn't actually say that Mayfield is a populated place, and we have to use original research to get that.  Hut 8.5 17:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not original research, that's common sense.   It is legally recognized.   It was, at one point, a number of persons' address.   It most certainly does not meet GNG, which is why moving the sentence or two to the proposed redirect target may make more sense than outright keep.   What shouldn't be done is deletion.  78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 22:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we want to have an article on a populated place then we do need a reliable source which says it's a populated place.  Your source doesn't say that.  We can't have an article based on editors' interpretations of primary sources.  Hut 8.5 07:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this place does exist -- Google Earth took me straight to it.  There's ""just not much there there"".  Google Earth is not a secondary source.  As EvergreenLAM pointed out, it is at the intersection of Tennessee State Route 56 and Tennessee State Route 290 .  Looking around using Google Streetview, within 200m of the intersection are: the Crabtree Siding and Supply warehouse, a Dollar General store, a convenience store , Xpress Excavating company, SonLight Church and a stop sign.  There's a suburb - about a dozen houses nearby on Wade Subdivision Lane.  I appreciate the article creator's efforts -- I'm just sorry I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. I'll also note that I don't think the existence of a post office really means there was an official town. I'm open to recreating this article in the future if someone finds some interesting history in a reliable source.-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  First, per Bneu2013's excellent research showing a reasonable modicum of coverage during Mayfield's heyday.  Second, nothing at WP:NPLACE would suggest that post offices (a legal status conferred by the government, and which in that time transformed the recipient into the center of social and business life for the surrounding area) are excluded from being considered ""legally recognized"".  Third, although the closer of the recent RFC found a "" weak consensus that maps alone cannot demonstrate notability"" (my emphasis), we're plainly past that point now.  (And the closer did find a clear consensus that routine interpretation of maps is not OR, so the many atlases showing Mayfield can likely support some basic statements.)  Fourth, perusing the lamentably incomplete and paywalled archives of the Jackson County Sentinel (the Tennessee one, not the Alabama one) on GenealogyBank, I see that Mayfield was the subject of a society column -- which, while it may not indicate GNG-type notability, is certainly indicative of being a ""real place"" that is worth having coverage of.  (On that note, it also had a telegraph office .)  In sum, the underlying question of notability is whether sources exist that can support encyclopedic coverage, and we should have at least enough for a basic and useful paragraph here.  My days of doing article rescue on spec are behind me, but if the article is kept please ping me and I'll be happy to take a stab at it.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] post offices (a legal status conferred by the government, and which in that time transformed the recipient into the center of social and business life for the surrounding area I ask that you show consensus that this is the case.  There is an old house in my family that was once a post office.  The name by which it was known has no modern analogue in the surrounding community, and none of my family knew its name until we stumbled across an old genealogy book.  No significant social or commercial center sprung up around it, just my ancestors' tobacco fields.  Having a post office is not a ""legal status"" (in the US, think incorporation ), as much as having a house or having a tree is.  It is simply a place some people in the US Postal Service thought convenient to deliver their services to the people who lived in the general area.  What you're essentially advocating is that ""every place that once had a post office is notable"" and essentially, by extension, all post offices are notable.  I find that incredulous.  Should you call the RfC or should I?  - Indy beetle ( talk ) 06:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've seen the post office question come up in other geographic AfDs including another one this week .  I find your comments about your family's post office interesting, Indy beetle .  Because this is recurring, I think an RfC is needed for general use, not just this AfD, to settle this question once and for all.  I encourage doing this in a more public venue -- perhaps a active Wikiproject for geography or post offices (if there are such things) or maybe at the Village Pump. In the meantime, I continue to support deletion of this article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was a discussion about it here a few years ago.  Hut 8.5 16:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think such an RfC should be at the Village pump.  - Indy beetle ( talk ) 18:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was only 1/4 of the points that I raised, but I feel that I didn't choose my words as well as I might have on the post office notability question, so I'll give it another go.  Even I would not argue that all post offices throughout space and time are presumptively notable.  For example, my own urban branch post office is -- to borrow NPLACE 's terminology -- more like an irrigation district than a town. Its existence is a technical artifact of the postal distribution system. It is not, AFAIK, ""notable"" by any relevant standard -- which is another way of saying that an article about it would provide little if any value to the reader. But by the same token, recognizing that NPLACE stands for the proposition that ""places"" run along a spectrum of articleworthiness (from incorporated towns to irrigation districts) that is largely distinct from the GNG, I will raise the following points in favor of considering fourth-class post offices of the rural 19th- and early 20th-century US to be much more toward the ""town"" end of the spectrum than the ""irrigation district"" end: Historians have frequently opined on the centrality of rural post offices to their communities in the pre- RFD period. In The American Mail: Enlarger of the Common Life (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1972, pp. 295-96), Wayne E. Fuller writes of the ""prestige"" of rural post offices and quotes a 19th-century political observer who observed that ""[t]he post-offices of the county were the head centers of the community"". In Fuller's earlier work RFD (Indiana Univ. Press, 1964, p. 85) he writes that ""in rural communities few people were more important than the local postmasters. The very life of their communities pulsated beneath their fingertips"". A more recent historian, David Henkin, in The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2006, p. 64) writes that ""[p]ost offices were, above all, paradigmatic sites of public life"" and notes that in small towns ""the post might be the only point of regular contact with the outside world and the only visible embodiment of government authority.""  Of course, one might fairly question whether these postal historians might be overstating the significance of post offices, just as AFD participants are prone to exaggerate the value of deletion. But it is not only postal historians who have observed the community-defining importance of these institutions. In John Mack Faragher's canonical study of an open-country community ( Sugar Creek: Life on the Illinois Prairie , Yale Univ. Press, 1986, p. 176), as Faragher traces the different trajectories of two towns platted during the same feverish period in the 1830s, he quotes approvingly from a 19th-century chronicler of the area who wrote that a community without a post office ""of course could not flourish, for what place without mail privileges could ever exist?""  For these reasons, I believe that in general, post offices of this particular historical period are worthy of articles because even if the information we can provide on them is relatively sparse, the information is still of encyclopedic value and represents crucial encyclopedic background knowledge for understanding the time and place. Finally, returning to the specific post-office community at issue in this AFD, I would contend that (for all of the reasons laid out by myself and others above), regardless of one's opinion about 19th-century fourth-class rural US post offices in general, at least this one -- demonstrably a place that people considered themselves to be ""from"", not merely where they got their mail -- is of sufficient encyclopedic value to merit an article. Ultimately Wikipedia should include this place for the same reason that contemporary reference works found it worth including: to leave it out would be to leave out important encyclopedic knowledge for understanding the time and place. -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Even if it was a valid designated populated place, what purpose does it serve being a standalone when the vanishingly little content that exists to support it can just be contained in a parent article. That the only designation it has is as a post office makes it even clearer that there is no guideline-based reason to retain it. Redirection can occur after deletion. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't figure out two things about this argument.  First, I've shown that it was more than a post office.  I agree that it could fit into a parent article, but what's the advantage of deletion as opposed to merge and redirection?  How does is deletion, in any way, more useful to someone who may seek information about the location because they saw mention of it in an old newspaper, or saw a letter addressed to someone with a Mayfield, TN address? 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 00:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's fine to redirect, I just don't see why the history would need to be retained or what could even be merged from it. And I don't see how Mayfield is proven to be anything beyond a post office. It's listed as a birthplace of a few people in a book an amateur genealogist wrote about her own ancestors and ""published"" through a tiny Mormon vanity publisher/distributor ...to extrapolate its designation from such a primary self-published source would be OR. JoelleJay ( talk ) 04:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and selective merge to to Jackson County, Tennessee per 78.26.  Someone with more knowledge in this area can determine what content (if any) should be merged. No need to delete the history prior to redirecting. Frank Anchor 15:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. My instinct is to Merge and redirect these geo articles but there is a solid group of editors here arguing to Keep this article so I'll extend the discussion for another week or until another closer sees a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with keeping the article per  Bneu2013's research as well as meeting notability guidelines. Bobherry Talk My Edits 03:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I tried my hardest to source this one and couldn't find anything of value to add. Denaar ( talk ) 03:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Manoj Kumar Singh (civil servant) : Couldn't find anything better than the sources cited in a WP:BEFORE search.  Previously soft deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Kumar Chauhan under this article's original title Manoj Kumar Chauhan ; moved to current title by article creator in 2022.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Genocide against Palestinians : It relies on a combination of highly fringe sources and unsubstantiated public opinion slogans, resulting in a piece that resembles content from Hamas' propaganda.  The theory presented does not warrant more than a brief mention in an article covering Palestinian perspectives on Israel, certainly not an entire dedicated entry.  Its presence on Wikipedia compromises the project's reliability and credibility.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladkarmel ( talk • contribs ) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Criticism of Israel .  This isn't a mainstream opinion, and while it probably passes WP:GNG it doesn't warrant a standalone article under WP:PAGEDECIDE ; it is better to cover it within an existing article.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 12:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree As another user on the talk page has already said, ""This is no different than the page for Holodomor genocide question , merely showing that there is a debate and varying views on the topic. Deleting this article would come across as hiding the fact that many do characterize the conflict as genocide, as the sources show. At most, rename the article.""  FF toho ( talk ) 12:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FF toho, there's big difference here.  There is an article on Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question presents the scholarly debate about the subject.  Genocide against Palestinians is just the an analog to the latter, untethered to widely-accepted-as-fact analog to the former.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support keep and rename .  I agree with this point.  Should the article be renamed to something like Allegations of genocide against Palestinians or Palestinian genocide question /allegations?  -- GnocchiFan ( talk ) 12:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the former title is better. I would also like to say that potentially changing the formatting of the article to something similar to Holodomor genocide question would also be beneficial (which each scholar as its own section). ~ F4U ( talk • they/it ) 14:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the suggestion, the current name lacks of neutrality and takes a stand that the 'genocide' is confirmed, and there isn't such a consensus. dov ( talk ) 14:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A restructuring and naming discussion was already underway on the talk page before this AfD was launched. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , well sourced article about a notable topic.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk ) 12:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The article breaches codes of neutrality and is misinforming.  Also I fear the article may be politically motivated (in connection with the Hamas-Israel war).  Therefore, I concur that this article ought to be deleted .  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 13:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I fear this AFD may be politically motivated too.  — Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The hint is in the ""resembles content from Hamas' propaganda"" .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It absolutely is Deadlyops ( talk ) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a widely sourced topic.  A quick search in google books and google scholar provides clear support.  No comment on what is the correct name at this point.  Note the Rohingya genocide and Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State as examples situations of a similar scale and accompanied by expulsions etc.   Also consider the overlap with Ongoing Nakba .  Onceinawhile ( talk ) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Discrimination , Israel ,  and Palestine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The term 'Genocide against Palestinians' doesn't align with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and WP:Fringe .  The view that Israel has comitted Genocide is held by a tiny segment of scholars, and thus should be presented as such in the context of majority opinion.  To ensure balanced discussion, topics like these could be more appropriately covered in existing broad articles like Israeli–Palestinian conflict .  I'd like to note that renaming to 'Allegations of Genocide against Palestinians' would not solve this problem as it would still put WP:UNDUE emphasis on the fringe theories.  Furthermore , the article violates the WP:FRINGELEVEL policy by failing to provide reliable sources that cover the level of acceptance of the topic.  According to that policy, for articles that delve into contentious or contested theories it's essential to cite credible sources that indicate the level of acceptance these ideas have within the pertinent scholarly community.  If reliable sources cannot be found to provide information on an idea's level of scholarly acceptance, the assumption should be that the idea lacks academic consideration or endorsement.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 13:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are massively misreading that guideline.  Sure, it says it would be nice to show the level of acceptance of the idea.  And actually, the page does include at least one poll, FWIW.  But that's not the point.  You seem to taking a guideline saying something would be nice as implying that if you don't have it, you suddenly have a reason for deletion.  In fact, that guideline has nothing to do with notability or deletion in any way at all.  Also, on the contrary to your concluding statement above, the guideline actually says the opposite: ""However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.""  As it stands, you have provided no reliable sources suggesting that the characterizations on this page are in any way ""fringe"", as you claim.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 21:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : After reading the article thoroughly it does seem like it doesn't follow WP:NPOV and in it's current form represents a narrative rather than coherent information.   I am not against merging it into Criticism of Israel while deleting all of the non-RS backed up information.  dov ( talk ) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly notable topic as evidenced by the sources cited in the first version of the article.  It's irrelevant for notability how popular a view it is since the sources exist.  In fact if the perspective is a fringe one as some are arguing, then it would suggest that merging is not a good solution because most of the article content would be wp:undue in other articles.  ( t · c ) buidhe 14:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK .  Loksmythe ( talk ) 14:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable topic, article whose topic is a POV.  People are reacting emotionally to the title without reading the article.  This meets all the requirements of an article, it has sustained in-depth coverage in a number of reliable sources.  Peer-reviewed journal articles from 2000 onwards, news and analysis from within a few days, all focused on this as a topic.  The argument to delete is an appeal to emotion and simply attempts to wave away the reliable sources with claims of it being ""Hamas propaganda"".  Sorry, but this is not published by Hamas University Press, it is published by Routledge.  Ditto for this or any of the other sources on that page.  You cant just say you dislike what the sources say so delete them.  nableezy - 14:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The idea that this is somehow ""fringe"" simply does not square with our guideline .  Something discussed by reliable sources is not fringe.  Notable commentators discussing a topic is not fringe.  The sources cited in the article are all reliable.  The idea that this is fringe is a dishonest argument that is playing on the hope that people will not actually look at what is cited.  As far as Levivich's argument that the occupation is the same topic, that is absolutely false, and the sources do not simply say the occupation is leading to this.  nableezy - 19:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Palestinian genocide question or something similar.  While some may deny that Israel's actions constitute genocide, this is still a notable and complex topic that deserves its own article.  NPOV issues can be fixed without deleting the whole page.  This is not a BLP , nobody is being defamed by this info.  — Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : That an article has a popular or an unpopular topic is not, in and of itself, a reason to keep or to delete an article.  In assessing this we must set aside that fact that this is a current and very difficult issue, not least for those caught up in the fallout, Instead we must analyse the neutrality , the notability , and the verification .  A merge discussion has already started.  Running this in parallel with a deletion discussion complicates discussions.  I would prefer to set that aside until the AFD is concluded, unless sufficient opinions to merge are reflected in the eventual close.  *The topic is notable, whether one likes or dislikes,  agrees or dosagrees with the subject matter *The notability is verified with significant coverage in independent and relaibel sources *the article is neutral, balanced That leads me to the conclusion that there is no possible rationale for deletion, and every possible rationale for retention.  However we must then consider whether it should exist as a stand alone article, or whether to incorporate in within the body of another.  My view is that is warrants a stand alone article.   This is a sufficiently distinct topic that it should be given its own article, referred to from relevant other articles, geographic and political, from topics which will benefit from that referral.  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge WP:FRINGE , violates WP:NPOV and simply not evidentiary.  Can be retained for discussion as part of a larger topic of attitudes, criticism, and debate around Israeli policies, but does not meet standards for its own page Mistamystery ( talk ) 15:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article is notable, but it has issues with POV.  I would suggest cleanup rather than deletion.  NW1223 < Howl at me • My hunts > 15:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In adition, this article should be renamed to somthing like Palastinian genocide question or similar.  NW1223 < Howl at me • My hunts > 00:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - looks like not NPOV.  Doesn't cite references for the claimed ""Genocide"".  Ovedc ( talk ) 15:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , obviously.  The very title suggests that it's a real phenomenon, but this could not be further from the truth.  No serious WP:RS source claims that there is a genocide, and the article reads like a WP:SYNTH collection of unrelated information meant to paint a picture with a WP:FRINGE point of view.  — Ynhockey ( Talk ) 15:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There is obviously plenty of material here, including input from genocide experts.  Nomination doesn't stand up to scrutiny, asserting that it relies on fringe sources when the sourcing is anything but.  The nominator also sounds like they didn't read the page, because they seem to think it solely presents Palestinian perspectives, which is self-evidently incorrect.  It is highly doubtful that WP:BEFORE was followed either.  The arguments related to NPOV also appear to be half-baked.  For one, an article not being balanced is not a reason for deletion; it is a reason for improvement.  To be deleted purely for being unbalanced it would need to egregiously and irrevocably so, and to this end, none of the delete voters using this argument have actually provided any evidence - not a single source - contradicting the content or outlining how the characterizations referred to on the page are representative of an unreasonable academic position.  As to other points, such as whether or not the name of the page is correct - that is a separate discussion that was already ongoing on the talk page.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The actual scholarly sourcing basis for this topic is frankly huge .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've provided but a small sample of this in the further reading .  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 17:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to Wikipedia:FRINGELEVEL policy articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources ) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.  If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance.  I don't see such a sourced statement in the article.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 17:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any evidence provided that the notion is fringe.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The policy is for articles which cover ""controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail"".  Take another look.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Refer again to where I note the huge literature.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read serious academic works on genocide, the treatment of Palestinians is discussed, and its relationship to the concept of genocide is seriously debated.  For example, The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (2010) refers to the scholarly debate over whether ethnic cleansing was committed by the Israeli side in the 1948 War (see page 57), and also the debate over the relationship between ethnic cleansing and genocide (pages 45–46) (is ethnic cleansing a type of genocide, or a closely related but distinct phenomena?) I think we have to distinguish  (a) issues which respectable scholarship debates but has not yet come to a consensus over, from  (b) issues which are beyond the scope of respectable scholarship entirely.  What we are talking about here is really  (a) not  (b), but when we talk about ""FRINGE"" in the context of Wikipedia, we usually mean  (b) instead.  This is a debate in mainstream scholarship, not some fringe theory, but at the same time any article needs to present it accurately as a debate without a conclusion, not as anything on which consensus has been reached.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 00:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Title presents subject as a fact, which it isn’t.  Delete or rename to neutral title.  Drsmoo ( talk ) 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Edit: Subject is fringe.  Article could only be acceptable with a complete change of subject, in other words, a different article.  Drsmoo ( talk ) 16:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drsmoo : If your own reason for deletion is the name, that should be a reason for a naming discussion.  A bad name is not, and never has been, a reason for deletion on Wikipedia.  Moot point.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete .  Genocide against Palestinians , Allegations of war crimes against Israel (which, despite its ambiguous title, is about allegations of war crimes by Israel, not war crimes against Israel), Human rights in the State of Palestine , Israel and apartheid , Israeli demolition of Palestinian property , Israeli law in the West Bank settlements , Israeli torture in the occupied territories , Ongoing Nakba , Palestinian enclaves , and portions of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and Racism in Israel , are all articles about the same thing: human rights abuses by Israel against Palestinians.  The whole set should be reorganized into something that's less WP:CFORK -y.  ""Apartheid,"" ""genocide,"" and ""ongoing Nakba"" are three characterizations of the same thing: Israeli occupation of Palestine.  The ""article tree"" should look like this: The parent article to all this is, of course, Israeli-Palestinian conflict .  Below that should be some parent-type article for human rights abuses, like Human rights in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .  Below that might be two articles, Human rights violations by Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Human rights violations by Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .  The article about Israel's human rights violations could cover Nakba, the ""apartheid"" characterization, the ""genocide"" characterization, and any other WP:DUE characterizations, probably all of which should be in one article rather than split up into individual articles, unless there's a WP:SIZE issue down the line.  (The article about Palestinian human rights violations would cover the set of articles largely dealing with Palestinian terrorism in the conflict, e.g. parts of Palestinian political violence , Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel , and so on.)  So it should be merged, but probably not to Criticism of Israel (which is one hell of a WP:COATRACK article; why the hell does Wikipedia have ""Criticism of [X]"" articles???); rather, the whole topic area should be re-organized into something that makes sense, doesn't duplicate topics or fork them, and is easy for the reader to navigate.  Barring a merger, second choice is delete.  Genocide against Palestinians shouldn't exist as a stand-alone page, as it WP:CFORKs the articles Ongoing Nakba , Israel and apartheid , and the others I listed above.  We have way too many articles about allegations in this topic area, which water down and obfuscate the facts.  Readers need easy, understandable access to the facts , the history of the area, rather than to every characterization of the conflict (it's apartheid! it's a bantustan! it's an ongoing Nakba! it's genocide!).  That only confuses readers.  Is it a genocide?  It is it apartheid?  Is it an onoging Nakba?  Depends on which Wikipedia article you read.  That's not how Wikipedia should work.  Levivich ( talk ) 16:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur with Levivich's excellent points for several reasons: Overlapping Articles: Having multiple overlapping articles dilutes the impact of each piece and muddles the information landscape.  It's inefficient and confusing for readers seeking a comprehensive understanding.  Article Hierarchy: Levivich's idea for an article tree offers a structured way to present a complex issue.  This hierarchical approach enables a detailed discussion while making navigation more intuitive.  Prevention of Content Forking: The WP:CFORK issue is a significant one.  Multiple articles on closely related subjects can lead to inconsistencies and make updates cumbersome.  Consolidation is a more practical and policy-compliant approach.  Focus on Facts Over Characterizations: Articles with titles like ""Genocide against Palestinians"" can be seen as taking a stance, contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  An organized, fact-based structure is more in line with Wikipedia's ethos.  User Navigation: Current organization makes it difficult for readers to form a well-rounded understanding of the topic.  Levivich’s suggested approach ensures that users have a smoother, more educative experience.  Clarity and Consistency: The presence of various characterizations (such as apartheid or genocide, in separate articles undermines Wikipedia's credibility.  A unified article structure addresses this issue by presenting a balanced view in a single, authoritative source.  Secondary Option of Deletion: If consolidation proves impossible, deletion of redundant articles is a sensible alternative to prevent dissemination of fragmented or conflicting information.  Overall, I think this provides a roadmap for making Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more coherent, navigable, neutral, and in line with our policies and guidelines.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 17:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree with Levivich.  We wouldn't merge Uyghur genocide into Human rights in China , right?  Nor would we merge Holodomor genocide question into either Holodomor or Human rights in the Soviet Union right?  VR talk 18:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uyghur genocide does not fall under Wikipedia:Fringe theories , and there is no Criticism of China or China and apartheid article, despite China being approximately 100 times more populous than Israel Marokwitz ( talk ) 19:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As Levi proposes, Criticism of Israel should be deleted as all Criticism of X articles are inherently POV.  VR talk 19:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So we, at least, agree on one thing.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also Levi, the whole point of this article is (or at least should be) to discuss whether or not there is a genocide of Palestinians.  If RS agree this is an unfounded allegation then the first sentence in the lead with ""While Israel has been accused of committing a genocide of Palestinians, most scholars believe this is not true.""  VR talk 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a source for that?  Take a look a the requirements of WP:FRINGELEVEL Marokwitz ( talk ) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think when it comes to the debate over the ""genocide"" label specifically, there are actually two aspects to the debate (1) factual debate over what Israel actually has or hasn't done, (2) semantic debate over how words such as ""genocide"" are to be defined.  The question of whether Israel has committed genocide is determined by (1) and (2) in combination.  I think the average reader is primarily interested in (1) not (2); but, on the other hand, there is a great deal of scholarly literature from fields such as international law, history and genocide studies which debates (2), both in general and in the specific context of the Israel/Palestine issue.  Given that, I think it makes sense to have both a general article(s) focussed on (1), and a more specialist article which focuses more on the scholarly application of issue (2) to this particular topic.  I don't think the current article is really focussing on (2), but I see no reason why it could not be evolved in that direction with appropriate attention.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 00:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would also be OK with rename .  If the articles were reorganized as I suggest above, I could see (for WP:SIZE reasons) there being a standalone article about the scholarly debate concerning genocide and Palestinians, which I would title something like "" Genocide and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "" or, for a different scope, "" Genocide and Palestinians .""  The description of that scholarly debate is laid out well in the comments on this page by SomethingForDeletion, so I won't repeat them, just +1.  Levivich ( talk ) 00:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yea, I'm still looking at this but the title is definitely a problem.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the best next step would probably be to merge this article and the Palestinian one into Allegations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (though I think ""Genocide and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"" is a shorter and better title).  Second-best would be merging this article to Allegations of war crimes against Israel or some other existing parent article (even if it's Criticism of Israel ).  Third-best would be renaming this article to "" Allegations of Palestinian genocide "" (I don't think any RS calls it the "" Palestinian genocide question "", unlike the Holodomor genocide question , and Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to coin new phrasing , but that's still a better title than the current title).  Still opposed to keeping as a stand-alone at the current title.  Levivich ( talk ) 16:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No internationally accepted definition was proved to be met using credible sources.  These are all lies that should be removed.  TaBaZzz ( talk ) 17:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep well sourced article.  Clearly a notable topic.  - Ïvana ( talk ) 17:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Unsourced and not NPOV.  Atbannett ( talk ) 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Atbannett : Sorry, unsourced how and in what possible sense?  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are indeed claims, but the article name seems to indicate that it's agreed.  It's not.  Atbannett ( talk ) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, your issue is a naming issue, not a content issue then.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 21:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, this article should be deleted.  It deals with a FRINGE theory and WP:SYNTH what I mentioned before about sources.  Atbannett ( talk ) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict .  WP:SOAP also applies.  gidonb ( talk ) 17:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel ; it's openly a child article.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This reaction, in its selectivity, further strengthens the case for deletion.  For example, the name of the ""parent"" starts with allegations, while the ""child"" drops that.  The article does not truly expand on what is written in the ""parent"", only attempts to apply it on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict by rehashing the conflict's content in a POV manner, along with long quotes that artificially fluff the article.  So, no, this is not a justified WP:SPINOFF (assuming on my part that is what was meant) of a chapter that the respondent  added after the fact to a ""parent"".  It is WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Israel AND the Israeli–Palestinian conflict .  WP:SOAP also applies.  Or, as others have put it, WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH .  gidonb ( talk ) 19:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which proposed parent does it not expand open?  There is infinitely more material here than currently sitting at Criticism of Israel .  The rest of your post is a bit drowned in guidelines.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing that makes it a meaningful expansion.  The text is SYNTH, FRINGE, SOAP, POV, fluff, and a rehash of stuff that appears time and again elsewhere.  gidonb ( talk ) 04:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is sourced to books by respectable academic publishers such as Routledge, Palgrave Macmillan, and Rutgers University Press, and articles in mainstream academic journals such as the Journal of Genocide Research , and the University of Edinburgh's Journal of Holy Land Studies .  How are those mainstream academic sources ""FRINGE""?  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 04:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also in academia it is fringe.  The common view in and outside academia is that there is a conflict between nations.  The topic is fringe enough and the article is weak enough to strongly recommend against keeping it for the reasons listed above.  There is no reason to rehash the entire Palestinian Israeli conflict through the prism of what could be described as a conspiracy theory.  Since it has been given some attention, I did not say eradicate any mention from WP, so the sources mentioned support my opinion.  The fact that already the second person took statements out of context shows once more how weak the case for keeping is. gidonb ( talk ) 05:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have evidence to support your claim that ""Also in academia it is fringe""?  The fact that this academic debate is covered at length in books by mainstream academic publishers, and in mainstream academic journals, is clear evidence that it is a mainstream debate not a fringe debate in academia.  Do you have any scholarly sources to support your claim that ""in academia it is fringe"", or is this just an assertion on your part?  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 06:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Everything to the best of my acquaintance with this literature and, very importantly, after reading the article, and knowing what it takes to create a valid article on a valid topic.  From the debate here it is evident that some people are very passionate about having this article yet the arguments in favor of a keep are very weak.  For example, the reasoning of My very best wishes is a total knockout against keeping this article.  gidonb ( talk ) 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Human rights in the State of Palestine or any related article as a first step in making Levivich's proposal happen.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One problem is Human rights in Israel#Human rights in the_occupied territories .  Selfstudier ( talk ) 17:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Palestinian genocide question , similar to Holodomor genocide question .  There are many sources in the article that are very reliable and academic, and they clearly believe a genocide against Palestinians are taking place.  These sources may very well be in the minority and we should definitely give due weight to the contrarian view, ie human rights violations under the occupation don't rise to the level of genocide.  (Fwiw I personally don't believe there is a genocide taking pace, these allegations are an exaggeration).  But clearly this is a notable, and controversial, topic similar to Israel and apartheid , where we had deletion discussions but decided to keep the article.  VR talk 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is a relatively well-sourced article, and I am surprised that we did not have one on this topic until now.  I have been hearing and reading allegations of genocide by Israel since my childhood in the 1980s, and I don't see many voices in the Greek press willing to defend Israel.  Dimadick ( talk ) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think keep because it's well-sourced by reliable sources.  Keep because more WP:RS will continue to be available re: the Genocide of Palestinians by Israel, in the days and months to come.  The Eloquent Peasant ( talk ) 20:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:FRINGE WP:SYNTH and POV -pushing the light of the current conflict; besides being absolutely false given that the Palestinian population was 1.37 million in 1948, and an estimated 5.4 million in the State of Palestine according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.  Furthermore, when the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli control, the Palestinian population has been increasing since 1967 .   Needless to say (one hopes), genocide results in precipitous decline of population.  Additional sources and data here: [25] .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chefallen ( talk • contribs ) Ah yes, the old ""people are having babies so they're not being persecuted"" trope - I believe I've heard that one in relation to the Uyghur Genocide too - this response is sort of making the case for exactly why the content gap is better filled than left open for the chill breeze of misinformed thought to waft through.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 21:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chefallen : I think one issue here is that there is a difference between how ""genocide"" is defined colloquially, and how it is defined in international law .  The colloquial definition emphasises the idea of mass killing, and so a significant increase in population seems rather decisive counter-evidence to claims of genocide.  The international law definition is a lot broader than that, and can potentially include a lot of things which don't involve any killing, and given that much broader definition, a population increase is not decisive counter-evidence to genocide allegations.  Genocide scholars disagree among themselves on how to define ""genocide"", with some preferring a narrow definition closer to the colloquial understanding, others a much broader definition which mirrors the legal one.  In any event, what you are presenting here is a really a contribution to the substance of the debate, not an argument why Wikipedia should not cover that debate itself, insofar as that debate is expressed in reliable sources SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 23:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename I think the citations demonstrate there is serious academic debate over whether or not Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians.  Given that real academic debate, I think it is appropriate to have an article on the debate; I think there are enough sources available on the topic to justify an independent article.  However, the current title clearly endorses one side of the debate, and so I think should be renamed to something else, e.g. Palestinian genocide debate , Palestinian genocide question , Palestinian genocide allegations .  This is different from other historical situations where there is a clear scholarly consensus that ""genocide"" is the appropriate label.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 23:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge - Leaving aside the fact that the Palestinian population has only increased since 1948 (interesting ""genocide""), this is just a grout of fringe, hyperbolic and extremely biased accusations by radical anti-Israel activists who deprecate the value of words, as usual, just like they did with 'racism', 'fascism', 'apartheid' and, in some cases, even the 'holocaust' itself.  Someone could easily start another article called ""Genocide against Israelis"" with some random writer detailing 100 years of riots, massacres, suicide bombings, rocket attacks, stabbings, car-rammings and shootings, followed by Palestinian and Arab leaders calls to wipe Israel off the map and drown the Jews into the sea.  See WP:Advocacy and WP:Competence .  Dovidroth ( talk ) 04:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps check out the reliable sources actually referenced on the page and read those essays yourself.  For the point about population increase, SomethingForDeletion responded above.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 05:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Iskandar, unfortunately this seems to reflect how low-level and histrionic any debate about I-P has become.  The WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims (such as genocide) require exceptional sources, not far-left ""experts"" and activists proposing the expansion of the definition to conveniently fit the Palestinians.  It was cringy to read.  Trust me, there's no way someone would take that seriously.  It makes Wikipedia look comical at best.  Dovidroth ( talk ) 07:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not far-left ""experts"" and activists proposing the expansion of the definition to conveniently fit the Palestinians But historically that has got it back-to-front.  The word genocide was coined by Rafael Lemkin –who was a Polish Jew, and a Zionist, who developed such a broad definition in order to capture what he saw as the true breadth of Nazi criminality.  Nobody has broadened the definition; rather, it has progressively been narrowed compared to Lemkin's original definition.  Lemkin likely would not have agreed with using his very broad definition of ""genocide"" against his own Zionist cause; but it is simply historically false to suggest that Palestine supporters are responsible for that breadth.  Furthermore, when people seek to use narrow definitions of genocide as an argument against Palestinian accusations of genocide against Israel, those narrow definitions may end up also undermining Israeli allegations of genocide by Palestinians –so if the Palestinian side were guilty of ""conveniently"" broadening the definition, would that not be true of (some of) the countervailing Israeli claims as well?  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 08:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone could easily start another article called ""Genocide against Israelis"" Actually, I have created a draft of such an article at Draft:Palestinian genocide of Israelis .  I don't think this is the counterargument that you think it is, because if notable allegations are being made, then it is reasonable for Wikipedia to cover them–irrespective of whether the allegations are actually fair or not.  I've found a number of notable individuals ( Benjamin Netanyahu , Alan Dershowitz , Justus Weiner , Avi Bell , Irwin Cotler , Dan Eldad and Jens David Ohlin ) who have made claims of Palestinian genocide against Israelis.  Given there are notable individuals on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict claiming that the other side is guilty of genocide, I think Wikipedia ought to cover both sets of claims.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 07:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As an uninvolved administrator, I recently blocked an editor for improper canvassing at this AfD, which included emails to over 40 at least 190 editors across multiple sending accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fagerbakke ) .  If you are participating after being notified of this discussion by an off-wiki communication, please disclose it when contributing to this discussion (see WP:CANVAS ).  Needless to say, this AfD falls within a designated WP:CTOP .  Further CTOP enforcement actions may be forthcoming.  Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c ) 05:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be the Yaniv Horon special.  Who else is shocked that people would not disclose such a thing?  nableezy - 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete as per Dovidroth.  This article relies on a combination of WP:FRINGE and non-WP:RS sources, including radical leftist op-eds and Iranian officials, to perpetuate a WP:SOAP baseless theory without evidence of alleged Israeli atrocities.  If there were an ongoing genocide in the Palestinian territories, where are the alleged extermination camps?  Where are the supposed mass massacres of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians?  In reality, Palestinians in the West Bank experience a higher quality of life compared to the broader Middle East.  In Gaza, most Palestinian casualties result from airstrikes against militant radical Islamist organizations, which often use civilians as shields.  (Actually, recent events, like the mass massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas solely for being Jewish, align more closely with the term ""Genocide"").  Deleting this article is vital for maintaining Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and reliability.  A brief mention in the ""Criticism of Israel"" article, adhering to WP:NPOV, would acknowledge the existence of this (conspirative) viewpoint, while making it clear that it is held by the fringes of the scholarly world and radical anti-Israel activists.  LUC995 ( talk ) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This page literally relies on nothing but WP:RS sources.  These repeated claims of fringe are just getting ridiculous and fly in the face of the self-evident body of sourcing present on the page.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *::Yes, because sources like Hossein Amir-Abdollahian , Jalil Abbas Jilani , and Progressive International are textbook examples for WP:RS .  Other sources appear selectively chosen to convey a sense of unanimous scholarly agreement, while in reality, they represent a thin minority in the field.  This aligns with what constitutes WP:FRINGE .  LUC995 ( talk ) 19:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article doesn't cite Jalil Abbas Jilani as a source.  It cites a reputable newspaper that quotes Jilani as making the genocide allegation.  Do you dispute that Jilani made that allegation?  This is similar to a Holocaust denial article citing a source that might quote David Irving denying the Holocaust.  VR talk 21:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've now created what is essentially a mirror image of this article, Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis , which covers Israeli accusations that Palestinians are guilty of genocide.  Personally I don't think it would be consistent to delete this article and keep my new one, although other editors may disagree with me on that.  SomethingForDeletion ( talk ) 08:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've nominated it for deletion; it shouldn't exist either, sorry.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 08:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge - this is where the whole idea of relying on sourcing for notability falls down.  Clearly some have reached for extreme language of genocide, which is tough to justify when the population is increasing.  I don't see that anything is gained by giving this kind of extreme language credibility on en.wiki.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BBC:How do you define genocide?  The Genocide conventions has ""acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such"".  It's not that simple of course but notice that it says ""in whole or in part"".  Selfstudier ( talk ) 12:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are several reasons for deletion: Genocides (e.g. Armenian Genocide ) are well-defined events, even though they can span a period of time.  Here, we have at least 3 separate events (starting from 1940s) all of which are claimed to be a ""genocide against Palestinians"".  This is like an attempt to include the recent flight of Armenians from Karabakh to page Armenian genocide.  Therefore, this page reads like bashing of Israel, a unifying motif of this and some other pages.  Deciding if something was a genocide is a very big deal.  Even with regard to something like Holodomor , this is still debated, and we have a separate page Holodomor genocide question .  Do we have here a coverage in scholarly sources that would be at least remotely similar to the coverage of Holodomor as genocide?  Do we have multiple governments officially admitting this to be a genocide, as for Holodomor?  I do not see it.  This page is a POV fork of Allegations of war crimes against Israel .  I also agree with other arguments by Levivich.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On point #2, no one is deciding if something was a genocide (or characterized as such).  As we do we with everything on Wikipedia, we simply report the material from relevant sources.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 17:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the title of this page was ""Allegations of genocide..."", then indeed, one might collect all sourced allegations of that nature.  But it would be more logical to place such claims to page Criticism of Israel I think.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 19:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep many politicians, researchers, and organizers describe what is happening to the Palestinians as genocide, and Israel has been explicit in announcing its intentions since its establishment.  Increasing birth rates among the population does not mean that genocide should be downplayed or excluded.  This argument is completely rejected.  Likewise, genocide is not only defined by mass murder, but also by displacement, siege, torture and dehumanization. -- Dl.thinker ( talk ) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge.  MVBW and Marokwitz put it well.  (I proposed a merge into Criticism of Israel , which has another section of allegations, but support a merge into Allegations of war crimes against Israel .)  Per Levivich, the forest of content forks should be refactored into fewer articles; new small forks always risk becoming POV forks and hatracks for fringe claims.  Here claims of genocide are strongly tied to other political maneuvering in the region, including to justifications for broader wars; and a trope of anti-semitic conspiracy theories [26] [27] .  We should avoid defamation even though it is not a BLP, and require stricter sourcing for extreme claims than merely ""appearing in an article"" or ""being made by counsel to the Palestinian Authority "".  – SJ + 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  There is no “genocide” to speak of, encyclopedically.  Zanahary ( talk ) 19:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this article overlaps with the Criticism article (e.g. History section).  It appears that, as a stand-alone article, it is impossible for this to be told from NPOV.  No matter how it's reworded, the consensus is nonexistent, suggesting that the existence of this article as an independent page is at fault and that the only way to establish consensus is to merge (merging at least poses a possibility of us reaching consensus in the future, whereas leaving it clearly is not going anywhere).  Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Palestinian genocide question per VR (for titling consistency with Holodomor genocide question ), or to Accusations of genocide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict per nableezy here .  The latter might lead to a better article in the long-term IMO, and will make it easier for readers to see the relative weight of each set of allegations.  I agree with Levivich on the topic area being poorly organized, and spreading content across too many articles in general; hopefully the regulars here can address that.  The Criticism of Israel article is no place for a merge since it should be renamed or split/deleted like all such articles ( WP:CRITS ).  Criticism articles are where encyclopedic content goes to die (and not get read).  DFlhb ( talk ) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also alternatively support a merge to Allegations of war crimes against Israel or  a move to Allegations of Palestinian genocide , as Levivich suggests; ""Palestinian genocide question"" feels too uncommon an expression to be used as an article title.  DFlhb ( talk ) 20:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Criticism of Israel It is genuinely possible to write articles about questions of genocide, and Holodomor genocide question and Armenian genocide are excellent examples of the use of high quality sources from books and scholarly journals that address the topic; this is not what we have here.  This article is a COATRACK recapitulating the near entirety of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a non-neutral manner, characterizing every historical event as genocide.  These are largely fringe theories and the sources don't meet the same standard as other, far more legitimate articles.  I would have suggested a merge, but it's not clear that there's anything in this article that is not already in the Criticism of Israel article, which already includes the word ""genocide"" more than a dozen times as part of various allegations.  Alansohn ( talk ) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename .  As other editors have already suggested, the title should be Allegations of genocide against Palestinians , just like we have Accusations of genocide in Donbas , Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Holodomor genocide question (unfortunate counterexamples IMHO are Transgender genocide and Uyghur genocide ).  When it is not generally accepted that certain crimes against humanity amount to genocide, we should use ""allegations"" or ""accusations"" in the title, to avoid misunderstandings on the part of reader and to address the topic in a more neutral framework.  However, the topic is notable, there are sources showing the existence of theories and public discourses (not WP:FRINGE ) on a genocide against Palestinians, so we should not delete the article.  Gitz ( talk ) ( contribs ) 21:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually that title is unacceptably ambiguous.  You see it as ""Allegations of (genocide against Palestinians)"" but many people will read it as ""(Allegations of genocide) against Palestinians"" as if the Palestinians are the ones accused.  Zero talk 10:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, you are right.  Allegations of Palestinian genocide , Palestinian genocide accusations or Palestinian genocide question would be better and avoid the ambiguity you note.  Gitz ( talk ) ( contribs ) 10:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to something that doesn't make it sound like it's a thing already.  I was surprised to see the amount of sourcing available in support.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 23:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right?!  I had no idea there was such a large body of extant literature.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 04:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge .  WP:NPOV , WP:COATRACK , etc.  Like others have argued, this article only recapitulates the near entirety of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a non-neutral manner.  WonderCanada ( talk ) 08:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge per all above Parham wiki ( talk ) 18:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to one of the above proposals.  There's certainly arguments to be made some of Israel's actions constitute genocide, and it's a common and well-documented-enough accusation to have its own article, but the current title seems to imply it's actively occurring, which violates NPOV.  The Kip 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , WP:NOPAGE .  Fringe conspiracy theories don't belong in a separate page.  Wikipedia hosting this page is problematic given the widely adopted IHRA definition of antisemitism which includes this kind of unsubstantiated allegations.  Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk ) 06:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wp:Fringe literally says the opposite of what you're saying: "" To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea , which must meet the test of notability.""  If this is fringe it means it must NOT be merged into any article and must remain a separate article.  VR talk 21:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable topic atleast for people of gaza, facing Collective punishment and White phosphorus attack.  Having this article on Wikipedia isn't anti-Semitism .  This article may be contradictory for the recent event's but for the 70 years it is definitely.  Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 09:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename : I agree it makes sense to name the page Allegations of Palestinian genocide or something similar.  The page could use a criticism of the concept section instead of deletion.  Restructuring and further edits on the page would help a lot, since I think it would be better to have the article start with multiple conceptions of what ""genocide"" is and then frame the discussion around that rather than listing events and calling them genocidal, which violates NPOV.  Catboy69 ( talk ) 2:35 AM 19 October 2023 (UTC) Keep Notable, significant minor point of view.  Suggesting move to Genocide of Palestinians or Alleged genocide of Palestinians , depending on consensus, for clarity.  NasssaNser talk 03:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A quick glance at GScholar suggest this is a topic discussed in academia, even if for some it may not be politically correct.  Sources to consider: [28] , [29] , [30] ... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this is an alternative interpretation of reality held by very few, it doesn't deserve a page separate from the Palestinian/Israel conflict. ---Lilach5 ( לילך5 ) discuss 19:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is more than enough coverage of this to deserve an article.  Additionally, I see no reason to believe this is a fringe topic, nor has anyone provided evidence to back this up.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  19:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would also agree with a rename along the lines of ""Allegations of genocide of Palestinians"" or the ""Palestine genocide question"" ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  13:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename : to nableezy's suggested title or Palestine genocide question.  I've read too many articles in the past week using the word genocide to think this is a fringe position anymore.  CarmenEsparzaAmoux ( talk ) 23:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Classic example of WP:SYNTH .  We don't create articles for every inflammatory political accusation just to make it possible for people to search for that accusation and say ""see, it's real"".  Allegations of genocide in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict would be a more appropriate title.  Ar2332 ( talk ) 09:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete yes it is well sourced, but this is a slippery slope, because there is no agreement on using the term ""genocide"" in this context, hence the very existence of the article violated NPOV.  Tomer T ( talk ) 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Definitely not WP:NPOV , this is blatant propaganda-pushing and WP:FRINGE .  We already have Holocaust inversion , which this article presents as fact.  Qualiesin ( talk ) 17:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the scholarly content to Human rights in the State of Palestine (as suggested above) with the section title ""Palestinian genocide question"" (also repeatedly suggested above).   I am aware that currently the page I suggest merging to does not discuss the actions of the Israeli army in Palestine (there is no mention, for example of the death of Shireen Abu Akleh or of the Jenin refugee camp or of the fact that Palestinians living in the State of Palestine cannot vote in Israeli elections, yet can be imprisoned in Israel ).   Perhaps moving this topic to that page would lead to improvements.  Another possible solution (my second choice) would be to merge to Human rights in Israel#Human rights in the occupied territories . -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; potentially rename. There definitely is an argument to be made about what's happening in Palestine and Israel. Let's be honest, it's not like Isreali government is giving flowers to Palestinians. And some things like displacing people, removing them from their ancestral homes, and putting them inside the walled off ghettos, while their homes are given to ""the settlers"" is definitely something that would definitely support arguments for genocide. However I do argee that Wikipedia should keep neutrality (which does not mean deleting something to not upset Isreal, which I'm after might be at heart of this proposition). As I recognise that international community does not sounds alarms of genocie, nor nobdy stood in court with charges. However the accusations are thrown so often, and for as far back as to the Mandate of Palestine, I do believe it is something that should be mentioned on Wikipedia. I would propose, to review the contents in article, and rewrite unneutral points of view, only to include facts of what's happening, and remove heated interpretations. As simlar example, I would suggest looking at article "" Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine "". Note that it doesn't outright says ""Geonocie of Ukrainians (2020s)"", since it is an ongoing issue and it will be years if not decades before international court will actually officially call it genocide if such will be proven. Maybe it would be wise to rename this article in a similar matter, to something like ""Allegations of genocide of Palestinians by Israel"" or something like that. Artemis Andromeda ( talk ) 19:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If you are going to claim that something is WP:FRINGE , you are going to have to prove that assertion with actual evidence based on reliable source coverage and without using original research . If you cannot, then you are just engaging in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS . Also, I don't see how this should be merged since the topic and scope of this article are about the characterization of an ongoing event as genocide rather than human right violations against Palestinians by Israel in general. For the proper article title, we should have a proper requested move discussion after this deletion discussion is over. For NPOV issue, we should also have a separate discussion about that but it is definitely not a reason to delete. -- StellarHalo ( talk ) 22:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Disclaimer: Two users sent me emails about this thread a while ago but I ignored at the time.  My comment is: If you can find solid evidence like a leaked military document that explicitly states Israel's intention to commit genocide on Palestinians, theN keep.  Else delete, merge, or rename.  Also could someone please direct me on how I can stop receiving emails from users?  I received another email today and I responded via email and I didn't realize I had given out my real email!!!!! Wh15tL3D09N ( talk ) 02:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Wh15tL3D09N You can go to your preferences.  There should be a check box on the first page to disable email.  NW1223 < Howl at me • My hunts > 02:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you so much!!! Wh15tL3D09N ( talk ) 02:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - article passes WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in reliable sources.  I find it peculiar that some editors are wanting deletion because simply they disagree with the article, e.g. ( no “genocide” / this could not be further from the truth .  starship . paint ( RUN ) 08:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets our notability guideline with multiple RS.  Some of the above ivotes read like WP:IDONTLIKEIT .  There are many vague waves at NPOV.  If those issues exist they can be fixed.  Lightburst ( talk ) 17:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ugh .   One the one hand this is a clearly notable, if arguably FRINGE characterization of Israeli actions.   On the other, it is generally undesirable to have separate articles looking at a topic from different points of view.   A merge such as those proposed by SashiRolls is probably the best way forward.   Also, as SomethingForDeletion notes it is much more useful to inform our readers of what crimes/human rights violations have been alleged and or /proven than to present the scholarly/legal debate over what constitutes the specific war crime of genocide.   Maintaining this article as it stands is a disservice to our readers.   While a merger would be best a rename with concomitant rewrite would be a worthwhile improvement to emphasize that this a partisan characterization rather than a broadly accepted understanding of the conflict.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with many others here that this is essentially a fringe, POV fork Criticism of Israel .  There may be some content here that could be merged to that article or other related ones.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 00:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This genocide accusation is just hysteria and hyperbolism caused by latest conflict in an attempt to drawn attention, we've seen this many times before.  There's obviously no Israeli genocide being carried out BY Palestinians either.  The genocide bar has been lowed so much to appease the latest Palestinian war propaganda that any county in conflict could claim genocide.  They're doing this by using a very broad, stretched, and cherry-picked definition of genocide.  Unlike the apartheid accusations, which gained weight thanks to independent reports by influential NGOs, this accusation comes exclusively from A COUPLE of activist and partisan academics.  Still it has no weight for a standalone article.  It's just a fringe propaganda slogan trying to pass as mainstream theory.  Maybe some of the text could be moved to the ""2023 Gaza war"" article, in the reaction section.  Also there's A LOT of WP:SYNTH going on.  Mixing together many different events in an attempt to create a narrative.  And why in the ""forcible population transfer"", it is not mention that all jews were removed from Gaza (and expelled from arab countries) Was that genocide as well? .  This violates our neutrality policy, it is POV-pushing and wiki activism.  Losing territory after a war that you initiated is not genocide.  And of course, the blockade hoax: Palestinians are in a prison 😭 they can only go out to slaughter thousands of civilians.  No food or medicine is allowed to pass 😭 but they have no problem importing missiles, guns, and ammunition.  The ""blockade"" could be lifted at any time, it's not genocide.  This clownish article is only still standing because there's now way more pro-palestine users than pro-israel, instead of exercising constraint and neutrality, they're taking advantage of this to pamphletize each and every Palestinian propaganda.   – Daveout (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for that bias-replete and policy-devoid statement.  Laying it one a bit thick aren't you?  Three propaganda accusations in one comment?  Also ""blockade hoax"" ?  And the fringe is ... here?  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 09:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If they can go out killing people, if they can smuggle guns, ammunition, and thousands and thousands of missiles, Blockade is not the right word to use is it friend?  I've seen farm fences more constrictive than that.  The Gazan ""line-in-the-sand"" is more like it.   – Daveout (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is well sourced and the topic is notable. -- C.J. Griffin ( talk ) 13:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete :The article is poorly sourced from fringe, extreme-left, anti-semitic propoganda, is patently false, and can be easily viewed as inciting hatred and even violence.  It should be removed immediatly before someone acts on this collection of lies.  DaringDonna ( talk ) 18:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete genocide is not the right word for what's going on.  Andre 🚐 02:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain : Tagged for notability since 2020 Donald D23 talk to me 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:58, 10 October 2023 (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 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Samantha Steuerwald : The most I saw was routine coverage on transfers/contract extensions.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Germany .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bundesliga player with plenty of coverage from a variety of sources to support an article.  [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] (Not all of those pass GNG - the English language one may not be a RS - but enough do.) SportingFlyer T · C 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage.  The Badische Zeitung articles are paywalled and the others are just WP:ROUTINE contract signing stories.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being paywalled means nothing when it comes to determining notability.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsure.  The Badische Zeitung pieces by SportingFlyer, although paywalled, do look to be SIGCOV based on the titles (e.g. ""Stürmerin Samantha Steuerwald verstärkt die Frauen des SC Freiburg"" [ Striker Samantha Steuerwald strengthens the women of SC Freiburg ]) but the other pieces look to brief to count towards GNG.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also thought that article looked promising, although it might be another transfer piece from the looks of it.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per SportingFlyer.  Young player with ongoing career in German women's Frauen-Bundesliga , one of best women leagues in world.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 18:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Badische Zeitung allows viewing up to five articles per month on free email registration, if you can navigate their broken email registration system.  I believe this Sept. 2020 article covering her transition from forward at SV Werder Bremen to defender at SC Freiburg , in addition to the above coverage I've incorporated to the article, fulfill the WP:RS / WP:IS / WP:SIGCOV requirements.  - Socccc ( talk ) 22:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment All you have done is WP:REFBOMB with press releases, brief mentions and unreliable sources (Bild).  No matter how many times her contract renewal with Freiburg is cited it is routine coverage that does not go to passing GNG.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 08:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I agree with Dougal18 that this article fails WP:GNG for now.  The Badische Zeitung article from 6 November 2020 looks like it is SIGCOV (I tried unsuccessfully to register to read it in its entirety), but nothing else comes close.  The 2008 article about her dream of playing professionally (as a 9-year old :)) is interesting, but only a paragraph.  The other coverage is not in-depth or entirely routine (as noted above, when dozens of media organizations carry the same press release about a contract announcement, it's not a sign of notability).  I would support draftification as an alternative to deletion since I think it's just a matter of time before there is more in-depth coverage available.  Jogurney ( talk ) 18:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As per SportingFlyer.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"VPK Group : No credible claim to notability, statements about the company and their sources amount to only trivial coverage.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Belgium .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm sure there must be some confusion; otherwise, there would have been no need for such a nomination.  The fact that this company was WP:LISTED on Euronext Belgium should have prompted the thought that there must be some coverage somewhere, considering this company was founded in 1936 and a large part of that period is pre-internet era, so not easily accessible.  Most of the coverage in the so-called digital era is also behind a paywall, so I understand it would be difficult for someone to distinguish, especially if they are unfamiliar with Belgian references.  In short, there is a lot of non-routine in-depth coverage that discusses the topic directly such as [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] in Trends , which, according to our article, is the only business magazine in Belgium, [18] , [19] in De Tijd , [20] in De Morgen , and in French newspaper Les Echos [21] .  Thus, it meets the criteria for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  I'm listing further sources below with which one can expand the article: ""VPK Packaging laat België niet vallen"" .  Trends .  9 September 2010.  De Schamphelaere, Jan (21 February 2019).  ""Dit is de grootste overname in de geschiedenis van VPK"" .  De Tijd .  ""VPK steekt 200 miljoen in nieuwe papierfabriek"" .  De Tijd .  16 June 2018.  ""Papier Hoge prijs doet VPK Package pijn"" .  De Morgan .  15 May 2010.  ""Personeel VPK Packaging opnieuw aan het werk"" .  De Morgan .  17 December 2007.  ""VPK Packaging décide d'investir en Wallonie"" .  7sur7 .  Broens, Bert; Souris, Simon (4 June 2022).  ""Pierre Macharis (VPK): 'Onbegrijpelijk dat nachtwerk in e-commerce niet kan' "" .  De Tijd .  ""Kartonfabriek VPK betaalt in België drie keer zoveel voor elektriciteit als in Frankrijk"" .  De Standaard .  28 March 2023.  De Cat, Kurt (26 February 2019).  ""Pierre Macharis bouwt papier- en kartongroep VPK uit tot wereldwijde speler"" .  Trends .  Vanacker, Lukas (23 February 2019).  ""M/V van de week"" .  De Tijd .  Michielsen, Tom; De Schampheleare, Jan (19 May 2017).  ""VPK investeert 200 miljoen euro in kartonfabrieken"" .  De Tijd .  ""VPK Packaging naar de beurs"" .  De Morgen .  29 January 1999.  De Schampheleare, Jan (12 June 2023).  ""Pierre Macharis, CEO VPK Packaging: 'We houden van België, maar de energiekosten zijn een grote zorg' "" .  De Tijd .  ""VPK Packaging neemt Frans golfkartonbedrijf over"" .  De Morgen .  2 February 2009.  ""VPK construit une nouvelle usine en Allemagne"" .  L'Echo .  14 September 2011.  Racquet, Erika; De Schampheleare, Jan (3 July 2012).  ""VPK doet bod op Duitse papierfabriek"" .  De Tijd .  Al Bouchouari, Younes (24 April 2015).  ""VPK Packaging s'attaque à la Wallonie"" .  L'Echo .  De Schampheleare, Jan (23 April 2015).  ""VPK bouwt fabriek in België"" .  De Tijd .  De Schampheleare, Jan (3 October 2016).  ""VPK floreert en doet grote overname na beursexit"" .  De Tijd .  Liesse, Dominique (21 February 2019).  ""VPK s'ouvre les portes de la Chine"" .  L'Echo .  Vanacker, Lukas (21 February 2019).  ""Nieuwe overname stuurt VPK naar China"" .  De Tijd .  De Witte, Ilse (21 February 2019).  ""VPK neemt 15 fabrieken over en wordt actief in China"" .  Trends .  ""Normandie : Le papetier belge VPK choisit ""  Double A "" à Alizay plutôt que Chapelle Darblay"" .  4 June 2021.  Broens, Bert (21 February 2023).  ""Verpakkingsreus VPK wipt over 2 miljard euro omzet"" .  De Tijd .  Thank you.  Heuften ( talk ) 21:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To consider sources presented.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on the sources provided.  Refbombing paywalled sources is not helpful.  None of the sources provided indicate why the company is notable.  All I see is a large number of trivial sources talking about things that all companies do, such as growing in size, acquiring other companies, building factories, moving into new markets, interviews with the CEO etc, all in the local business press.  As evidenced by the article itself there is nothing beyond the trivial to see here.  There does not appear to be an article on this company in either the French or the German Wikipedias.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it meets WP:SIGCOV .  I checked a few sources through my university library; they are in-depth and meet WP:NCORP.  We cannot dismiss a source just because it is behind a paywall and in foreign language.  See WP:PAYWALL , which says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.  Some reliable sources are not easily accessible.  For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries.  ""Article on French or the German Wikipedia"" is not a criterion either.  72.172.120.125 ( talk ) 20:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of the sources that you reviewed meet WP:NCORP?  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There is extensive coverage in the 2000 issue of Flanders magazine ( [22] ), followed by further coverage in books titled Solutions! : For People, Processes and Paper ( [23] ), Environmentally Friendly Production of Pulp and Paper ( [24] ), Pulp & Paper Europe ( [25] ), Wastewater Reuse and Current Challenges ( [26] ), Water Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry ( [27] ), and so on.  Geeraarts ( talk ) 00:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relising.  I'd like to hear the opinions of some more experienced editors so I'm relisting the discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – A press release + routine coverage machine.  Also, to Comment: , the three Keep votes are new/unregistered users, and the large majority of their contributions are to this.  Smells like WP:COI .  TLA (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:VAGUEWAVE noted by User:Primefac: voting in 161(!!) AFDs in 24 hours .  Geeraarts ( talk ) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Kyle Kumaran : Driver has started less than 10 races in entry-level motorsport with no notable results.  MSportWiki ( talk ) 23:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Motorsport , United Arab Emirates , India ,  and Tamil Nadu .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per the argument of MSportWiki Formula Downforce ( talk ) 09:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 31 Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets WP:GNG – significant coverage of the subject is present in several independent and reliable sources cited.  Tollens ( talk ) 09:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep per sources found [1] .   They seem to be over the bar.   Weak only because I don't know much about Indian sources or racing so I don't deeply trust my judgement here.  Hobit ( talk ) 23:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (weak): Source eval: Comments Source Meets SIGCOV  1.  ""Kyle Kumaran wins Sr National Rotax Karting title, Peregrine Racing claim overall honours"".  The Times of India.  PTI.  29 November 2021.  Retrieved 10 October 2022.  404  2. ^ Dutta, Debopam; Kundu, Poulomi (31 December 2021).  ""Kyle Kumaran- the 'speed junky' making India proud on international racing circuit"".  Dup ref  1 3. ^ ""Kyle Kumaran wins the senior title in National Karting Championship Rotax Max"".  thebridge.in.  29 November 2021.  Meets SIGCOV  4. ^ Datla, Anand (15 July 2022).  ""The F1 dream: motorsport is seeing revived interest in India, but funds and facilities are hard to come by"".  The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com.  Mention  5. ^ ""Wade and Hannam excel at UAE Rotax Max Challenge 7th round"".  www.gulftoday.ae.  Based on interview  6. ^ ""Red-hot Kyle Kumaran reigns supreme in Novice Cup"".  From DR Meets SIGCOV https://www.firstpost.com/sports/kyle-kumaran-steals-show-with-two-wins-vineeth-takes-championship-lead-in-jk-tyre-novice-cup-category-11826711.html Dup ref 1 https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/2021-fmsci-national-karting-championship-kyle-kumaran-wins-senior-title-peregrine-racing-claim-overall-honours-1882192-2021-11-29 Mention in results article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/kumaran-triumphs/articleshow/87992828.cms No mention https://www.autocarindia.com/motor-sports-news/f1-2023-calendar-revealed-with-record-24-races-425799 I did not look for additional sources beyond the THREE above, and yes this is a weak keep, but based partially on the probability that the THREE above will have more added in the future.  Agree there was no prev closure error.  // Timothy :: talk 22:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Talafi : Tagged for notability since 2012.  Minor awards Donald D23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan .  Donald D23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of television programmes broadcast by PTV#Dramas , where it is listed. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator, I am okay with a redirect as stated above.  Donald D23 talk to me 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Referencing is a bit low but still can be kept as stub as Pakistani dramas from that time has similar referencing from primary sources mostly.  Showbiz news websites were very few back then, even very few newspapers maintained efficiently online presence.  Muneebll ( talk ) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 14:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital : Fails the general and organization-specific notability policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Medicine , United Kingdom ,  and England .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment With a quick check in ProQuest, I see some coverage of similarly named programs in Ireland [4] and Canada [5] [6] , Australia [7] , Singapore [8] , etc. I wonder if this is a more general concept?  If a concept, will surely meet WP:GNG but of course would need to be at Teddy bear hospital or Teddy Bear Hospital — siro χ o 19:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Filament Games : It's entirely possible one of their games could be notable, but that is not inherited by the company.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies ,  and Education .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of their games are notable, and there's lack of coverage of their company.  -- M asem ( t ) 15:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment found some sources.  [81] , [82] , [83] , [84] Timur9008 ( talk ) 18:07, April 29, 2023 (UTC) Those are quite good.  However, to quote WP:GNG , ""multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.""  Therefore I am not 100% sold on withdrawing the AfD unless something else significant pops up, as three of those are from the same newspaper, so essentially there are only a couple so far.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I got this hit in the NY Times, but I think it talks more about the founder [85] and it's paywalled so I can't see what it says.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's almost entirely about their games, not the studio itself.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If it goes into the studio's products, that could be helpful.  M asem ( t ) 02:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 18:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - scratches the surface of notability per given sources and my own searches.  Merko ( talk ) 01:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Coral Amiga : Her most notable role is likely the recurring one in Rome but past that WP:SIGCOV seems extremely limited.  I found an interview in Selig Film News but nothing more significant.  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  11:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and England .  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  11:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Noting that sources have been added to the article but that I do not believe they rise to WP:SIGCOV of Amiga herself.  Of the sources, one is a database entry, one is the interview linked above, and the others only give her single-sentence (or less) mentions about projects she's worked.  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  21:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   I agree with the nominator how this may considered borderline, especially with zero references at the time.   I have added 12 citations since nomination - some of which are sigcov, or sigcov reviews, of works she played a major part creating.    Both WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER apply:  as an actor, Amiga has had significant roles in definitely notable productions (Rome, Southcliffe), and as a screenwriter and director of short films her work has attracted several sigcov secondary reviews.   There has been some attention from notable film festivals too, however I am still working to ascertain the full list of what awards she has either won or been nominated for ( TorinoFilmLab has a bio with further detail on her filmmaking career [25] ).  Taken altogether and in the spirit of WP:BASIC , that multiple sources may be combined, I lean towards the presumption of notability.  Resonant Dis tor tion 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 12:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Slight keep Delete , Depending on how strict you want to be with sources that contribute to notability, it could flip.  I would say that it does pass with FNs 1, 11, and maybe 2 and 9 (with others possibly contributing).  Though if any of these were decided to not contribute to notability, I will switch my ! vote.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My analysis is that 1 is a bio at an event Amiga was involved in - Probably WP:PRIMARY and only a paragraph, so not WP:SIGCOV .  11 is a database entry with no actual coverage, it's just a list of three things she's been involved with - Again, not SIGCOV.  2 doesn't even mention Amiga's name, just a show she played a character in.  9 is decent but an interview, so it's also PRIMARY.  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  02:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have changed my vote to delete.  ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 11:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I largely agree with ResonantDistortion's assessment here, and will further note that the guideline raised, also known as WP:CREATIVE doesn't require the contributions to be in a single form.  Acting, writing, directing, all-in-one, etc go towards the SNG.  Evaluating the collective body of work, anchored by Rome , I think the SNG is met and presumption of notability is there.  — siro χ o 08:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Doug Traub : Subject has not work a well know of significant award.  Has not make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the historical record.  Article reads a bit like a WP:RESUME .  Did WP:BEFORE , was unable to find other sources that would have made this person notable.  Checked Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and the Newspaper archives.  There is content for some of the things that he did but nothing that would rise to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO .  Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople .  Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Advertising , Travel and tourism , California , Florida , Georgia (U.S. state) , New York ,  and North Carolina .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The recommendation to delete the article appears rash; perhaps the page was analyzed before citations were added.  There were hundreds of articles and several books that mentioned Doug Traub over the past few decades; most of them are no longer online, however, especially as most major newspapers and magazines now archive stories and make them only available to subscribers.  Regardless, several articles from significant news sources like the Associated Press are now cited and archived in the article, and dozens of stories are still online (The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc.) that have not been cited.  Please take another look.  FrequentTraveler100 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) FrequentTraveler100 ( talk ) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FrequentTraveler100 Sure no problem just point out which references address any of these points WP:ANYBIO .  Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm hitting the sack in a bit, but let me address your issues now before I turn in by pointing out three areas where the Doug Traub article meets the Wikipedia Notability criteria: Any biography: Doug Traub made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record - the Surf City USA trademark and the attendant publicity are recognised as part of the historical record in California Tourism (the Surf City USA page itself is within the scope of the WikiProject California project) and trademark branding (the Surf City USA trademark is within the scope of the WikiProject Law ).  Creative professionals: The person's work has become a significant monument - the Fayetteville History Museum within the restored Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley railway depot that Doug Traub led the charge to rehabilitate after remaining vacant and dilapidated for more than 50 years meets this criteria.  Politicians and judges: Doug Traub is a local political figure who received significant press coverage.  This final criteria alone should be more than sufficient to meet the Wikipedia notability criteria.  Thanks for pointing out your issues with this article and providing me with an opportunity to respond to your concerns.  Good night!  FrequentTraveler100 ( talk ) 05:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Tampa Bay Times is essentially a newspaper of record .  Decent local coverage too.  I think this meets notability.  TLA (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fine, but one source isn't enough.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, numerous new additional sources have been added for this page, including The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, NBC News/Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal.  I am currently making a substantial revision to the Surf City USA page where Traub is also cited which includes links to stories all over the world, including a front page story on the Wall Street Journal.  Please do not be too hasty to pull the trigger on this page.  I hope to return to it before the end of the week and bolster the citations quite a bit more.  Thank you.  FrequentTraveler100 ( talk ) 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 05:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Puffy stories used for this marketing person, not seeing any about his specifically.  He does stuff related to travel, but nothing we'd use for article sourcing here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Stacy Spikes : scope_creep Talk 23:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is a decent amount of significant, independent coverage ( Time , Inc.  , ( 1 , 2 Variety ).  There are a few reviews of his recently published book, Black Founder: The Hidden Power of Being an Outsider , such as this review in The Washington Informer .  He founded a notable film festival (no Wikipedia article yet, but it has significant coverage in Variety , Deadline , The Hollywood Reporter ...), for which he received the Made in NY Award.  He's also been involved in the executive production of a number of notable films (such as Punks ( source ) and King of the Jungle ( source ) ).  Lots of coverage covering him in the context of the notable company MoviePass , of which he is a founder and CEO ( Forbes , The New Yorker , Business Insider , WFLA ), and in the context of other business ventures ( The Hollywood Reporter ).  Mooonswimmer 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lets examine the references above each in turn against the WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV and then we will examine the references in the first two blocks as there  is only 11 refs there: Comment The first three references are PR as he is launching a new a company.  Ref 1 [28] That is interview done by Mariah Espada.  It is significant but not independent.  and interviews can't be used to establish notabilty.  Ref 2 [29] This an interview.  Ref 3 [30] That is PR and not independent.  Ref 4 [31] This is a press-release and is non-rs.  Ref 5 [32] Book review.  Potentially notable on that, but it not really a review Ref 6 [33] No mention Ref 7 [34] No mention Ref 8 [35] No mention Ref 9 [36] Passing mention.  Ref 10 [37] Passing mention Ref 11 [38] Contributor.  Non-RS Ref 12 [39] This is an interview.  Ref 13 [40] Business Insider is junk.  It is an interview.  It says it in the article.  Ref 14 Can't see it.  GDPR Ref 15 [41] This a PR for his new company.  More interviews.  Looking at this, 4 interviews, 5 passing mentions, 1 press-release, 2 PR entries, 2 non-rs and a book review which is pretty poor.  There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of them.  Essentially there inteviews in the context of moviepass and PR for his new company.  On these he doesn't meet one of the criteria of WP:BIO .  scope_creep Talk 16:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many articles were linked primarily to provide additional context, as Underworld's significance is not evident when solely reading Spike's article, and some information lacks proper referencing.  I'm adopting a holistic and comprehensive approach, integrating ""interviews"" and articles like Ref 3 and Ref 4 (which I wouldn't outright dismiss as press releases) with other indicators.  These include: Spikes' significant role in founding and relaunching a notable company (which has been extensively covered in reliable sources and described as ""influential"" , ""disruptive"" , ""revolutionary"" ).  His contributions to notable works and his executive roles.  His establishment of a renowned film festival (which has seen attendances of 30,000+ and has been covered extensively in publications such as Variety and The New York Times , which has described the festival as "" the biggest competitive black film festival in the United States"" ).  His recognition through a ""Made in NY"" award, which ""celebrates excellence in New York City's creative community and recognize the achievements of individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions to the City's entertainment and digital media industries"" and has been awarded to the likes of Spike Lee , Whoopi Goldberg , Barbara Walters , Nas , Seth Meyers , Robert DeNiro , Patina Miller , Caroline Hirsch , Aziz Ansari , and Steve Buscemi .  Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability suggests that a variety of interviews with supplementary material and analysis from reputable publications like Time , The New Yorker , and Inc. can be viewed as evidence of notability.  Although this is an essay and not a guideline, it aligns with WP:BIO , which emphasizes notability as determined by independent parties who publish substantial works focused on the subject.  In the case of Spikes, the Time article, for instance, goes beyond a raw, unedited interview and offers some degree of supplementary material and interpretation and analysis by Eliana Dockterman.  Why wouldn't it be considered a piece of secondary, independent coverage?  In my opinion, these elements collectively construct a compelling case for his notability.  Mooonswimmer 19:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ref 3 is PR not a press-release. .  [42] .  None of the these references above at independent.  None of them thate not passing mentions or don't mention him.  scope_creep Talk 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My bad, I read press release for both.  Can you address the holistic approach to Spikes' notability?  In your opinion, none of what I listed is significant?  The fact that independent journalists writing for Time , The New Yorker , Inc. considered him notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon him, the fact that he was the founder of a very influential and notable company, the fact that he established a renowned festival, the fact that he has contributed to notable works, the fact that he was been the recipient of a distinguished reward for making significant contributions to New York City's entertainment and digital media industry.  None of it contributes to notability?  Mooonswimmer 21:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Comment Lets the first two blocks of the article, the first 11 references: Ref 1 [43] This a profile. Profiles are generally written by the person themselves and are considered WP:PRIMARY . Ref 2 [44] This is a good WP:SECONDARY ref but really about Moviepass and it downfall. Ref 3 [45] This is the interview. Same ref as above. Ref 4 is Ref 1 Ref 5 [46] Another interview style article. It is not independent. Ref 6 [47] Passing mention. Ref 7 [48] It is non-rs. Ref 8 [49] Copied from the website, via press-release. Ref 9 [50] All copied from the book. It is WP:PRIMARY . It is PR. Ref 10 [51] Another interview. Not indepedent. Ref 11 [52] That is banruptcy notice. It is non-rs. WP:PRIMARY . Ref 12 [53] This is PR to introduce reader to the product. It is not independent either. These references like the references are above are entirely unsuitable to pass WP:V for a WP:BLP article. WP:BIO has three criteria and this article fails all of them. WP:BLP states: ""Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"". These are not one high quality source. They are typical of a businessmen who has the money to spend on PR, press-releases along with business style  interviews that are primary. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of them. scope_creep Talk 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scope creep , I'm following and agreeing with most of what you say above. But I take issue with the unsubstantiated statement ""This a profile. Profiles are generally written by the person themselves and are considered WP:PRIMARY.""  Profiles are sometimes written by historians, profiles are often written by journalists, profiles are sometimes written by subject matter experts. In these (and other) cases profiles absolutely can be secondary, independent, reliable sources. Thanks. — Jacona ( talk ) 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Jacona : How goes it? In this context they will likely have been written by himself. About four to five years ago there was a document doing the rounds, that looked at profiles amongst other things of that type,  Since they are so heavily used now by everybody really, and due to the quick turn around of content, they looked at them and why they exploded in use. The outcome for me, was that often the person involved would be requested to send a wee short bio to give the reader to something to chew on. The clear takeaway was they were primary, because the organisational entity doesn't necessarily know that much about the person, so they request a profile. It is an industry wide pattern. There may be case that historians, journalists and subject matter experts create them as well, and that something that needs taken cognizance of, but not in this context.  If it a businessman article,  I wouldn't trust in the fact it wasn't written by themselves or the PR agency.  The are primary here. scope_creep Talk 20:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Time article has significant content prior to the interview. The New Yorker article is definitely an RS. I think it's a bit weak, as so many of the sources are about his company rather than him, but those two articles give bio information so they are at least in part about him. Lamona ( talk ) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm. I don't think I can add much to the analysis based on the BASIC criteria. ""Often interviewed due to their (co-)founding of MoviePass"" is not really something we can used to establish notability. I think Moonswimer does point towards some of the additional criteria (though really, they are not making that at all clear with the seeming to go for quantity of references instead) so we should probably take a look at that as a ""holistic approach"", so to speak. I see two possible avenues through those criteria we may want to evaluate against, WP:ANYBIO #2 and WP:PRODUCER (any, but most likely #3 or #4). In evaluating against the former ( widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field ) in the absence of an independent RS specifically saying so, I imagine we would need to evaluate the enduring notability of the founded company, MoviePass . Merely being described as ""innovative"", ""disruptive"" or ""revolutionary"" does not seem sufficent, as it does happen to quite a substantial number of companies that ultimately do not make a long term impact. For WP:PRODUCER , I do not see significant evidence for significant or well-known work or collective body of work . While the subject is credited as (co-?)producer on a number of films, it does not appear those films are particularly well known. Finally, the point of the film festival. I don't believe the ""Made in NY Award"" is regarded as a well-known and significant award or honor , but I admit I could be wrong: I can't find much about it. It is also not entirely clear if the fact that it is renowned is explicitly stated in secondary (and independent of course) sources, Gothamist does say it's ""one of"" the longest running, but that does not appear sufficient to create a claim under any of the additional criteria. I would say the best option open to us for now is to redirect to MoviePass . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 08:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't going for ""quantity of references"" to establish notability. Most of the references I linked to were simply to back up my claims and provide extra context, especially regarding the signifiance of the company, the festival, and the award. For references contributing to notability, I'd consider: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 MoviePass has already been extensively covered and many articles delve into the company's lasting influence on the movie business ( How MoviePass Has Changed Ticket Buying , Even If MoviePass Dies, It Changed Moviegoing for Good , The rise and fall of MoviePass: how 'Netflix for cinemas' fell apart , Graham: MoviePass, on its last legs, made a big impact , MoviePass: The 'Get Big Fast' Strategy ).  Regarding the award, It was created and is presented by the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment and is a category at the Gotham Awards (which has been described as "" the traditional kickoff to awards season "").  The award honors "" individuals and organizations that have made what are deemed significant contributions to the city’s entertainment and digital-media industries .""  There is a decent amount of coverage on it.  In this article by the The Hollywood Reporter , it is described as ""prestigious"".  The festival itself (described as "" the largest international competitive specialized fest of its kind "" and "" the largest film confab devoted to minority fare "") has also received plenty of coverage in publications such as Variety, Deadline, and The New York Times.  Mooonswimmer 13:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I wouldn't rely on the award to prove notability.  If doesn't have an article and is handed out more than once a year, so I don't see it as particularly prestiguous.  It loooks more like a trade award.  The references presented arent sufficient to satisfy WP:THREE which is considered best practice to prove notability at afd. .  I've not see three genuine secondary sources proving she is notable.  I'm not particularly confident that the Time article is a decent secondary source.  scope_creep Talk 14:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I mentioned above, the Time article is published by an independent, reliable source and focuses solely on Spikes, going beyond a raw, unedited interview, and offering some degree of supplementary material and interpretation and analysis by Eliana Dockterman.  Why wouldn't it count?  Regarding the award, the fact that it doesn't have an article doesn't make it non-notable (same goes for the festival he created).  I am familiar with both and will be creating articles for them whenever I have the time.  I personally see the award as quite significant, definitely not to the level of other accolades, but enough to be considered a notable award.  It celebrates individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions to New York City's entertainment and digital media industries.  New York City is an international entertainment and digital media hub.  It was created by the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment.  It's a category at the Gotham Awards .  Its recipients are mostly highly-regarded individuals and organizations in entertainment.  Reliable sources report on the recipients of the award annually.  It has been described as ""prestigious"" by The Hollywood Reporter .  To me, that's a significant, well-known award.  And again, holistic approach.  So far, I've been considering multiple aspects of Spikes and his career (company, works, festival, awards, coverage) all together.  Some are weaker than others but collectively they construct a compelling case, aligning with our guidelines, showcasing Spikes as a notable figure in the entertainment industry.  If we are to take a more formulaic and stringent approach, I've presented what I believe are ample sources and I've argued for the enduring notability of the company he founded.  Mooonswimmer 15:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Historically, what has been considered well-known and significant have been awards like the Emmys, Oscars, Nobels, that kind of thing.  It's a somewhat higher standard than notable by significant coverage as provided by the GNG, considerably so.  I'm still dubious on the part of the enduring historical record part.  Which sources would you consider the best three, if you do intend on making an argument based on BASIC?  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Never mind, I see you did include 4 specific sources, I'll see if I can go through them in a bit more detail later.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 04:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scope creep , It is very inappropriate to misgender someone, as you have done with Stacy Spikes.  I'm hoping this was a slip, and not a deliberate disparagement attacking his manliness.  If it's a slip, it causes me to question whether you did sufficient investigation before nominating this article for deletion.  — Jacona ( talk ) 16:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I highly doubt it was a ""deliberate disparagement attacking his manliness"".  Note that User:Scope creep used ""he"" and ""his"" pronouns in reference to Spikes above.  Mooonswimmer 16:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mooonswimmer , thanks, I was concerned.  Mistakes happen, I know I’ve made a few!  — Jacona ( talk ) 17:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Brie Gabrielle : Let'srun ( talk ) 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Florida .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A quick Google search turned up more than enough coverage in sources to pass WP:NACTOR : [5] [6] [7] [8] — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 05:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Honeycut : I'm not sure if they're even active anymore (their website is currently parked and being publicly listed for sale) and I haven't been able to find any sources about the band.  The only sources I've been finding relate to ""Honeycut Records"" which appears to be unrelated to the band.  Dawnbails ( talk ) 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Music ,  and California .  Dawnbails ( talk ) 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found for this band, appears to be a cocktail bar in LA with the same name.  Sourcing used in the article now is meh.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Got plenty of press coverage for their 2006 debut album; see, e.g., [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] .  Meets WP:MUSIC .  Chubbles ( talk ) 04:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I'm iffy about the sources you've provided, I'd say that it'd at least make sense to draftify this article if others believe that they're reliable enough to use.  The article currently stands on one singular source right now.  Dawnbails ( talk ) 00:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The advice at WP:AFDTODRAFT discourages draftifying as a solution to problems identified at AfD, and I have to agree; if a subject is notable, the correct course of action is not to remove the article, temporary or permanently (and most draftified articles don't come back).  Chubbles ( talk ) 04:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Oaktree Graywalls ( talk ) 04:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to review new sources and to consider Draftification.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to sources Chubbles identified, specifically the SPIN article Elttaruuu ( talk ) 10:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What SPIN article?  I am not seeing what you're talking about.  Please name the specific link.  Graywalls ( talk ) 18:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 5th link Elttaruuu ( talk ) 20:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, given the new sources, this may be closed as No consensus.  And, by the way, I've seen plenty of articles that were Draftified appear again in the main space, the problem is actually that they are brought back to main space immediately after being moved to Draft space without a lot of work being done to address their problems.  But sometimes a little extra time in Draft space can result in an improved article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as Spin, Popcrush, AllMusic as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and others such as East Bay Times so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Tales of Nazir : The only claim of notability being attempted here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of sufficient media coverage about it to pass WP:GNG -- but this is referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as its own website, IMDb and/or the episodes themselves on YouTube, and what precious little it shows in the way of third-party coverage is very, very short blurbs that aren't substantial enough to pass GNG all by themselves, along with one citation (duplicated as two separate footnotes for no apparent reason) which appears to be here solely to create the false impression that this has coverage in an academic book so long as you don't actually look at the source to discover that it has absolutely nothing to do with this, and just happens to coincidentally mention a completely different Nazir in a completely different work.  Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better sourcing than has been offered.  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Websites ,  and Ghana .  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources on the page indicated some notability.  I've added more.  Primary sources can be removed or not, but this is more a matter of cleanup, as secondary sources exist. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources are indicating notability, when every single footnote in the entire page (even after your additions) is still either primary or unreliable ?  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're welcome.  What sources?  Answer: GhanaWeb or Pulse among other things.  And I cannot see any reason to consider GhMoviefreak unreliable.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Barby Storage Reservoir : It certainly exists, the trouble is finding substantial reliable sources about it.  As an ATD we could merge to the reservoir section on Severn Trent JMWt ( talk ) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England .  JMWt ( talk ) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Now sourced.  However, if there is merge, it should be to Draycote Water .  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any comments on the improvements to the article since its nomination?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"2023 Israeli Basketball National League Cup : Star Mississippi 16:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Basketball ,  and Israel .  Star Mississippi 16:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as easily notable per WP:NEXIST .  Totally unclear why the NATIONAL *LEAGUE* BASKETBALL CUP of Israel would be TOOSOON, a country with a HUGE basketball tradition and following, AFTER IT HAS ALREADY STARTED!  This nomination is an obvious error.  The article is not a fit for the draft space at this stage.  gidonb ( talk ) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no sourcing to be found that establishes why this particular edition is notable.  It will be, when external sourcing develops.  Right now it's primarily talking about the Cup as a whole and the postponements.  Incubation would be wonderful.  Star Mississippi 18:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When you say that there is no sourcing, do you mean that there are no notability-supporting references in the article?  What is the added value for WP of frustrating the development of sports articles by our sports contributors and, for the general community, of even more AfDs like this one?  Don't we have enough AfDs?  I have linked this article to Hewiki and cleaned it up a bit.  gidonb ( talk ) 21:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I first came across it, there were two sources to the league.  My Before, and in extremely rudimentary Hebrew helped by Google translate found nothing that would establish notability.  I have a lot of respect for you as a fellow editor @ Gidonb but you know Don't we have enough AfDs?  isn't an argument to keep as it can easily be refuted by don't we have enough seasonal articles when they could be covered elsewhere?  They're both bad arguments.  If there was sourcing I had missed, you'd have added it.  What's wrong with allowing incubation until there is sourcing?  (I realize you're not the one who moved it over the draftification.  Rhetorical.  Star Mississippi 01:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] you know Don't we have enough AfDs?  isn't an argument to keep .  Certainly.  Just a call for reason.  Season articles take a year, cup articles not much less to develop.  This cup has been shortened so from this perspective (only) a positive exception.  We should not sit out there with stopwatches in our hands waiting for everything to fall into place.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please stick to policy and guideline based arguments.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per gidonb and above.  - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 23:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Significant national-level tournament.  Carrite ( talk ) 22:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment semi'ed to stop the immediate disruption.  If any admin wants to take it over since I did open the discussion, feel free.  Constructive new users are welcome to use the Talk.  Star Mississippi 02:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Preaching chords : Previously de-prodded.  (The term is real, but appears only as passing mentions, e.g. this PhD diss and the sources in the article.)  Should potentially be redirected to Black sermonic tradition as an ATD.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 23:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Music , Religion , Christianity ,  and United States of America .  Suriname0 ( talk ) 23:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Courtesy pings to article contributors: User:Natemup , User:Geo Swan , User:North8000 , User:Write Serum , User:IntellectualChristianWikiUser Suriname0 ( talk ) 23:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep : Referenced in many books, articles, videos, and literally has its own Google infobox ( https://g.co/kgs/zHnmxr ).  There are entire websites and phone applications dedicated to the topic.  natemup ( talk ) 23:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a ! vote on whether it should be deleted or not, but it probably has it's own google infobox because it has a Wikipedia article, so it's kind of circular to say we should keep it for that reason.  Jahaza ( talk ) 02:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : I'm finding a lot of references to it in informal instructional guides, so it's a notable subject—but we need a reliable source that defines for it to be suitable for an article.  Natemup , do you mind adding some additional RSs in this AfD, I think I could firmly vote for keep.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 00:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added some sources.  natemup ( talk ) 01:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Thanks for adding some references, natemup .  Unfortunately, it doesn't look to me like any of these sources discuss preaching chords directly and in depth.  (In other words, they don't contain WP:SIGCOV and/or original research is needed to understand their relevance to preaching chords.)  I only had access to the Google Books previews for the book sources, so I may have missed an explicit discussion of preaching chords: providing a brief quote and page number from the sources that discusses preaching chords would be helpful so others can evaluate they extent of coverage in the sources you added.  A more meta comment: the guideline we use to determine if a topic is suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article is WP:GNG .  A topic that is ""referenced in many books, articles, and videos"" should be covered on Wikipedia, but if it doesn't meet WP:GNG it should be covered in a more general article instead, e.g. in Black sermonic tradition or Gospel music or similar.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 16:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Alternatively the content and definition and sourcing could be merged to Call and response (music) It's basically a term for a subset of Call and Response music, and so much of the sourcing for Call and Response could be considered as available sourcing for this article.  The definition and comment and sourcing for this article should not be lost.  I 'spose merging all of that to the Call and response (music) is a possibility.   If that is decided I'd be happy to do the merge if pinged.  But as a minimum,  the content and definition and sourcing absolutely should be preserved.  Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 19:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi User:North8000 , it's clear that everyone in this discussion favors keeping this content.  What's not clear to me from your vote is whether you favor keeping this content as a stand-alone article or merging it elsewhere.  In particular, do you think this topic meets WP:GNG ?  Thanks!  Suriname0 ( talk ) 19:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My first choice is an outright keep and I consider a careful & preserving merge to be an OK and close second choice.   I didn't comment on GNG separately.  North8000 ( talk ) 19:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying.  WP:DISCUSSAFD says ""please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments"".  Since you favor a keep over a merge, would you mind speaking directly to whether the topic meets WP:GNG ?  Or, can you explain why meeting WP:GNG is not relevant in this case?  Thanks!  Suriname0 ( talk ) 19:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After additional consideration, my first choice would be a careful merge and my second choice would be keep.  I'd be happy to help on a merge if pinged.  North8000 ( talk ) 03:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't find any usable sources while searching the exact phrase ""preaching/preacher chords"", but I got better results running more generic searches; I get the sense that ""preaching chords"" is a popular term that hasn't been picked up by academics, who instead just call it ""instrumentation"" or ""musical accompaniment"".  The best source I found was Brooks, ""The Sound of Celebration"" ( JSTOR 10.5323/48581552 ), which covers the subject in considerable depth (see especially pages 26 and 35–39).  Unfortunately, that's the only source I found that I believe meets SIGCOV.  While there's a lot of discussion of the vocal aspects of ""whooping""-style sermons, the instrumentation generally only gets mentioned in passing.  The second-best source I found was Williams, ""Sermon and Song"" , page 91, which describes the co-operation between preacher and organist but still keeps the organist firmly in the background.  Other sources simply mention that preachers are often accompanied by a Hammond organ and say little more about it.  I think the best outcome here would be a redirect to Black sermonic tradition .  Even if the concept of ""preaching chords"" is notable, it would make more sense to discuss it in the context of whooping sermons, about which a lot more could (and should) be written.  I'm suggesting a redirect rather than a merge because I don't think the sources currently in the article are really any good for verification, which means that most of the content is effectively unsourced.  The E. Dewey Smith quote could maybe be merged, but that's about it.  I don't agree with North8000's suggestion to merge into Call and response (music) , firstly because that article has a very wide scope and I don't see how this content would fit into it, and secondly because I don't believe it's true to say that preaching chords are a subset of call and response music – as I understand it, it is the preacher and the congregation who engage in call and response, not the instrumentalist.  Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, some solid Keeps and a Redirect/Merge suggestion to two different articles so we are not close to consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or redirect to Black sermonic tradition : Granted the refs aren't that good (and ref 1 is a deadlink) but subject matter seems notable as per WP:GNG .  We need to give editors time to find good sources.  CVDX ( talk ) 22:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Billy Reil : Worked on independent level.  sources only make passing mentions about him WP:ROUTINE results.  No in-deep coverage about him.  HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 09:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Pennsylvania .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Ved Prakash Upadhyay : Sources are either unreliable or they are making only a passing mention.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 02:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India , Academics , Punjab , Languages , Hinduism ,  and Islam .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aman.kumar.goel , please don't forget the steps listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors . Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: here are potential refs: Bhatt, Kamlesh (24 April 2021).  ""Sanskrit Sahitya Alankar Samman to Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay and Dr. Jagdish Prasad Semwal"" .  Google Translate .  Dainik Jagran .  Retrieved 4 August 2023 .  ""Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay will get President's Honor-2018"" .  Google Translate .  Khaskhabar.com.  20 August 2018 .  Retrieved 4 August 2023 .  ""Presidential Award to Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay"" .  Google Translate .  Aggarjan Patrika.  9 April 2019 .  Retrieved 4 August 2023 .  ""Sanskrit scholar Dr. Ved Prakash will reach Panchkula on June 24, has got more than 60 students done PhD"" .  Punjab Kesari .  22 June 2022 .  Retrieved 4 August 2023 .  Haque, M. Zeyaul.  ""A Hindu view of Islam"" .  Google Translate .  The Milli Gazette .  Retrieved 4 August 2023 .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another ref: ""Sahitya Ratna Awards announced"" . The Tribune (Chandigarh) . 3 December 2016 . Retrieved 4 August 2023 . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question: the Rashtrapati Award (formerly the President Award of India -- isn't that a big deal? Something like that in other countries would normally qualify someone for notability per WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Routine coverage about awards does not verify WP:GNG .  Most of these sources make only passing mention.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 02:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep His significance is undeniable, as he received numerous additional honors, including the President's Award in the field of literature.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 01:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rashtrapati Award is not enough for establishing GNG.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 02:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you should read the subject-specific notability guidelines since this biography clearly meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 03:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DreamRimmer : Which source convinced you that the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO ?  BTW, the IP who notified you to this AfD has been blocked for socking.  [12] Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 06:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Editorkamran ,  Could you please explain where you discovered information indicating my involvement in this matter?  While patrolling the recently accepted drafts on AFC/SC , I came across this AfD.  The link you provided in your previous comment is for a different AfD, to which I have not responded.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 06:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked the edits of the IP and found that they notified you.  But given your explanation, I have removed the tag I had added.  Editorkamran ( talk ) 06:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He received Rashtrapati Award (formerly the President Award), which is a significant and national-level award given by the the President of India .  He also received the ""Sahitya Ratna Award"", a significant award in literature.  According to WP:NACADEMIC , The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.  and per WP:ANYBIO , The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aman.kumar.goel , I was not requested to comment here; please do some investigation before making allegations.  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Just winning a notable award is not enough for meeting WP:N .  Editorkamran ( talk ) 05:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] :I think it's a sockpuppet of Aman.Kumar.Goel.  I request @ A. B. : to do a sockpuppet investigation.  202.134.10.138 ( talk ) 17:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sometimes other people just independently disagree with you; no sock- or meat puppetry is involved.  I am no longer an administrator.  You can request a sock puppet investigation yourself without my help at WP:SPI .  To avoid wasting your time and others, carefully read the part that says ""Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sockpuppetry.""  The CheckUser people will only investigate if they have "" probable cause "" to do so.  You can't just wave your arms and say "" Editorkamran and Aman.kumar.goel agree with each other too much"".  Here are examples of investigations where the reporting parties did a good job of laying out the evidence: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MasaoOhba1949 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld .  The better prepared you are, the easier it will be for the checkers to determine whether or not there really is a problem; see this for some guidance: Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry .  As I said earlier, sometimes other people just independently disagree with you.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my own earlier comments and those of others. Notable. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a single source provided by you has provided significant coverage to this person.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 03:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aman.kumar.goel ,  I believe you haven't properly read the notability guidelines.  This article is compliant with the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG), so it does not need to adhere to the general notability guidelines (GNG).  According to WP:N ; topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article.  All of the provided information and claims are verified by reliable sources in this article.  BTW significant coverage( WP:SIGCOV ) is part of WP:GNG .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 05:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For example, all MLAs (legislators) are notable under WP:NPOL (SNG), even though they lack significant coverage (GNG).  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 05:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, not a single source provided which has provided significant coverage to the subject.  Writing a non-notable book and winning a notable award isn't enough.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 05:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ::::::You have WP:COI with this, that's why you are just going on saying this exact line again and again because you don't have the ability now to prove it in detail.  43.245.120.228 ( talk ) 16:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Special:Contributions/43.245.120.228 , extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you have not presented.  Aman.kumar.goel has made 1000s of edits across a range of topics.  Your edits have most been related to Ved Prakash Upadhyay and his book.  While I disagree with him in this AfD, I trust him.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete because once the major puffery & blatant promotionalism are removed there will be nothing left but a successful career as a professor, which is not in itself notable.  UrielAcosta ( talk ) 20:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 04:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes 3rd criteria of NAUTHOR as author of Kalki Avatar and Muhammad which has "" been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work"".  Passes 2nd criteria of NACADEMIC as Rashtrapati Award is ""a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."".  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  16:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That book is not notable either.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 05:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Book is not notable but that book has "" been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work"".  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  16:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC , WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG .  — Masum Ibn Musa Conversation 04:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See my lengthy citation analysis at the AfD for one of Dr. Upadhyay's books: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad Dr. Upadhyay's ideas and writings are clearly notable.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : please see - WP:ACADEMIC & WP:ANYBIO . ≈ Farhan «Talk» 04:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I only see puffery and promotion.  There is no chance of this subject meeting WP:GNG .  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 14:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't meets GNG but meets ACADEMIC and NAUTHOR.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  16:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am surprised by those who claim he passes WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR ; This is completely unsupported by any of the sources, either here or on the page.  Clearly non notable.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -No Claim of WP:NAUTHOR and he not passes WP:GNG .  Kind regards -- Âvî râm7 (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aviram7 , I saw that you've voted in multiple AfDs recently, and they all seem quite similar. You're using the same format for each AfD. Could you please explain why this subject doesn't fulfil the requirements of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 05:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe my votes provide sufficient information, and regarding this AfD, I think this award isn't as significant as it needs to be in order to demonstrate the importance of this subject.Kind regards -- Âvî râm7 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aviram7 And what about crictism about his book?  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  18:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the tale of Cap'n Jack Sparrow - it does not appear that he meets NAUTHOR, NACADEMIC or GNG although perhaps this is a language barrier issue.  Andre 🚐 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , It seems this article have the basic requirements of an article to be in Wikipedia unless there's a conflict of interest or writing an article as a propaganda for social media accounts.  محمود ( talk ) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of notability.  It does not pass WP:NAUTHOR because ""Kalki Avatar and Muhammad"" is a non-notable book.  Dympies ( talk ) 16:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Passes WP:NACADEMIC as a long-tenured and influential professor who attained a notable national award, i.e. the Rashtrapati Award , for their services to academia.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - After looking into the claims of receiving the Rashtrapati award 2018, which was really the only justification for keep votes based in policy, it appears that he did not win the award at all.  There exist two reports from questionable sources, both of which claim that he was announced as a recipient; however, no other reports on this exist.  Instead, he was awarded a different ""Presidential Award of Certificate of Honour and Maharishi Badarayan Vyas Samman"" which is nowhere near being ""highly prestigious"".  Every year, dozens of these are given out to people above 60, these are not reflective of notability by themself.  Like I said, the policies being cited fail to actually show the notability of the subject.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 18:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition, the Rashtrapati Award seem to have been a political honor, not an academic award.  See WP:NPROF#Specific criteria notes .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ The ed17 , it is actually Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman which are given to academics for their contributions.  The awards are handed over by the President of India on the Independence Day.  Bringtar ( talk ) 18:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is also a political award, which runs into issues at WP:NPROF#Specific criteria notes .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Some awards available in English.  Sathiya ratna shiromani awards Times of India The Tribune diprpunjab.gov.in President's Certificate of Honour - 2018 (as Prof. (Dr.) Ved Prakash Upadhyaya) sanskrit.nic.in ministry of education, India pib.gov.in DSP2092 talk 06:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Given the content and praise in the keep assertions above, I was expecting to find at least one gold-standard newspaper profile of this person that would meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG .  But...  I'm not.  The best source I've seen from the analysis at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad is this work , but that's the only one.  To WP:NPROF then.  Supporters are pointing to a Rashtrapati Award , but per above it's a political award (not academic) and there's debate over whether they actually received it.  Other awards named appear to be minor if compared to those listed at NPROF.  I'm also not seeing anyone argue in favor of any of the other seven bullet points outlined there.  We have an intentionally low bar for articles about academics, but as it stands I don't see how this qualifies.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ** see here in pages 2, 3 and 26.  He got president's certificalte of honour award and also 5 lakh rupees with it.  The article of the president's certificalte of honour says: ""The awards of Certificate of Honour and Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman are Indian Presidential honours which are conferred on academics by the President of India once a year on the Indian Independence Day, celebrated on 15 August; in recognition of their substantial contribution in the various fields of languages including Arabic, Kannada, Sanskrit, Malayalam, Oriya, Pali, Persian, Prakrit and the Telugu language. The awards come under the umbrella of the language division of the Ministry of Education's Department of Higher Education.  ...  The Certificate of Honour-i is awarded to selected Indian scholars having an age of 60 years or above. It honour includes a certificate, a memento and one time cash of five hundred thousand Indian rupees. The Certificate of Honour-ii is awarded to selected scholars Overseas Indians and foreigners of non-Indian origin, who aged 60 years or above. The award constitutes a certificate, a memento and one time cash of five hundred thousand Indian rupees.""  And you can check the references in this deleted version of the article in Bharatpidea.  See here in Daily Jang and here in Urdu Point by google translate, and here in English in The Nation (Pakistan) and here in Turkish in OdaTV , the book has been discussed there broadly.Also there is media coverage of being converted to muslim by reading this book.  [1] 202.134.10.141 ( talk ) 21:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 202.134, what we need from you is not quotes or lengthy extended arguments about how to classify a different politically given award.  Upadhyay isn't even mentioned in The Nation or OdaTV links.  Can you link to three sources that are primarily about Upadhyay themselves and meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG ?  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ ""قصص من الحياة: قصة اسلام ارون كومار من عبادّ الأبقار (Stories from life: the story of self-submission (convertion to Islam) of Arun Kumar, a cow worshiper)"" .  ar:دنيا الوطن (AlWatan Voice) (in Arabic).  8 July 2014 .  Retrieved 29 July 2023 .  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just to inform anyone interested, I've just removed the entire Career section as a copyvio.  -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking back the original diff has copyvio from two different sources, [13] and [14] .  I'm not sure of what to do here.  -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 22:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ActivelyDisinterested If it's a copyvio of multiple sources, use the copyvio revdel template with multiple url parameters (url, url2, url3, etc.) — Alalch E. 23:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Not only a well known figure who is often quoted in mainstream media with in-depth coverage, but also a notable scholar and receipient of the President Award national level Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman [15] by the President of India.  This award is not owned by some random private organnizations or given to random people.  IMO, it is a bad faith nomination from AKG as he has a history of doing it.  Bringtar ( talk ) 08:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Warned you for personal attacks on your talk page.  Nearly everyone here agrees that this person is not notable thus your empty claims about notability are senseless.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 17:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How irony that you are engaging in personal attacks yet lecturing me on it.  Comment on the content and not on the contributor, this applies to you too.  I do not see how your claim.  Nearly everyone here agrees that this person is not notable fits here specially because the rationale matter, ! vote count doesn't.  Bringtar ( talk ) 07:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Falsely accusing another person of ""personal attacks"" is also personal attacks.  You claims about notability are still senseless because you have failed to substantiate them.  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 08:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I retracted my comments on you and apologies if it hurts you since it was not intended.  I expect a mutual understanding.  Thank you for what you do here.  Bringtar ( talk ) 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Obviously notable"" doesnt work when they fail to meet the criteria.  President award was debunked just above, did you even go through the discussion?  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 10:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CapnJackSp Thank you for bringing clarity but how do you concluded that the award he received has not noteworthy?  Bringtar ( talk ) 18:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because its not prestigious.  Its given out to dozens of people every year, and the pool is only for people older than 60.  Even non notable people can win it.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 03:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Still fails to meet any notability criteria despite long discussion above.  Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 02:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which notability criteria?  The person does meet WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG so which criteria you are referring?  Bringtar ( talk ) 07:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They fail both, you are just citing guidelines without supporting them.  Presidential award is an incorrect report from two obscure papers ; He won some random award that is handed out in dozens.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 10:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CapnJackSp I dig a bit more and he was awarded with the Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman [16] in recognition of his works which satisfies criteria #2 of WP:NACADEMIC .  Bringtar ( talk ) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a political award, which runs into issues at WP:NPROF#Specific criteria notes .  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And its not very prestigious either.  Certainly not of national note.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 03:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @Ed, can you please be more specific about what you meant by ""political award""?  I am not sure how you concluded it as a political award when it is only given to academics so I want to understand it?  I think that even if it is a political award then also if it is a notable then it should satisfy GNG.  @CapnJackSp, awards itself by nature considered as prestigious, specially an award which has its own Wikipedia article is certainly, notable.  When a President of a democratic republic is giving it to specific people on a specific date i.e., indepdence day of the country then do you have any RS to establish the insignificance of it?  Bringtar ( talk ) 18:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See below.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 20:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not pass Prof or GNG.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] A Mahamahopadhyaya as well as an Acharya who has been named as Shastra Chudamani ( well versed scholar ) and also recived ""Sahitya Ratna Padak"" and ""Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman"", doesn't pass GNG!?  Bringtar ( talk ) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope, as explained above.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 20:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Mahamahopadhyaya : ""is an honorific title given to prestigious scholars by the Government"" - awarded by the Haryana state government (see article in Punjab Kesari [17] Acharya : ""In Indian religions and society, an acharya is a preceptor and expert instructor in matters such as religion, or any other subject."" [18] Either satisfies WP:NACADEMIC criterion 5.  These are in addition to the President's Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman Certificate of Honor which satisfies WP:NACADEMIC criterion 2 (see comment below) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment from a disinterested editor not otherwise engaged with this topic prior to this and its companion AfD: See Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman . The Certificate of Honour is a Presidential award given annually to a few scholars for career achievement. Only a handful are awarded in Sanskrit annually. Some years it’s not awarded. Here is the lede from our article: ”The awards of Certificate of Honour and Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman are Indian Presidential honours which are conferred on academics by the President of India once a year on the Indian Independence Day , celebrated on 15 August; in recognition of their substantial contribution in the various fields of languages including Arabic, Kannada, Sanskrit, Malayalam, Oriya, Pali, Persian, Prakrit and the Telugu language.”  Are there higher awards for Sanskrit scholars? The assertion was made above that this is a political award: what is the reliable source to support that claim? Our notability guideline for academics , criteria 2 states: ”The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.”  By our rules, this person is notable regardless of any fierce animus a pool of editors may have toward him and his book. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ill answer all your queries. ""Handful of people"" is far from the truth. When he was being originally credited with the presidents award (Which he didnt win), I went ahead and looked into this. Only a handful are awarded Not true . Over half a hundred awards are handed out every year, with about three dozen in Sanskrit each year. ""Some years its not awarded"" Not true , our article is incomplete but the award is handed out annually. ""Are there higher awards for Sanskrit scholars?""  Yes , the actual Notable, National awards known as the Jnanapith Award and Sahitya Akademi Award . These I remember off the top of my head, but quite sure there's more. Therefore, by our rules, this person is non notable regardless of any fierce affinity a pool of editors may have toward him and his book. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 20:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to the The Hindu , 23 awards were given across all languages in 2009 for example. The actual numbers are higher in subsequent years: 2019: 16 , 2018: 15 , 2017: 15 More than a ""handful"", less than ""several dozen"" in recent years. I don't see awards for 2022; I seem to recall there was some dispute about missing awards but, honestly, I may be thinking of another award. There may have been awards and I couldn't find them. The Sahitya Akademi Award award is for ""writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit"" . It is not an award for scholarship. The Jnanpith Award is ""the highest Indian literary award presented annually by the Bharatiya Jnanpith to an author for their 'outstanding contribution towards literature'"". It is not an award for scholarship I am sure there are other actual awards for Sanskrit scholarship -- like China or the United States, India is a huge country.  One or more might even be more prestigious.  Nevertheless, this is a national award and it is awarded by the President of India , not some minion.  That is sufficient for the purpose of notability.  Not much of a cohesive pool in favor of keeping this article - mostly miscellaneous editors wandering by like I did.  Most of us are not especially fierce, either.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Punjab's Sahitya Ratna awards were delayed several years, not the national Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman Certificates of Honor - my mistake.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Summing up - Ved Prakash Upadhyay meets WP:NACADEMIC 3 different ways as discussed above: Presidential Certificate of Honour ( Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman )- criterion 2 Mahamahopadhyaya - criterion 5 (distinguished professor equivalent) Acharya - criterion 5 (distinguished professor equivalent) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are drawing the conclusion on debunked info, Bardrayan reward doesnt clear #2, and those two titles dont clear #5.  Acharya clearing #5, lmao.  Acharya literally means teacher, and if you think thats the standard for notability on wiki, I dont think a constructive discussion is possible.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 06:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're confusing Acharya with teacher because An acharya is a highly learned person with a title affixed to the names of learned subject .  Can you please share some RS to support your claims about the award in question?  Do you think Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman is a non-notable award?  If yes then why it is in Wikipedia?  Bringtar ( talk ) 07:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I dont think you know sanskrit.  Acharya literally means teacher, and you are simply quoting Wikipedia.  Remember, Wikipedia is not a RS.  FOr your edification, the title of ""Acharya"" in Sanskrit nowadays is a PG degree, again, not a sign of notability.  And criteria #2 is not for any random award that passes GNG, it is only for ""highly prestigious"" awards.  And no, over half a hundred awards a year handed out like candies is not ""highly prestigious"".  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 09:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is certainly not a RS but what I quoted is supported by a RS. I am still waiting for at least one single RS to support your claim that this award is insignificant.  A basic instinct can tell that a President of a country does not handed out random awards unless it is prestigious.  Specially, the award itself has a Wikipedia entry which proves its notability.  Random awards do not get an article on Wikipedia or does it?  This person is not only a lerned academic but also served as a Professor in a Govt.  institute named, Panjab University .  I have seen even less notable people on Wikipedia.  If the strictiest rules of notability are applied then it still meets WP:GNG.  Bringtar ( talk ) 11:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OSE , WP:ONUS .  Thats all.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 04:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note for closer - Kindly weigh arguments on merit, a few of the ardent supporters of ""Keep"" keep using WP:IDHT to maintain that he is notable.  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 09:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The person has been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources [19] [20] , has own several significant awards [21] [ [22] , conferred several scholarly titles [23] [24] , served various high positions in Govt.  education institutes [25] [26] .  If these are still not enough to establish notability then we have a systematic bias in applying the criteris.  Bringtar ( talk ) 11:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like I said, WP:IDHT .  Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk ) 06:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ~ Deloar Akram ( Talk • Contribute ) 21:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He's called an expert on scriptures in Gbooks, more than a few times.  Seems ok to me.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Despite vague handwaves, there is absolclearly no cation that subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC.  Azuredivay ( talk ) 17:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Parvinder Singh : He has played in domestic-level cricket. .  but does not appear to meet the notability requirement maintained by the cricket wikiproject.  Jip Orlando ( talk ) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople ,  and Cricket .  Jip Orlando ( talk ) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  A substantial domestic career, with 8 centuries and a high score of 203 not out; sources in Indian print media are bound to exist, his career isn't one which will go without coverage.  AA ( talk ) 22:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage here.  GoldRomean ( talk ) 01:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - beside his Cricinfo profile which gives a career overview, there looks to be a fair bit of coverage regarding individual innings.  Hindustan Times 26 November 2009 , Telegraph India 2 November 2013 , The Statesman 7 January 2009 , Indian Express 20 November 2012 .  He has played at the highest level of domestic cricket and this seems sufficient coverage to justify an article.  -- JP ( Talk ) 08:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Primary match reports are routine news and per NSPORT and NOTNEWS do not count towards notability, and that is all I'm finding for the subject (including among the links above). Sportspeople are required to have IRS SIGCOV cited in their article, regardless of their achievements and regardless of where or when they played. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SIGCOV not regarding individual matches also exists if you look hard enough. -- JP ( Talk ) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That does go somewhat beyond a routine transactional report, so I'll reconsider my ! vote.  I'm not overly familiar with what's routine in cricket outside of match reports, though, so I'm going to ping @ Wjemather for his input.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Think there's enough here in what JP has found for a keep.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Naser Kelmendi : Mccapra ( talk ) 08:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Bosnia and Herzegovina ,  and Kosovo .  Mccapra ( talk ) 08:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP As far as I'm concerned this easily passes notability: he is inserted into the history of Sarajevo for reasons mentioned in the article, was singled out by US President Barack Obama for sanctions, is constantly in the news regarding events in the former Yugoslavia (including news from last year), and was even named as one of the most notorious criminals in 2012's OCCRP Person of the Year report.  I agree the article needs to be expanded still, but nominating for deletion this early and by pointing to a guideline that the article does not seem to breach as far as notability goes seems a bit premature to me.  -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 08:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP/INCUBATE this article was created in the last 24 hours.  It has sufficient sourcing in my mind to satisfy WP:CRIME and WP:GNG, and in my own search I see coverage I’d describe as in depth and ongoing coverage, he’s been tried and convicted and that was covered in major world media ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kosovo-trial-kelmendi-idUSKBN1FL5SA ), he’s under sanctions ( https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/20150324_kelmendi.pdf ), etc.  Why are we rushing to delete this article?  Give the authors some time to improve the article.  My own quick search suggests he’s notable, I encourage others to conduct their own cursory search before reaching any conclusions.  Jo7hs2 ( talk ) 16:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Cartoon (DJ) : I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Estonia .  I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  There are some serious sources, but rather WP:ONEEVENT (song ""On & On"").  Secondly, the group existed only about two years: 2015-2017.  Some sources: https://elu24.postimees.ee/6869461/uskumatu-menu-eesti-bandi-cartoon-hittlugu-hingab-maailmakuulsale-muusikule-kuklasse https://menu.err.ee/287663/eesti-koosseis-cartoon-on-nomineeritud-maailmas-mainekale-d-n-b-auhinnale https://parnu.postimees.ee/4220745/cartoon-laks-laiali Estopedist1 ( talk ) 05:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No reliable sources WP:NBASIC .  Redirect is a good option too I think.  128.6.36.94 ( talk ) 20:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the nominator, I'm totally okay with this comment being struck out if someone chooses to do that.  I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alternatively, instead of deleting, possibly redirecting to List of musical groups from Estonia may be the best solution-- Estopedist1 ( talk ) 06:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Delfi has a list of sources [45] .  Takes some time to check all the 369 hits, but passes GNG and WP:NEXISTS .  Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 17:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 10:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Abu Hudhayfah Al-Ansari : The very few reliable sources that mention him do so only in passing; all else I could find in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Arabic is blogs and social media chatter, and it's difficult to verify whether he actually exists.  His predecessor's name is a redirect to Islamic State .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military , Terrorism , Islam ,  and Iraq .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He has made a audio speech and i have posted blog link to its english translation by Aymenn j al-tamimi, one of best experts on Jihadism & Islamic State in particular.  We had a article Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir since he made his first speech and his personal identity remained unknown and was revealed after his death.  Sam6897 ( talk ) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , but I bet for Maintain : Same as Wikishovel, it need to be extended and with more reliable sources.  I believe there are sources which can help us to say more than his occupation and his succession.  In the case of Abul-Hasan al-Muhajir, we have a biography of him, so it makes it more notable.  Tajotep ( talk ) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All things about Abul Hasan identity emerged after his death in late, 2019.  For 3 years he was mysterious unknown spokesmen but he still had a wikipedia page.  Sam6897 ( talk ) 21:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 12:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just wanted to clarify a speech is a primary source and is not any indication of notability.  Industrial Insect (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 19:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Bittersweet Bundle of Misery : A Google search confirms the chart position mentioned, but other than that, it seemingly lacks significant coverage.  Losipov ( talk ) 04:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Losipov ( talk ) 04:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NSONG and peaking at 22 on the UK national chart.  Note that searching proquest this song is noted in quite literally dozens of independent RS.  There is enough factual / critical coverage out there to build up a start class article or better over time.  Keeping in mind we don't need coverage to the level of GNG when meeting an SNG, we have, for example [32] His voice on tracks like Bittersweet Bundle Of Misery has a slightly out of tune, but intentional, quality about it.  , [33] 'No Good Time' and 'Bittersweet Bundle of Misery' also contradict the received opinion that Damon was the tunesmith in Blur and Graham was the obscurantist.  , or [34] The recent single Bittersweet Bundle of Misery resembles The Archies' Sugar Sugar as much as Blur's Coffee and TV, So NSONG holds up well in this case.  — siro χ o 06:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo I don't quite follow your argument here.  NSONG makes clear that the chart criterion does not on its own establish notability.  The sources you refer to, as well as everything else I could find, through proquest and elsewhere, is passing mentions.  The song is frequently mentioned as an example or illustration of the musician's abilities, but I haven't found any analysis of the song itself.  I don't think we should Keep based on the shaky grounds of NSONG, and I'm not seeing any sources that meet WP:GNG .  We also aren't looking at other SNG criteria, so I do think we need GNG-level coverage.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While this one may meet GNG, as I didn't do an exhaustive search, I don't think NSONG actually requires GNG-level, or the SNG wouldn't need to exist at all.  Note that this subject does not fall afoul of the exclusionary criteria If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears , as I saw coverage unrelated to the album, or articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.  I am confident we can write a start-class or longer article on this song.   Since it doesn't meet either of the exclusionary criteria, and meets other guidelines, I am satisfied the SNG is met.  — siro χ o 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But in these sources, the song is never the subject of the article/review/etc: The coverage required by NSONG is non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment .  Even in the best examples, the song is mentioned and perhaps used as an example of a quality of the singer's voice, but that's it.  This is not substantive detail treatment, even by the lower standards of NSONG.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : NSONG makes clear that chart listing is not enough on its own to establish notability, and none of the other sources provide any analysis of the song.  We have plenty of mentions, but no analysis of the song out of which to establish notability and build an article.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over how WP:NSONG is to be interpreted with regard to this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, we still need to hear from additional editors on varying interpretations of the relevance to WP:NSONG in the context of this article subject.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not delete this itnis a great song.  Do not be a spoilsport :( 84.67.12.174 ( talk ) 20:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Terry Fossum : MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The sum total of contributions fails WP:BASIC and individual components are not significant on their own; WP:FILMMAKER of film is not cited and doesn't seem to be a notable film, and WP:ACT requires ""significant roles in multiple films/shows"" MetricMaster ( talk ) 10:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia.  Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions.  The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.  [ reply ] Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE .  North America 1000 08:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I was able to find this[ [1] ][ [2] ], I believe their might be more sources to help sustain the article.  Epcc12345 ( talk ) 22:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was able to find this more sources[ [3] ] [ [4] ]
 Winner of Kicking & Screaming (TV series) [ [5] ] [ [6] ].  I still believe, there are more sources to establish notability.  Epcc12345 ( talk ) 11:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Salvio giuliano 22:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Having just ! voted in a few rather frivolous yet notable topic AFDs, I've ended up here where we've had 3 relistings with nary a comment.   I'd be happy to say he's just a minor reality show winner, but he does seem to have parlayed that into later coverage [7] , despite the current promo-y feel of this article.   Which means we are heading to no consensus without more debate, I suppose. -- Milowent • has spoken 13:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV .  This is not in any way an endorsement of his views.  It seems as though he has done enough after winning a reality show on a major United States network to reach a barely notable level of notability .  We have, for what it's worth, sometimes treated the winners, places, ad shows of major reality TV show as as if they are automatically notable.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",no consensus
"Charissa Tansomboon: PROD removed.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Thailand .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Subject is now a researcher in online learning, though I'm not seeing anything that would indicate notability under WP:NPROF .  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 09:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Unable to find enough WP:SIGCOV from RS for this to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I was trying to figure out what ""platinum medalist"" would be, as that sounded interesting, perhaps specific to Thailand...  But no, turns out to be vandalism .  The Skate Today piece referenced is good and dedicated to her, but it alone is not enough to meet GNG.  - 2pou ( talk ) 20:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Aaha Kalyanam (web series): Karnataka ( talk ) 17:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kim Chang-myong: There doesn't seem to be anything here, and a single appearance for the North Korean national team in 2000 doesn't cut it.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and North Korea .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 10:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - there is no basis for an article here.  We don't even know his DOB, position or POB!  I note that Order of Kim Jong Il and this source have a person of this name achieving an award which might be a claim towards WP:ANYBIO , however, I am not completely satisfied that this is the same person.  Unless we can prove it's the same guy, we should delete the article on the footballer.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Erin Mikalsen: However, she does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion.  I found this article from the Jamaica Observer , which is a good start, but everything else that came up in my searches are passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Jamaica ,  and Florida .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable enough.  killer bee 05:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Iron Man (vol. 4): The relevant information are already present in Iron Man (comic book)#Volume 4 Redjedi23 ( talk ) 18:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I would support a merge, but there doesn't appear to be anything due that isn't already covered in the target article.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Biography work: The article seems to be an unsourced essay, not to mention very over-capitalized.   Is there a notable topic here that someone can point out so we can fix it, or should we just delete it?  Dicklyon ( talk ) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this is a western esotericism philosophical concept.  I see some journal sources describing ""biographical work"", but they appear to be talking about different concepts.  Maybe there are sources for this, but I'm leaning delete as the article is too incoherent to properly describe what it's about.  Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is mainly the work of two WP:SPAs , Neckarpro in 2011 and Biographyworker in 2016–17, who edited nowhere but this article.   I don't how it has survived until now.  Dicklyon ( talk ) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : unable to discern the topic, seems to have some weird link spam thing going on at the bottom.  Queen of Hearts ( talk ) 04:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fringe concept based on(?) anthroposophy that's not independently notable enough for its own article.  The 'literature' at the bottom is also just cruft.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 10:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Wikipedia does expose quackery.  That's why in quackery topics I lean for keep.  This article is typical for Anthroposophical articles, which do applaud the practice for many claimed merits, but never explicitly tell what the practice really is.  Like what biography work is and how it's done (i.e. its method) should remain a secret.  tgeorgescu ( talk ) 05:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , if you aren't really, really , REALLY interested in esotericism, this will be patent nonsense to you.  - Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"David Sanko: Their main claim to notability is being head of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency for one year, which does not seem sufficient to meet notability requirements for politicians and officials.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 13:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pennsylvania .  Owen× ☎ 13:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 17:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The subject has not held positions that confer notability.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Edward B. Kurpis: The rather WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim of having played a founding role at both CNBC and NBC is cited to page 24 of this book , which is the author bio at the end of an article written by Kurpis himself.  I am unable to find any further coverage beyond the cited routine hiring announcement for BNN in Variety ( [12] ) which fails to even identify which BNN it refers to, let alone provide any further biographical detail of the subject.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  signed, Rosguill talk 16:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There seems to be nothing here but self-promotion.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sanjog Waghere: Fails to meet GNG and NPOL.  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , India ,  and Maharashtra .  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article itself has reliable links from before the candidacy.  MrMkG ( talk ) 00:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per nom.  also failed WP:NPOL , If this were the criteria of Wikipedia.  So today there would be an article about the candidates who stood and lost in every election.  Come on and grow up please.  Thanks you Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 09:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Fails WP:NPOL .  To contest candidacy for political office, does not guarantee notability.  The degree of significance of the subject and of his role whether as a 3 time corporator or a mayor of industrial city is not enough to warrant a page on.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   few sources are present.  I vote for deletion.  Rustypenguin ( talk ) 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - This is a new account that rapidly made many AfD comments and got blocked for advertising.  MrMkG ( talk ) 13:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , sources are there as nominator concedes.  But it isn't a case of WP:BLP1E , there is a lot of coverage of him from before candidature.  It's just overshadowed by the candidature.  I'll link two below.  Jolt to Ajit Pawar-led NCP as party stalwart walks over to Sena UBT .  He is being called a ""party stalwart"" which should tell you it's not merely any generic local leader.  पुणे: गढ़ में अजित पवार को बड़ा झटका, संजोग वाघेरे ने खटखटाया मातोश्री का दरवाजा (Pune: Big blow to Ajit Pawar in Garh, Sanjog Waghere knocked on Matoshree's door) .  MrMkG ( talk ) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have only linked to articles that talk about his candidacy.  Raut said they are looking to field Waghere from the Maval Lok Sabha seat.  ”We were searching for a strong candidate to represent the party in the Maval Lok Sabha seat.  We found Waghere among the strong contenders.  We asked him to join the party and he agreed,” he said.  It doesn't matter if he is called a 'party stalwart', as this is what WP:BLP1E states about biographies - Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view .  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 16:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Karol Stricker: An obituary supports some of the details of her life and family, but nothing about her career.  Nor is she meaningfully integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia, with the only mention being an unsourced name check at China painting .  Alansohn ( talk ) 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , New Jersey ,  and New York .  Alansohn ( talk ) 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - cannot find notability via google search, jstor search, or google books search.  Just being featured in a couple of magazines does not meet the requirements of notability for artists.  LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 17:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I found the table of contents for the January 1994 and February 1994 issues of Ceramics Monthly , but don't see Stricker mentioned.  I'm unable to identify The Lighthouse Review , partly because my searches are swamped by reviews of The Lighthouse (2019 film) .  pburka ( talk ) 20:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not finding anything for this artist, and her obit is brief and does not provide facts about her art.  Lamona ( talk ) 03:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"V538 Carinae: Nonetheless, it fails the notability guidelines for astronomical objects : Not visible to the naked eye (at magnitude 8.15 [25] ), not listed in any important astromical catalogue, never received significant coverage in any reliable source and was not discovered before 1850.  SIMBAD cites 29 references for this star, but all are only large catalogues.  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 19:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 19:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable per nom. , and remove from {{ Carina (constellation) }} .  Praemonitus ( talk ) 15:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable per nomination.  hamster717 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs ) 20:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of largest stars as an alternative to deletion per the precedent set by several other AfDs on large stars ( HV 888 , RX Telescopii , SMC 018136 , PMMR 62 ): while it is clearly not notable, there is an appropriate list which should mention this star.  Also, it is justifiable to keep stars which are redirects in constellation templates, so it does not need to be removed.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This star is not included in that list as it is much smaller than 700 solar radii and not well known.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tinashe Muchawaya: JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket ,  and Zimbabwe .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a WP:GNG fail, and with no suitable lists to redirect to for Zimbabwean cricketers, there's no WP:ATD here.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Madera Country Club Estates, California: Reywas92 Talk 20:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I went and added some sources about this place from a few newspapers.  The area is notable for being part of a real estate boom in the 1960's and 1970's.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete yeah Reywas92 is right this isn't notable.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Besides MOS:DECADE , I maintain that routine local coverage of housing development doesn't mean the individual development is notable, especially when it's within an existing community with an article; better to have a history section in Madera Acres, California than to suggest a subdivision like the one I grew up in needs its own article.  Reywas92 Talk 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete See my comments on River Road Estates, above.   Lots of places had real-estate booms in the 1960s and 1970s; if that's our standard for notability then pretty much every housing development built in those years is notable.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Josue Larose: Being a candidate for office in of itself is not enough nor is the run of the mill coverage given by a political campaign enough to meet GNG.  The excessive SuperPAC creation, is a civil offense, so it does not meet WP:CRIME (or in his case criminal).  I think in terms of notability this falls under Wikipedia:ONEEVENT .  Mpen320 ( talk ) 17:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics ,  and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails WP:NPOL , WP:GNG , and WP:CRIME .  Agree that this appears to be case of WP:1E .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , floridapolitics calls him an ""election fraudster"" but he doesn't seem to be notable enough even so.  -- StellarNerd ( talk ) 18:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the consensus since at least 2007 that political activists and candidates are not per se notable, nor are criminals (alleged or convicted).  I've long been advocating for naming, blaming and shaming criminals , but that is not our collective rule .  No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources exists .  We are not a free web host for real crime stories.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Grand Slam Prize in harness racing: My own searching found a single AP article picked up by the NY Times which doesn't say anything we don't already have.   So it passes WP:V but not WP:N .  RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions .  RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lauren Zander: Fails WP:GNG .  Teltle ( talk ) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , New York ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Some coverage here [27] and here [28] Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can't find book reviews, only various talking points when she interviews in magazines.  Not enough for notability here in wiki.  Sourcing used now in the article is primary or un-RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Calibre Sports: Completely unsourced as well.  Elshad ( talk ) 13:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Firearms ,  and Australia .  Elshad ( talk ) 13:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : borderline G11.  No evidence (or even claim of) notability, and involvement of COI SPA makes the choice easier.  Owen× ☎ 13:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not cite any references and I could not find any SIGCOV on a basic Google search.   I oppose a G11 speedy.  While there is some advertising tone, this could be corrected if SIGCOV is made available and this article is kept.  Frank Anchor 14:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete can't believe a poor quality unreferenced article has survived for 16 years.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 14:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PROMO with no sourcing found.  delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Per WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT this is unambiguous advertising.  Tar nis hed Path talk 09:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  No RSs and unlikely to be any: WP:ROTM.  Cabrils ( talk ) 03:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Konrad Mathieu: References are atrocious.  Been on WP since 2011 and never been effectively references.  Currently satisfies WP:V .  scope_creep Talk 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Revised and hopefully improved article, re-checked facts and existence of all publications.  Kombi3 ( talk ) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the additional sources added to the article do not make a case for WP:GNG , and one of them appears to be a total red herring that doesn't mention Mathieu or his bands ( [8] ).  signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Releasing some 30 albums over four decades does seem like a noteworthy accomplishment for a recording artist like Mathieu, at least among musicians.  How does one - reference-wise - properly make a case for that?  (don't bite a baby;)  Kombi3 ( talk ) 21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait - may one, before perspicacious judgment is performed, at least ask for some more time for research.  There should definitely be more printed sources out there that - partly being from the pre-internet era - are a harder to retrieve 213.160.14.18 ( talk ) 20:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I was unable to find any significant coverage in WP:LIBRARY , Google Books, archive.org, or newspapers.com.  Jfire ( talk ) 05:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Iain Walker: I don't believe the predominantly passing mention and primary sources here pass WP:GNG .  Uhooep ( talk ) 13:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; ambassadors are indeed not inherently notable.  UK High Commissioners, however, often are.  A quick search reveals enough for this man to be regarded notable.  𝕎. 𝔾. 𝕁.  ( chat | contribs ) 15:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Bilateral relations , Ghana ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete UK High commissioners are not inherently notable.  A search of [""Iain Walker"" ambassador -wikipedia] found only primary sources like gov.uk or routine announcements.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question: @ W.G.J. , why would a UK high commissioner be notable when regular ambassadors are not?  Isn't a high commissioner essentially just an ambassador to a Commonwealth country?  Our High commissioner (Commonwealth) article says: ""In the Commonwealth of Nations, a high commissioner is the senior diplomat, generally ranking as an ambassador, in charge of the diplomatic mission of one Commonwealth government to another.""  Does this mean the high commissioner to Ghana is more notable than ambassadors to America, France, Germany, Spain, Russia, China, etc.?  Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not more notable.  just a naming convention.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, my bad.  I wrongfully interpreted ""ambassador"" in the original nomination as ""diplomat"", a member of a diplomatic envoy that is not by default the highest-ranking.  However, I still do believe that the highest-ranking representatives, such as High Commissioners, do enjoy a particular notability but I understand that that could be put up to discussion.  𝕎. 𝔾. 𝕁.  ( chat | contribs ) 10:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no inherent notability of ambassadors/high commissioners.  In fact many have been deleted LibStar ( talk ) 09:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth meeting BLPs requirement for strong sourcing.  Source eval: Comments Source Named and quoted, not WP:SIGCOV  1.  ""Nana Receives 4 Envoys"".  Modern Ghana.  Retrieved 11 March 2021.  Quote from article ""A former Dundee man has spoken of his “cherished memories” after..."" interview, fails WP:IS, WP:RS and does not have WP:SIGCOV about the subject  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Strachan, Graeme.  ""Dundee man spends five days hosting Duke and Duchess in Ghana"".  The Courier.  Retrieved 11 March 2021.  Speaker profile Tech in Ghana Conference London 2020"".  techinghanaconference.com.  Archived from the original on 30 November 2019.  Retrieved 11 March 2021.  Appointment annoucement  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c ""Iain Walker appointed new British High Commissioner to Ghana"".  Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio.  Always.  17 February 2017.  Retrieved 11 March 2021.  Appointment annoucement  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f ""Dundee man appointed High Commissioner to Ghana"".  Evening Telegraph.  ISSN 0307-1235.  Retrieved 11 March 2021.  Primary  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c ""Iain Walker"".  GOV.UK.  Retrieved 11 March 2021.  No WP:SIGCOV about subject  7. ^ ""UK High Commissioner to Ghana, Jon Benjamin set to leave in August - MyJoyOnline.com"".  www.myjoyonline.com.  Retrieved 11 March 2021.  Ping me if sources meeting WP:BLP are found.  // Timothy :: talk 09:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Chawar Dynasty: These two articles needs checking to see whether they are verifiable in reliable sources or not (in which case they need deletion), or just need to be moved to the right title.  The Chawar or Chanwar Dynasty seems to be based solely on the works of Raj Kumar, who discusses a ""Chamar"" dynasty.  There are no books about a Chawar Dynasty [16] and one mention of a Chanwar Dynasty [17] , but there is one author who has extensively written about a Chamar Dynasty [18] .  But one would expect many more sources about a dynasty that apparently ruled ""the western part of India and surrounding areas"" for 600 years.  The articles have some sources which seem to have nothing to do with the subject at all, e.g. Raja Chanwarsen uses this book [19] as a reference?  There are no book sources (in Latin script) about a king ""Raja Chawarsen"" [20] , nor for Raja Chamarsen or Raja Chanwarsen.  Perhaps some other spelling will give results?  Fram ( talk ) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility ,  and India .  Fram ( talk ) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for Chawar Dynasty but oppose Raja Chanwarsen.  You can't catch him because he is spelled differently in English and Hindi.  Please conduct research before initiating an AfD.  He was a king not a dog!  India had over 500 princely states, ruled by Maharaja (king).  Clearly passes WP:NPOL .  2001:2042:6C20:F200:4531:44AE:5916:820A ( talk ) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please enlighten us, how is his name spelled in English then?  I did my research, I added links of my searches.  You just make claims but don't provide anything to substantiate them.  Fram ( talk ) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Somehow I don't think Juan Ramón Jiménez 's Platero and I , a famous early 1900s Spanish poem about a donkey, actually has a lot to say about Raja Chanwarsen...  This makes me suspicious of the other sources.  The one Hindi source links to a seemingly AI-generated news4ocial.com piece that claims Chanvarsen (@ Fram might want to search this spelling) and the dynasty were written about in great detail in the book ""History of Rajasthan"" by a ""Colonel Taad Mahoday"" (this is probably James Tod ).  The article also uses a pic, helpfully captioned ""History"", of unrelated erotic sculptures from the Jain Adinatha temple, Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh, so...reliability is questionable.  The page also has this disclaimer: ""Disclaimer: The information and information given in this article is based on general information. News4social does not confirm these. Before implementing these, contact the concerned expert.""  Chamar refers to a dalit caste and alleged dynasty that Chanvarsen may have belonged to.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The image used on the Chanwarsen page is of Karna, not Chanwarsen, and was stolen from the cover of a book .  I've nominated it for deletion at commons as copyvio.  Not sure what has to be done on en.wp end?  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both .  Of the five sources used in the dynasty article: Kalpaz publications looks like a predatory publisher that doesn't do any peer review or even copy-editing of manuscripts.  Victor Rosner in Anthropos makes no mention of any dynasty, he is talking about chawar , which is a type of headdress made from false hair.  Onni Gust in Victorian Studies makes no mention of any dynasty; it is the preceding article by Angela Thompsell that mentions the Chamar, but that is in reference to the Dalit caste of that name, which is obviously very, very far from a ruling dynasty.  Jankari Today does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources .  The Joshua Project is utterly useless and rightly condemned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources .  Raja Chanwarsen reigned for 600 years, if you believe his article.  I think we can take it as read that such claims are not substantiable.  The sources at Chanwarsen are the same, or as bad, as the ones in the dynasty article.  DrKay ( talk ) 18:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete both poor quality sourcing showing no evidence of meeting WP:GNG .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 15:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mr. Crazy: Subject doens't appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO , sources are either primary, unreliable.  There isn't a WP:SIGCOV also.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Morocco .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete pretty straightforward, per VDWF.  Just a quick comment, I couldn't find the aforementioned PROD.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 13:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This [41] and this [42] don't quite pass criminal notability guidelines here, career as a musician appears non-notable as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The sources don’t meet their guidelines for reliable sources, and the musician’s not notable.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 20:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Shah Noorani accident: All the sources provided are from time of event.  No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The event is very recent, so you can't yet say that there is no lasting coverage or impact.  I would hope that this tragedy would encourage government officials and traffic police in Balochistan to encourage safer driving practices.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""I would hope that this tragedy would encourage government officials and traffic police in Balochistan to encourage safer driving practices"" is WP:CRYSTAL balling.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Admittedly, the nominator's assertation makes no sense (it happened two days ago - sustained coverage is literally impossible, it's still a breaking event), but given the media landscape in Pakistan I really, really doubt this will have long term coverage.  Most accidents like this don't have long term coverage even in Western countries.  There's not really anything to be ""analyzed"", it wasn't on purpose - what would be said about this in the future?  I doubt it would have much impact law-wise even in the west.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : road accident Fahads1982 talk / contrib 22:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We all knows this was a road accident.  But why should we keep this page?  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 07:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't create articles for every road accident.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:N and WP:NEVENT with only brief news coverage.  There's no ""road accidents are assumed notable until proven otherwise"".  We can say any event might have significant coverage later, but that doesn't mean we should create an article for every news story we find.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 21:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 17:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTNEWS .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Joey Ciochetto: No indication of notability.  I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  The source in the article is a dead link, but seems to be a blog by looking at the URL.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Oceania ,  and California .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No SIGCOV.  That one dead link appears to be an unreliable source.  〜 Festucalex • talk 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Devoke water 12:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries: No major candidate has declared for the Presidency, all this article contains in speculation about who might run in 2028.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America .  Shellwood ( talk ) 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete general practice is to not have these articles until after the current election has taken place (and I don't see significant cause to deviate from that here).  Indeed we don't have 2028 United States presidential election yet so it is weird for what is effectively a subarticle of that to exist.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 10:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Too soon, seems like someone is trying to be first to create the articles.  ""Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future.""  The section about Gavin Newsom is completely unrelated to 2028 and just says he debated someone last year.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 22:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it's WP:SPECUALTION for now, the page can be recreated once there's relevant information.  Given how much of it is speculation, I don't really see draftification as an option Shaws username .  talk .  22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (copy and paste from the Republican one since this is) clearly WP:TOOSOON .  SportingFlyer T · C 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  and others.  Obviously WP:TOOSOON .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  All opposition to Joe Biden and Donald Trump, barring something truly insane, will be mathematically eliminated on or before March 19.  We're about to have our presumptive nominees; I don't see any harm in keeping this or the 2028 Republican Party presidential primaries pages up.  WorldMappings ( talk ) 02:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we are to delete this page, could we at least make it a draft page?  There are a lot of useful references, etc here that I don't think should be wasted.  WorldMappings ( talk ) 19:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — The article now contains further speculation with the addition of significantly more candidates, which was not my intention.  I initially included candidates who were largely believed to be candidates in 2028, not candidates who were mentioned in one article or two as a candidate.  The current article is far more conjectural than I conceived.  I am willing to support this nomination, but I believe there is redemption here.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete Another clear-cut example of WP:TOOSOON .  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concur 108.181.160.193 ( talk ) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the above without prejudice to draftification.  Based on past cycles sources should start to appear soon after the 2024 election is complete in or before early 2025.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"David V. Politzer: Politzer has not had a large influence in his field (digital media), and there is largely unsourced material in the article.  The New York Times source in the article which is prominently featured only mentions Politzer in a passing mention of an otherwise minor art exhibition.  The Houston Center for Photography Carol Crow Fellowship Award, which is the only award mentioned in the article, is not enough to make the case for WP:ACADEMIC .  GuardianH ( talk ) 20:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Photography , Texas ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I found some passing refs from reliable sources but insufficient to establish notability.  What might do it per WP:ANYBIO is his residency at Yaddo -- that's a very selective honor.  One of the qualifying options at WP:ANYBIO is: ""The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"" For now, I'm assuming that Yaddo's not enough but I defer to any more knowledgeable editors that show up here.  I'll also leave a note at Talk:Yaddo .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Average professor. 128.252.154.2 ( talk ) 19:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article is full of dead links, press releases, and primary sources. I am not finding any RS to bring this up to notable.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 18:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This artist and professor does not meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:GNG .  While I agree with A.B. that Yaddo is a prestigious residency, it's not enough to meet WP:ANYBIO , over 6,500 artists have received residencies there, which averages 65 residencies per year.  Netherzone ( talk ) 21:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Netherzone , thanks for the clarification.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Paigham TV: No reliable sources found online that contribute towards WP:GNG or WP:NORG .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Companies , Islam ,  and Pakistan .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD .  I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG .  I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access.  Therefore, a redirect is the best option.  2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 ( talk ) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or even to have a good redirect target Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's nothing sig/in-depth as required by WP:GNG.  Fails WP:BROADCAST.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"BeerTender: This article was PROD'ed a few months before, but somebody didn't like WP:NOTDICT as a reason and removed the PROD.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails to meet the GNG .  On a search, all of the results are just sites selling the product and related accessories.  No significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the producers.  Combustible Vulpex ( talk ) 11:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is just an advertisement page for the product.  Not needed in wikipedia.  killer bee 12:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete per G-11 .  Banks Irk ( talk ) 17:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, seems like it has a snowball's chance in hell to survive the discussion.  I'll tag WP:G11 on it.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"A++: all three articles were created by gploc , and cover essentially the same topic.  gploc is the creator of these languages - he owns the websites https://lambda-bound.de/ and https://lambda-bound.com/ .  i do not know what the first one is, but the second promotes a book about a++.  a quick look for sources all lead back to primary sources and this book.  this nomination is bundled with: ARS++ ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) ARS-based programming ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) ltb d l ( talk ) 13:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 13:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all .  The language author has apparently written quite a lot on this topic, but as far as I can tell, one blog aside, nobody else has.  ~ GQO talk!  15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete as A412.  Notability would stem from multiple independent sources, and these just aren't independent of the language author.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I was unable to find sources apart from the author about these topics when I searched.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/redirect A++ to A+ , delete others A+ is definitely a plausible typo , but the concept itself here is non-notable.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for several reasons.  The first reason is that there are no secondary sources The second reason is that there are not many sources
 The third reason is that there are typographical errors.  GQO ( talk ) 6:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Delete Is there anything else than primary sources here?  (rhetoric question)  Rrjmrrr ( talk ) 09:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Khalilullah Masjid: DSP2092 talk 09:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia , India ,  and Delhi .  DSP2092 talk 09:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Islam .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG / WP:Sigcov .  The page creator was already told to go through AFC, as they don't understand notability guidelines, I have drafti-fied many of their articles as they were not notable.  But they submitted it without improvement which got declined again by other reviewers.  Maliner ( talk ) 16:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bruce Kelly: Boleyn ( talk ) 18:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Television ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Owen× ☎ 19:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona , Florida , Massachusetts , Minnesota , North Dakota , Pennsylvania ,  and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tried to add some more sources from his time in Phoenix, which may qualify him.  Some of his career stops seem less than notable, though.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The many trivial details in this overlong article obscurEs the fact that his career has been fairly prominent, and sources for notability can almost certainly be found.  Llajwa ( talk ) 00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Pak Gyong-chol (North Korean football midfielder): Simione001 ( talk ) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no sources found.  Ping me if there are sources.  Brachy 08 (Talk) 01:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mashirima Kapombe: As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show markers of significance such as noteworthy journalism awards, coverage and analysis about the significance of their work in sources other than their own employers, and on and so forth -- but this, as written, is of the ""journalist who exists"" variety, and is referenced entirely to primary source staff profiles and unreliable ""career, marriage, education & net worth"" sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no WP:GNG -worthy sourcing shown at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clearly fails WP:GNG and speaking from a reliability viewpoint, the sources used are utterly unreliable.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hanetball360: The article was very promotionally written with a lot of exaggerated claims; I have cleaned it up and removed several superfluous and inappropriate sources.  I have not been able to find any independent sourcing, just press releases and churnalism in English and French.  bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Florida .  bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For reference: here is the article before I started cleaning it up, in case someone else finds anything useful in there.  -- bonadea contributions talk 13:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The WSVN item twice calls the sport ""obscure"", not a very good endorsement of its notability.  I haven't read the Sun Sentinel item because I would have to disable my ad blocker to do so.  A Google search turns up a lot of social media and blog posts, press releases, and other questionable sources, but nothing new from reliable sources.  Unless someone turns up more reliable sources, I expect to support a delete.  - Donald Albury 16:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per submission.  Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO .  A recently invented ""sport"", and so unsurprising that there isn't enough coverage.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As nothing meeting GNG has been noted, I now support deletion.  - Donald Albury 12:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Libyan Airlines destinations: Fails WP:NOT , specifically WP:NOTCATALOGUE .  This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a business, albeit one wholly owned by the Libyan government, at a specific point in time (apparently some point in 2011).  Also fails WP:CORP .  The only sources cited here are routesonline.com, which is not independent as it is an organisation that works with the airline industry creating forums and media coverage for it, and a 404 link to the Shabablibya.org website which, being inaccessible, is impossible to assess (though based on archived versions of the site appears to have been the site of the Libyan Youth political movement and thus not an RS for this topic).  A WP:BEFORE search uncovered nothing that could fix this.  The best I could find was this short Libyan Herald article quoting the Libyan state news agency, who are in turn quoting Libyan Airlines .  This is run-of-the-mill coverage that falls short of significant coverage of the destinations specifically (they are only mentioned in two sentences) and anyway the coverage is not independent since ultimately the source is Libyan Airlines themselves.  Passing WP:CORP means having reliable, independent sources that meet the audience and independence requirements of WP:CORP .  FOARP ( talk ) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists ,  and Libya .  FOARP ( talk ) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The parent article is plenty of reliable sources (added by myself actually) that could support most of the entries in this article.  The search for them claiming WP:BEFORE was not conducted properly. -- Jetstreamer Talk 13:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Jetstreamer, can you tell us which of those sources meets the requirements of WP:CORP (especially WP:ORGIND and WP:AUD ) for this list of destinations specifically?  That article does not have any data about destinations (the section on destination is blank and just includes a link to this page) so it is not clear what you are talking about.  Additionally, can you say how WP:NOT does not apply here?  All I can tell you is that articles in the Tripoli Herald quoting Libyan Airlines officials , 404 links , non-sigcov catalogue listings , and industry publications listing run-of-the-mill (and typically WP:CRYSTALBALL ) announcements about the purchase of aircraft only served to cast doubt on the sourcing of that article, and do nothing to rescue this one.  And to re-iterate, both the WP:NOT and the WP:CORP issues need to be addressed together: you need to explain why the services of this particular company deserve a dedicated article listing all of them .  FOARP ( talk ) 13:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The World Airlines Guide published once a year in Flight International are third-party, reputable and reliable sources that support terminated destinations. -- Jetstreamer Talk 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The World Airlines Guide is a catalogue with short, one-paragraph entries for each airline in the world , not significant coverage.  Catalogue entries/trivial coverage don't support notability per WP:ORGDEPTH , nor does being listed in a catalogue that attempts to list every single company in a particular field.  Moreover to pass WP:CORP the coverage needs to not be simply industry press per WP:ORGIND / WP:AUD , and Flight International is clearly industry press.  And even with that, you still have to get past WP:NOT and explain why we should have an article dedicated to exhaustively listing the services of a commercial organisation.  FOARP ( talk ) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you can explain what kind of references fits better for airline-related articles than airline-industry material. -- Jetstreamer Talk 21:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A high-quality and independent source , that is not industry press, and that reaches a regional/national/international general (not narrow-interest or local) audience , providing significant coverage of the subject (in this case listing the destinations of Libyan Airlines and discussing them in detail).  Sources that tend to provide that kind of coverage are high-quality broadsheet newspapers like the New York Times, national broadcasters like the BBC etc., though of course these also include brief coverage that does not amount to SIGCOV so simply being mentioned on them is not enough.  And even if this is found, that still only addresses the WP:CORP part of the problems with this article.  The WP:NOT part is far more fundamental.  FOARP ( talk ) 21:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:IINFO .   The issue is not whether there may be references, the issue is that this is an indiscriminate and ephemeral and trivial.   Also, the RFC noted above appears to still apply here.   -- Jayron 32 14:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Jayron.  The WP:EPHEMERAL point is a good one - this is presented as a list of destinations as of 2011.  An accurate title of the article would be List of Libyan Airlines destinations as of 2011 , but there's nothing particularly notable about the destinations served in that year as the destinations served by any airline change from year to year all the time and it is in fact impossible to lock in a definitive listing of airline destinations.  In similar circumstances (for example, military ORBATs) we tend not to keep articles about, for example, the ORBAT of the British army in a particular year unless that year was particularly notable and that was evidenced in reliable sources (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 British Army order of battle ).  FOARP ( talk ) 14:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Following your reasoning, why not deleting all the airlines' destinations' articles? -- Jetstreamer Talk 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why not indeed?  Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and if airline destinations change week-to-week it makes no sense to try to to support what amounts to a news-feed of airline destination updates, but that's what would happen if anyone tried to keep these articles up-to-date.  These articles, in my humble opinion, do not belong in an encyclopaedia.  FOARP ( talk ) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd tend to support your view, but let me tell you that you will have strong opposition in deleting the entire set of airline's destinations articles.  For the time being I still think this article should not be deleted. -- Jetstreamer Talk 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nominator and Jayron32.  The keep ! vote above is less convincing than WP:IINFO .  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 23:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Considering people would just go to an airline's website when they wish to find out  what destinations can an airline serve, I'd say this list is pretty redundant.  Unlike, for example, list of past mayoral elections in a city or list of important historical event in a date, this type of list doesn't really add much value compare to its source.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 02:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Three Phase Operation: Rumors, in other words.  I can't find anything at all at the third reference as it just points to some index page.  The other three are just the same text in different places.  ""Three Phase Operation"" is a name unknown to history.  More importantly, the organization ""Supreme Command of the Arab Allied Forces (SCAAF)"" is also unknown to history.  The piecemeal Arab irregular forces at that time did not have a central command and it certainly was not directed from Cairo.  What actually happened in Katamon the day before this news story is that Jewish forces blew up the Semiramis Hotel killing at least 24 civilians.  But that's not even mentioned in the news story.  There is a vast literature by historians on this period of history and there are already multiple properly sourced Wikipedia articles that cover it, such as Battle for Jerusalem .  We don't need articles on single obscure newspaper stories.  Zero talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Israel ,  and Palestine .  Zero talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: For being almost wholly based on a random piece from Oregon local news - the sourcing would struggle to be less appropriate, and if this is the best quality available, it doesn't really attest the term or standalone notability.  Not much to say here: definitely nothing approaching an encyclopedically valid topic.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article that doesn't have enough sources or content and doubtful more could be found MarkiPoli ( talk ) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that ""Three Phase Operation"" is a notable topic, at least not under its current name.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as above.  Current sourcing is just one newspaper article reprinted in multiple publications.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a POVFORK.  When justified, such a topic should grow organically, before being eligible to a SPINOFF.  gidonb ( talk ) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Maryland Department of Commerce: Sources do not establish independent notability, being all press releases or primary sources from the organisation itself.  Could possibly be stubbified, but totally inappropriate in its current form.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, come on .  Every U.S. state has a department like this, and the claim about it being a ""promotional puff piece"" is extremely speculative.  This article does have problems with uncited statements and not enough independent sources, but AFD is not cleanup.  It is not take much more than a GNews search to show that actions taken by this department get coverage on Maryland sources independent of the department.  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, my word on what to do?  Do not keep going with nomination until a valid rationale is made .  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 16:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Stubbify post haste to remove copyvio [30] and generally shit writing.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AFD is not cleanup to improve prose quality, though the Copyvio is serious.  User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 14:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like this has been a copyvio since 2009 .  SportingFlyer T · C 20:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Fuad Alasgarov: There is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 19:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if he was actually a member of the Supreme Court he’d almost certainly be notable, but I’m struggling to understand how he managed this at the tender age of 31.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Law ,  and Azerbaijan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , may also pass WP:NPOL as the head of the ""State-legal department"" and ""Department on work with law-enforcement bodies"", each being state-wide offices.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject pass GNG having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Try to search “Fuad Ələsgərov”.  Subject also pass first criteria of NPOL: being the Assistant to the President for Work with Law Enforcement Bodies and Military Issues, Head of Department and member of the Supreme Court make the person certainly notable and these facts are verifiable:  1. All of the sources in the article are reliable enough to proof the facts: two of them are from the Official Website of President of Azerbaijan and the other ones are Decrees of President of Azerbaijan.  2. There are also numerous reliable secondary sources which proof the facts.  For example: [1] .  @ Mccapra : the fact is verifiable and as a individual editor, we don’t have responsibility to research all points of view .  -- Surə 🗯 17:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment he was not a Justice of the Supreme Court in 1990-1994, he was a district court judge in Baku; the disctrict courts sit within the structure of Supreme Court, but are lower courts.  Being a high-ranking bureaucrat is not a ""state-wide"" office.  There's *no* presumed notability available under WP:NPOL .  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC) correction ... left out the negative -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG, NBIO, NPOL, mill bureaucrat article with mill news sources.  No sources in article meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and nothing found in BEFORE for Fuad Ələsgərov, Fuad Alasgarov, Fuad Murtuz oğlu Ələsgərov.  Azerbaijan gov sources are not WP:IS WP:RS for subject.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  Ping me if WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV are added to the article.  // Timothy :: talk 06:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Khaled Abouemara: TLA (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , Engineering ,  and Qatar .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No indication of notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Veritas Christian Academy: I have carried out WP:BEFORE , and only found one additional reference, local news coverage about a day of service .  I don't think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , United States of America ,  and North Carolina .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - one transactional reference and a reference that should be on all US schools does not show notability.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Nothing notable Rhadow ( talk ) 18:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Disha Vadgama: Fails WP:BIO .  AShiv1212 ( talk ) 01:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , India ,  and Gujarat .  AShiv1212 ( talk ) 01:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Fashion .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Mentions in the Free Press Journal and the Telegraph India, unsure how RS they are, seem iffy.  I can't find any further sources to support keeping this.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete failed WP:NBIO WP:GNG & free press journal is not a reliable source.  Hukumat Namanzoor ( talk ) 13:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , another Indian fashion/beauty person with no evidence they have done anything worth noting.  I don't think we can even consider the ""Times of India"" either per WP:TOI and Paid news in India .  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 11:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Deepshikha Secondary School: yvanyblog (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is a mess.  I can't find proof that this school, in this location exists.  There is another school, Deepshikha Secondary Boarding School, in Ghorahi , which is not Bandipur, as this school purportedly is.  No citations, no decent categories.  Can it.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete subject does not seem to be notable.  Not much news coverage.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 08:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2021 Algerian-Israeli naval incident: A transient event that had no consequences.  Can easely be added in a section to Algeria-Israel relations instead of a whole new article.  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 12:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Algeria ,  and Israel .  Dl.thinker ( talk ) 12:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NEVENT -- Shrike ( talk ) 13:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment On face value this incident seems notable - this isn't a particularly unusual type of event, but they're rarely this well documented as they're usually hushed up by both sides (for instance, it's been reported that an Australian submarine got trapped in netting off China during a Cold War intelligence gathering mission, but essentially no further details have ever been released by either government).  However, I'm concerned about the sourcing, which is somewhat low quality and includes Fars News which is definitely not a reliable source.  Are better quality sources available here?  Googling doesn't turn up anything of higher quality, which makes me somewhat skeptical.  Nick-D ( talk ) 23:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  A minor incident with no significant repercussions.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dennish Himawan: signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Indonesia .  signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Armenia in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods: 1.) The article is largely unreferenced.  A total of three inline citations are present, with multiple sections going unreferenced altogether.  2.) The references do not appear to have segmented Armenian history into this periodization nor have affixed this particular title to the period which the article covers.  It is possible that Simonyan source does utilize this periodization but, when considering its production and dissemination by the Armenian government against the more rigorous histories available, the Simonyan source may have neutrality issues.  3.) Speaking of neutrality issues, we tend to stray away from describing people as ""ruler of the East, king of kings"" in WikiVoice.  4.) Unusually, this article has hyphens or spaces in the middle of words (""es- tablishment"", ""cam- el"", ""influ- ence"") that, at least to me, indicate the copy-and-pasting of a PDF or similar document format occurred somewhere in this article's creation.  This does not necessarily indicate a copyright violation–it could be a private essay, which would explain the style in which this article was written.  Overall, this period of Armenian history should be covered on Wikipedia, but sources do not seem to support its coverage in this particular periodization and the sources do not seem to support much of the content present.  Ultimately, it comes across as a non-neutral and wholly non-comprehensive account.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Armenia .  Pbritti ( talk ) 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 13:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve - It would take a lot of work, but I think some content is salvageable and the article can definitely be improved to address the valid concerns above.  It'll just take time and some work, but its not impossible.  Archives908 ( talk ) 12:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Archives908 : Do you have any references that suggest this periodization is generally regarded as appropriate in academic literature?  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete per Pbritti 's well considered analysis.  We have much better, more detailed coverage elsewhere: History of Armenia Ancient Armenia Satrapy of Armenia - the "" Achaemenid "" period under Persian rule Origin of the Armenians Orontid dynasty After Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian Empire, the Orontids ruled an independent Kingdom of Armenia for a few years.  They then ruled the Hellenistic kingdoms of Commagene Sophene The Kingdom of Armenia itself Our Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) article includes the remainder of the Hellenistic period when Armenia was in the Seleucid Empire 's sphere of influence.  The Artaxiads kicked out the Orontids during this time and until the Romans moved in.  These are all long, richly referenced and well-written articles.  In total, they cover this period with perhaps 10 times the coverage.  The article we're discussing is not even a content fork -- it's just its own parallel island of unreliable stuff. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per A. B. .  This period has been covered through other articles on Wikipedia.  It is strange to have an article that repeats these two periods and merge them into one per se.  -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 16:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Pbritti .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 15:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Amit Patkar: State presidents/candidates of political parties must meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria for a standalone article.  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 11:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom.  ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 11:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I previously moved it to draft just because it doesn’t meet WP:NPOL , delete per nomination.  — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 11:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Goa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , India ,  and Goa .  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 11:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Mentions of the individual and interviews, but nothing about the person.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"TIDEL Park Coimbatore: The article consists almost entirely of a list of companies that have offices in the complex.  The only source about the complex I could find was this , which isn't nearly enough to establish notability.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , neither notable nor written as an article.  I can do stuff !  ( talk ) 03:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Draftify, update and submit it for review.  Charlie ( talk ) 15:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per NOTDIR.  Draftify might not be a good option since the IT park per se in not notable and I couldn't find any sources with SIGCOV for the park itself.  In future, if any notability arises, a draft can be created, but no point in keeping a directory entry of the buildings present in the IT park now, most of which are just uncited non notable OR or random entries.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Porter Airlines Flight 2691: Basically, a medium-sized plane overran the runway while landing and ended up in a grassy area.  No injuries, no damage on the plane.  I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS .  Pichpich ( talk ) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Aviation ,  and Canada .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 05:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - can be adequately covered in the Porter Airlines article.  Mjroots ( talk ) 06:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This could simply be appended to the existing page, an independent article for such a minor event isn't necessary.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It's not our job to maintain an article about every airline safety incident that happens — our job is to maintain articles about incidents that pass the ten year test for enduring significance, which this clearly doesn't.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have my doubts about this one; but SongdaTalas what are these other runway incursion articles from last year that you mentioned when you removed the Prod?  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DHL Aero Expreso Flight 7216 and Korean Air Flight 631 and there was a Nok Air incident similar to these, but it doesn't have an article.  Songda Talas 00:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those were both very serious, with the planes being seriously damaged and dismantled.  Looking at one of the flight data websites, this Porter plane returned to Billy Bishop a couple of days later, and returned to regular service today (Thursday) on the Thunder Bay run; gosh, looks like it pretty much went over my house just after take-off from YTZ!  A non-event.  Data also shows the landing in the Soo was on the 16th, not the 17th.  Nfitz ( talk ) 05:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also Bearcat - 10YT is from an essay ( WP:RECENTISM ) not a policy.  And in the essay that section is referred to as a ""thought experiment"".  Although I agree with the sentiment - I hope we have better guidelines or policies!  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - plane flew back to it's base at Billy Bishop a couple of days later and returned to service on April 27.  Not significant.  Nfitz ( talk ) 05:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is too serious.  It's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  CastJared ( talk ) 15:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this doesn't warrant a standalone article.   A mention on the Porter Airlines article would be more than adequate.  PK T (alk) 14:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS .  Onel 5969 TT me 18:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ron Flatter: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 13:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia .  Owen× ☎ 14:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Journalism , Television , Arizona , California , Connecticut , Florida , Nevada , New York , Texas ,  and Utah .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST .  Seems run of the mill, and only 1 article links to this article.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hussain Bahzad: No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my Arabic searches.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Qatar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing notable here.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 15:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  per nom.  Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"California Green Lodging Program: Sadads ( talk ) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Environment ,  and California .  Shellwood ( talk ) 00:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Leesi Gabriel Gborogbosi: Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Manoj S Nair: Director has only directed 1 film, Monhiroe ( talk ) 09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  Monhiroe ( talk ) 09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable director, sources are all yellow/red per sourcebot and the film he directed is red-linked.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Yes, the redlink caught my eye, too.  If you're notable as the director of a redlinked film, we're already in trouble - and we're carrying a heavy weight of tags, there, too.  Worse, 'Lessons', the redlinked film, is an anthology of four films by four directors, so we're already at 1/4 notability.  Beyond that, there's nothing.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not pass WP:DIRECTOR , lacks in-depth coverages and unable to prove notability.  Also, the references given are mostly from unreliable sources.  DSN18 ( talk ) 10:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Agree with all people above.  Does not pass WP:DIRECTOR.  Naomijeans ( talk ) 21:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ohio (Internet humour): Couldn't find much secondary sources online and the article only cites 6 sources, two of which (Dexerto and Sportskeeda) have been deemed as unreliable per WP:VG/RS .  It also cited We Got This Covered which I've removed in accordance with WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED .  indy100 could be reliable due to being owned by The Independent, but I'm not so sure about Distractify.  Jurta talk 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jurta : Comment I feel as if this is one of those weird situations where the subject itself is certainly notable (billions of views), but there is not enough coverage in reliable sources.  — Panamitsu (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet .  Jurta talk 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment i don't think it should be deleted, per se, but it is not yet notable.  unless and until it can be featured in more secondary sources, this article should stay off of wikipedia and on other sites more suited to the coverage of such topics.  Nucg5040 ( talk ) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The Mary Sue is considered to be generally reliable.  Dexerto was incorrectly tagged as unreliable.  It is only listed as an unreliable source regarding video games, and a recent, fairly extensive RfC did not establish general unreliability (because it was archived before it was closed).  Not sure about Yahoo, as this is a syndicated In The Know piece, not a Yahoo News article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador ( talk • contribs ) 12:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added an argument to delete the article.  This article looks terrible to me, and there is only few cited sources.  2001:448A:11A2:14E2:5D16:892A:8ECB:CDEF ( talk ) 13:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm with Panamitsu on this; I think the meme is well-known but the lack of serious coverage makes it unsuitable for a Wikipedia article.  Moonreach ( talk ) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is not know your meme.  Yahoo and the like will always run throw-away pieces on every internet trend. .  that does not mean that we have to have an article on it.  This does not raise to the level of something like Florida Man or other 'notable' memes.  A sudden blip of interest (which is self-feeding - one article will always spawn a nearly identical one from a different outlet) does not mean there is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (web) in my view ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm not sure what is this page?  This is an unclear page at all.  There is also no indication of sources and it has only few sources on it.  2001:448A:11A6:1B76:D15B:60DD:5E62:AA13 ( talk ) 13:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Loan Castano: The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this interview.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and France .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Tried a . fr website search, can only find match reports.  Plenty of mentions from this site [6] , but nothing beyond mentions.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who has played in the Super League.  3 sources.  Fleets ( talk ) 10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 3 sources.  Zero of them showing WP:SIGCOV .  I strongly support deletion unless something better is presented.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC .  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 19:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Assasination of a Hamas member in the West Bank: Delete per WP:NOTNEWS .  Article was WP:PRODed (by me) and endorsed, but was dePRODed by the currently-blocked creator.  - Eureka Lott 23:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , Israel ,  and Palestine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : as the person who endorsed the PROD.  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED User:Let'srun 02:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , just like any other article where the only sources are news coverage.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT and as an extreme stub.  DO NOT REDIRECT, now or in the future, as assassination was misspelled.  gidonb ( talk ) 14:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Yenifer Ramos: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Cuba .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails WP:GNG per a lack of reliable, SIGCOV sources.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 16:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nick Hayes (footballer): Coverage is largely limited to press releases put out by teams; there is one example of brief coverage by the BBC (regarding Hayes signing to Ipswich), but it provides almost no independent coverage of the subject beyond that detail.  Searching online, there may be an Australian-rules footballer by this name that is notable, but the English Hayes does not appear to meet notability guidelines.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and England .  signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep for me, I feel it's fine the article with the citations a little more other stuff online.  Govvy ( talk ) 23:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 12:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, all available sources appear to be fleeting mentions and/or stats and transaction info.  Player has not made any appearances above National League level.  LizardJr8 ( talk ) 19:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fifth-tier footballer lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.  All coverage is really fleeting mentions, nothing substantial.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 23:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Cornelius Butcher: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 22:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"House of Mónek: The article is based on the creator's own research of church books and passenger lists.  Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 30 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Hungary .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no coverage in RS found.  ( t · c ) buidhe 22:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hwang Hak-sun: Simione001 ( talk ) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing on the Japanese article, the guy is Japanese not Korean, but other than that error, I don't see GNG here.  Govvy ( talk ) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  Svartner ( talk ) 22:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I did a quick Google search and couldnt find anything to construct WP:GNG.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"22 Qadam: ROTM coverage like this is not enough to meet GNG.  Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page.  In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on  some ROTM or paid/PR coverage.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG Donald D23 talk to me 15:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Begimay Karybekova: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 15 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Kyrgyzstan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  Source eval: Comments Source Original is 404 and archive page is stalling  1.  ""#begimaykarybekova"" (in Russian).  stapico.ru.  8 July 2018.  Archived from the original on 13 May 2021.  Retrieved 8 July 2018.  Failed V, 404  2. ^ ""Begimay Karybekova"".  missintercontinental.com.  8 July 2018.  404 redirect to home page  3. ^ ""Bị Trung Quốc đánh rớt visa, Miss Kyrgyzstan chuyển hướng thi Hoa hậu Hoàn vũ"" (in Vietnamese).  baomoi.com.  8 July 2018.  Promo, photo spread  4. ^ ""Miss Kyrgyzstan 2017 crowned"".  akipress.com.  8 July 2018.  Two sentences about becoming a model, quote from subject, not IS RS with SIGCOV https://24.kg/english/136285__Kyrgyzstani_Begimai_Karybekova_becomes_model_of_Emporio_Armani_/amp/ BEFORE showed promo, nothing from IS RS that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 19:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep since Notability Sucks 109.78.221.41 ( talk ) 18:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with the source table above, nothing beyond routine coverage.  I can't find anything extra about this person.  Not meeting BLP.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 109.78.221.41 ( talk ) 14:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Virginia Lette: Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Television ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Music ,  and Radio .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability.  Add content about her to her husband's page.  Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV .  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"W21DA-D: (Surprisingly, this article was not part of that failed bulk AfD , which included numerous stations much like this one, from earlier this year.)  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable waste of the public bandwidth, transmitter crews and the FCC's time.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ben Greaves-Neal: The article has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since December 2023.  I do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Television , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Passing mentions found, no SIGCOV.  As a side note, article has apparent history of editing by the subject.  Heavy Grasshopper ( talk ) 10:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as has no independent, verifiable references. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Can't find independent significant sources.  Won't pass WP:GNG .  Besides, passing mentions can't be considered as references.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 11:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Habibullah Mahmud Quasemi: Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 07:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , Islam ,  and Bangladesh .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 07:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No claim to notability in lead.  Falls afoul of WP:CRIME .  — siro χ o 08:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Bundesliga broadcasters: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  No context to assert notability either.  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists ,  and Germany .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Govvy ( talk ) 12:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Savarapu Vijaya Kumar: The sourcing for rest of article is mostly trade publications (pharmabiz).  The rest of the achievements are not encyclopedic and just the work of any other medical professional.  Orphaned page that nothing else in mainspace links to, page originally created by COI/UPE sockfarm .  Previously was deleted at AfD for similar reasons 2 years prior then recreated in 2018 without additional sourcing.  lizthegrey ( talk ) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police , Medicine ,  and India .  lizthegrey ( talk ) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors ,  and Andhra Pradesh .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : NO hits in Gnews, Gsearch goes to Pinterest, then it's how to pronounce this name, then even less RS.. .  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Due to RS Worldiswide ( talk ) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Every sources are related to unearthing of some drug mafia or something like that.  No independent coverage, so fails GNG.  42.104.155.220 ( talk ) 17:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sabarna Roy: Cited references are paid per WP:NEWSORGINDIA .  Fails WP:NAUTHOR .  Aronitz ( talk ) 13:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and West Bengal .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with the nominator that the cited sources lack independent coverage (and thanks for sharing WP:NEWSORGINDIA , I wasn't aware of this practice).  I also didn't find any reliable sources proving notability in my own search. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Snapdocs: The only SIGCOV I could find was about its Series C and D fundraises.  Not enough to establish notability (every company that raises a Series D is not notable) Longhornsg ( talk ) 00:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , Technology ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The company is not notable, and the sources are weak e.g. TechCrunch is, as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources, not to be used to determine notability.  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.",delete
"Intelligent document: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 19:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 19:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 19:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 19:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Electronic document : or Merge if sourcing can be found for any of the contents.  Owen× ☎ 21:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Disputed prod so don't want to take a 'soft-redirect' approach, better to relist to form consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The discussion seems to have migrated to E-paper and various iterations of the PDF format, now using e-signatures and the like.  I don't think this caught on as a concept, I can only find things about PDF.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Also, the article would be orphaned if not a few See also listings.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jospin Gaopandia: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  The sources (e.g., [14] []) are not in sufficient depth to meet general notability.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 19:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Josie Del Castillo: Coverage is minimal.  Fails WP:SIGCOV .  scope_creep Talk 10:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Mexico ,  and Texas .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable.  FAils WP:ARTIST , WP:TOOSOON .  Graduated in 2020.  The article relies on self published material and interview.  This article was created for the class Chicana Latina Art and Artists taught by AlmaLopezGDA for several semesters.  Perennial problems -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rayoe: Sources are not WP:RS .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Ghana .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  11:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sources have been updated to include more WP:RS sources.  This is my second wikipedia article.  and I am hopeful to cover more articles on ghanaian musicians.  Cobbyannor ( talk ) 00:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] added more sources.  in ghana most news articles are written based on comments or interviews from other musicians.  I added so many sources earlier because i was trying to make the article as extensive as possible.  i noticed most ghana articles about entertainers are not really extensive.  with this rayoe article have added more sources and updated sources to ensure they are WPRS and also i used the Find sources: Google (books · news · to find news on Rayoe which i added as a source.  for instance, this article https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Ghanaian-musicians-don-t-support-their-own-CHASE-334058 was found when i clicked on the news and i have added it as a source.  i think the deletion tag can be removed .  this discussion can be closed.  thank you all for helping me to be a better wikipedia contributor.  i am hopeful to cover extensively more ghana entertainers musicians.  thank you.  quick one example of the extensive research done. .  i search for Rayoe's real name and through that i found this article https://theboombox.com/drug-trafficker-avoids-prison-despite-incriminating-rap-lyrics/ and i added it to the sources far earlier. .  that helped make the article more extensive.   Thank you Cobbyannor ( talk ) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] more WP:RS sources have been added. .  And there were already WP:RS sources in the article.  Cobbyannor ( talk ) 00:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting since the article has been updated since the last relist.  Thoughts?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] deletion tag can be removed now Cobbyannor ( talk ) 10:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cobbyannor , the AFD tag must remain until this discussion is closed.  L iz Read!  Talk!  01:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Source 1 from the article appears to be an unattributed copy of Source 5 .  I have removed it from the article in accordance with WP:CV / WP:ELNEVER .  I think the fact that GhanaWeb published an unambiguous copyright violation speaks to the lack of reliability of that source (as a publisher), so we can disregard all sources published there for the purposes of notability.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've removed two additional citations for the same reason.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that means all citations of wikipedia where ghanaweb was used in all wikipedia articles concerning ghanaians should be disregareded. .  ghana web is a big reliable source for all Ghana information Cobbyannor ( talk ) 17:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Rayoe-Kwesi-Arthur-and-8-other-rappers-projecting-hip-hop-culture-in-Ghana-1820717 Publishes copyvio, see above ~ ✘ No https://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/music/stonebwoy-endorses-rayoe-the-dagomba-boy-as-the-us-based-rapper-begins-world-takeover/fc22hwz ?  ?  Unknown https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/Hip-Hop-artiste-Rayoe-eyes-international-market-1502528 Publishes copyvio, see above ✘ No https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Ghanaian-musicians-don-t-support-their-own-CHASE-334058 Publishes copyvio, see above ✘ No https://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/music/rayoe-kwesi-arthur-and-8-other-rappers-embracing-the-future-of-hip-hop-in-ghana/9sepjzc ~ Unattributed copy of source 1 ✘ No https://dailyguidenetwork.com/rayoe-ready-to-take-over-the-world/ ?  I could not find any editorial practices or indication of oversight.  Likely insufficiently reliable for notability ?  Unknown https://theboombox.com/drug-trafficker-avoids-prison-despite-incriminating-rap-lyrics/ ?  This is about a different person.  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Source assessment by Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 16:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Lack of coverage in reliable sources means that WP:BASIC is not met, and there is no reliably verifiable indication that WP:NMUSICIAN is met either.  Note that the article contained extensive WP:BLP violations, as well as some links to copyright-infringing content.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 16:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] can you give examples of the copyright-infringing content you are talkking about??  Cobbyannor ( talk ) 17:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The entire articles were copied from here .  To be clear, this is not a copyright violation on part of anyone on Wikipedia.  The people who published those sources are the ones who are violating copyright.  It's just that the copyright policy prohibits linking to copyright violations in articles.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 17:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] give exact examples of the WP:BLP violations you're talking about because this seems like an attack?  Cobbyannor ( talk ) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This paragraph likely violated WP:BLP ; the source article is about Mohammed Amadu, which appears to be a different person with the same last name.  I don't mean to attack anyone; mistakes happen to the best of us.  But we need to be extra careful about policies with legal relevance, like BLP and copyright considerations.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 17:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Izidor Balažič: Even a Slovenian source search doesn't yield anything decent about the footballer of this name.  Best I can find is a trivial mention in a website run by his former employer .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Slovenia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Pressurecooker: Donald D23 talk to me 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  There seems to be zero coverage in independent reliable sources.  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 23:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No news coverage.  Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's nothing available.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ross Bridge Golf Resort and Spa: Cursory glance seems to indicate it fails WP:GNG , although I didn't try very hard since there isn't any content here which would lead me to expect any articles with depth.  Daask ( talk ) 06:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Golf ,  and Alabama .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Miles Neiman: WP:BUSINESSPERSON: ""Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable.""  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , article subject does not appear to be not substantively covered in reliable sources and doesn't satisfy notability criteria for creative professionals.  Enervation ( talk ) 05:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Thirumagal (TV series): Tirishan ( talk ) 22:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Daniel Stilitz: Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 18:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , Politics ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dalberg Global Development Advisors: Checked Google Street View for a few of their international locations provided on company's website, and all looked like coworking spaces or virtual offices, although it's not impossible that this consultancy business indeed uses them.  Article created by an editor banned for paid editing.  — kashmīrī TALK 02:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Senegal-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Evaluation of the sources shows that there is no significant coverage and almost all sources are either dead links or have no parallels to the written content.  This is very likely a deliberate attempt of promotion.  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I did a google search and didnt find anything significant.  Maxcreator ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not finding anything suggests notability.  Chock full of promotional language as well.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ceratodus: The extinct lungfish genus seems to be the primary topic (the Queensland settlement is a small hamlet), going by pageview counts prior to the move, so it should be the primary title per WP:DAB : A disambiguation page with only two meanings is not necessary if one of them is the primary topic for that term .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 18:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 18:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the reclassification of things that older works say to be Ceratodus but are not named such now, Neoceratodus is a plausible third place to direct readers to, making this not a two-topic disambiguation.  Uncle G ( talk ) 15:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Don't believe there is a primary topic here and the page is useful for helping readers navigate to the page they are looking for.  // Timothy :: talk 07:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is demonstrably not true.  The extinct lungfish is the primary topic by at least a factor of 5 [17] .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 07:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : following Uncle G 's lead, I added Neoceratodus as a third target, tipping the scales into useful-DAB territory.  Owen× ☎ 13:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Australia .  Owen× ☎ 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nom has it right; the genus has a strong claim as the primary topic, and for readers there is no reason for (nor any benefit in) landing at Ceratodus (genus) when searching for Neoceratodus , as we have articles for both genera and they are multiply linked by hatnote and in text.  Two topics, best resolved by hatnote.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 08:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the other way around.   People searching for things that used to be named Ceratodus need some way of knowing that Neoceratodus is where they now need to go.  Uncle G ( talk ) 14:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, turned it round.  The point remains - we don't want to vector people looking for Ceratodus to Neoceratodus because the original genus name still remains.  There is a (counts) 22/28 chance that they do not actually want to go to Neoceratodus .  The correct place for the reader to figure that out is at the genus article, not at a disambiguation junction.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 09:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move as suggested below seems suitable. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 11:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus , adjusting hatnotes.  The town (population 28) seems to have  pageviews about a tenth those of the genus - see here , complicated by the fact that the genus was at the base name until late December when it was moved.  So my ! vote is really Revert December 2023 pagemove because the genus is the primary topic.  Pam D 10:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus , precisely per User:PamD , and per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC .  A hatnote is a wonderful thing.  BD2412 T 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Seems like Move is stronger here, but there is some consensus for keep.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move – The genus has been demonstrated to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC .  Svartner ( talk ) 20:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus per PamD.  This isn't so much a deletion discussion, more a  discussion about reverting a previous move.  Tar nis hed Path talk 11:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ned Parfett: Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  Pure WP:1E , page should never have been recreated after being deleted previously.  Mztourist ( talk ) 05:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already paid a visit to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.  We need more editor feedback.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable person who died in World War 1.  This is about the best I could find [26] .  Rest are basically trivia stories around Titanic lore, with several photos of different things.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could perhaps redirect to an article about the photo [27] .  There's been a limited amount of scholarly discussion around the composition and artistic points about the photo itself and what it represents.  The person isn't notable, but the discourse around the photo is interesting.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's an interesting idea.  Does the page already exist?  Mason ( talk ) 03:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"David N. Feldman: Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Law , United States of America ,  and New York .  Bolt and Thunder ( talk ) 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I haven't found anything more than generic author biographies or primary sources.  Shaws username .  talk .  19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC) m [ reply ] Delete An author of specialist accounting books from a decade ago, but nothing since then.  No secondaries at all MNewnham ( talk ) 00:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete only one ref, which does not to even mention him.  Appears to be a case of WP:NOTRESUME .  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2wenty: Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject F ASTILY 20:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Photography ,  and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not finding any RS in a WP:BEFORE .  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG .  All I'm finding in a BEFORE search are primary sources, user-submitted content, hyper-local coverage and the like, rather than SIGCOV in reliable sources.  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Same as above.  I am not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources, just blogs and the like.  The best thing I found was this brief item from Wired but that is just a single, short source, far less than there has been for other articles that have been deleted.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 02:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Found nothing.  Timur9008 ( talk ) 20:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Independence Star: The two sources cited are random WP:UGC from Twitter, and I can find nothing that could possibly elevate this to the required notabililty.  This subject as it stands has absolutely no place being its own article, and I implore the article's creator to read up on Wikipedia's guidelines on notability (e.g. WP:GNG , WP:WEBSITE ).  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the person who moved this article to draft space initially, I'm inclined to agree.  And this page could easily be merged with Dermot Hudson , if there are any reliable citations found.  ForsythiaJo ( talk ) 23:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nah so the twitter is the account of Dermot Hudson + surely the more knowledge available on Wikipedia the better?  There are so many articles on some random village with 15 people living there or some rare species of frog which went extinct 100 years ago like you going to merge those too?  Like if I made an article of a list of election campaigns from the WIMLMZT it’d make sense, but this is a thing, that exists.  i used those sources as proof of existence for the earlier issues as like that was the only way they were being shared + on Facebook probably.  Marxistnatalie ( talk ) 07:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, Marxistnatalie .  Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF , WP:PRIMARY , WP:MAPOUTCOMES , and WP:SPECIES on top of the ones listed above if these are your concerns.  Please also see the essay WP:ENN , which is not itself an official Wikipedia guideline but instead adequately explains how they pertain to your concern of ""it exists; it deserves an article.""  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Incidentally, please also see WP:SOAPBOX as I noted on your talk page.  You seem to have an extensive history of political soapboxing within this project and may be restricted from editing topics related to politics in the future should you continue to ignore repeated warnings against it.  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing that points to any notability whatsoever.  Marxistnatalie , WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument to use in this kind of discussions.  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 08:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Non-notable journal, fails GNG and NJOURNALS.  The Twitter sources cited are pretty obviously not reliable or independent.  WJ94 ( talk ) 09:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, no merge barely-existing journal for the proponent or proponents of a British communist splinter group following North Korean ideology, sourced only to two twitter posts by its editor.  No evidence of passing WP:GNG nor any of the suggested criteria in WP:NJOURNALS .  Not even worthy of a merge to its main proponent, Dermot Hudson , because we do not have WP:BLP -adequate sourcing for including it in Hudson's article.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The sentiment ""the more knowledge the better"" is not a sufficient rationale for keeping this article.  Fails GNG and NJOURNALS.  Sourcing to Twitter or other social media does not indicate notability --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 23:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seemingly no real-world traces of notability at this time - even the twitter post references have no ""weight"" (widespread engagement, notable replies & interest, etc).  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 03:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Selorm Kuadey: Only news pre-death seem to be his signing which is routine/ WP:MILL coverage.  The contesting of the PROD initially placed on the article would seem to indicate that because of his manner of death he is notable, but I would counter that it would then be a borderline BLP1E case if the only significant coverage is for that single event.  Primefac ( talk ) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Primefac ( talk ) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While the majority of coverage found is waited to his untimely passing, there does seem to be some coverage of his career outside of his passing also, along with the extensive coverage of his death.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep More sources would help this article.  If more sporting statistics can be found, then add those as well.  More info about the subject”s death would also be recommended.  Pablothepenguin ( talk ) 16:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very little in the way of statistics.  He played one season for England U20 in 2007, can’t find any stats on that.  17 total appearances for Sale with two tries.  https://www.itsrugby.co.uk/players/selorm-kuadey-4460.html RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 19:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails GNG and BIO.  Sources in the article are stats and obits, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.  Two Keep votes found no sources during their BEFOREs so there is nothing else to eval.  // Timothy :: talk 18:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : Doesn't care about the article's itself.  It did fail WP:GNG .  Agreed with Timothy.  CastJared ( talk ) 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Only the one BBC article meets the RS criteria, and I can't find any other source mentioning Kuadey.  SWinxy ( talk ) 02:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"WCPX-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , couldn’t find sources that justify keeping it in.  Danubeball ( talk ) 20:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ri Hyong-jin: Simione001 ( talk ) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Scene description language: A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per nomination.  Maybe worth adding an entry to the Glossary of computer graphics , not sure about the article.  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Loft design by: I tried again online but the name of the business is a bit too basic to make that easy.   Perhaps there are offline sources.  ~ T P W 18:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  ~ T P W 18:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete They retired the brand in 2018 [20] , [21] .  That's all the coverage I can find; not even sure a redirect to the new company name would meet notability standards.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Fashion ,  and France .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - some references online but not enough to support notability.  No article on French Wiki.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The Vogue article might just satisfy WP:NCORP 's guidelines but cannot find any other coverage that does.  If the new brand ever meets it, a redirect would be appropriate.  — siro χ o 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"The Future of Oil: Thenightaway ( talk ) 13:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No book reviews found, even in . ca websites.  Can only find use of the phrase.  Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting BOOK.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Environment .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I could only find one book review from a non-reliable source.  4 out of 7 sources are from the author of the book itself.  Does not appear to meet WP:N .  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Couldn't find anything to meet WP:NBOOK , though the title doesn't exactly make it an easy search.  Happy new year!  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  03:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ken Kensei: Could not find SIGCOV about him.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Japan ,  and United States of America .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Icingtons: Both references are not for the actual subject of the article.  Google returns basically nothing.  Google books returns nothing relevant.  Best I can tell this is not a real thing.  B roken S egue 01:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete this does appear to be a hoax.  Simply nothing other than a few social media mentions, a cake shop in New Zealand that uses it in the name, etc.   The article currently has two sources: searching in Google Books [32] version of Cinderella Dreams for the term yields no result searching for the term in the Sugarpaste reference yields no hit [33] - even if this is a failing of OCR if it was used a few times I think we'd see it Oblivy ( talk ) 03:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and France .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and add to WP:HOAXLIST : An IP editor who claims to be the page creator said it was likely a hoax: [34] Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 05:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is 16 years old, making it quite a long-lasting hoax.  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 18:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a 16-year old hoax is still a hoax!!  albeit a believable one.  Delete.  FlyingScotsman72 ( talk ) 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies if that came off as sarcastic, I was genuinely remarking on how long the hoax existed.  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 23:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Alaa Sarhan: BangJan1999 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism ,  and Egypt .  BangJan1999 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the last discussion, less than a month ago: """"Les sources ne montrent pas qu'il aurait reçu des prix. Notoriété à vérifier sérieusement. Canular ?""  The sources do not indicate that he's won prizes.  Notoriety needs serious verification.  Hoax/prank?  was the reason given in the Fr wiki deletion discussion.  I'm going to say it's not notable here either.  They tag it and if it doesn't get updated, it gets auto deleted after a year (since) that it's been tagged, which is different than what we use here. "" Hoax prizes, non-useful sourcing. SALT. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also: ""  No sourcing find for this person.  Not sure what sourcing we're using as notability, I can't find anything.  The Fr wiki template searches the BnF (nothing turns up), Persee (nothing turns up) and other sites.  If this person was this well-known, I'd expect something in French-African sources.  Another drapeau rouge red flag.  Zut alors!""  Lack of sources/appears to be a hoax prize.  Deleted in the Fr wiki.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per previous discussion.  Alaa Sarhan is no more notable than he was the last time.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – If you can't notice, the article is a mess, its like, He was born in Mansoura, Egypt , other than IMDb, which is generally unreliable, the first source states that he was born in a non existent city, based on the governorate Mansoura is in.  Nevertheless, there aren't any related articles for the Arabic and Egyptian Arabic Wikis, where such content would be at.  The creator also messed with sources, poorly citing material in text and otherwise there aren't much sources other than Arabic ones.  ToadetteEdit ( chat ) / ( logs ) 15:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article is not very notable.  Shadow 345110 (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per previous discussion.  -- Karim talk to me :). .!  10:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Priti Jain: Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 04:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Medicine , India ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable physician.  No significant coverage, awards, positions, or research that would contribute towards notability.  Mooonswimmer 14:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Frana Marija Vranković: 2 sources, both of which don't have the greatest quality.  Doesn't pass GNG.  Article also has many mistakes.  🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link !  21:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Croatia .  🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link !  21:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. the creator is User:Fmv~enwiki .  The initials of Frana are FMV.  Coincidence?  I think not!  🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link !  21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources don't support that WP:NBIO is met.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Oyebanji Akins: Sources are paid, promotional and unreliable puff pieces.  BEFORE makes no difference.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors ,  and Nigeria .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : ""Bridging cultural divides"" and 10 things I should know about him, the typical flowery language from Nigerian sources.  I don't se notability when the fluffy language is removed.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per norm.  Sources are WP:PAID and regular Run of the Mill .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - a critic does not inherit notability from reviewing other people's work; they get it for reliable sources about them and their writing .  Bearian ( talk ) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"WFRZ-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity ,  and Alabama .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Monirul Molla: This may be a WP:TOOSOON situation, but realistically, I think it just fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , India ,  and West Bengal .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Poor and unreliable sources failing WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  The player also does not meet the basic criteria of notability.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 19:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails GNG and I can't find any good sources online.  – dudhhr talk contribs she her 16:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"WNYN-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York .  Let'srun ( talk ) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"MIPIM: Other sources do not treat the subject in depth.  Does not meet WP:NCORP --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 15:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls , Events , Business , France ,  and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"IDEA1: The original paper received only few citations.  Non-notable.  Broc ( talk ) 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Software ,  and France .  Broc ( talk ) 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Clearer Group: Doesn't pass WP:CORP .  Uhooep ( talk ) 12:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Northern Ireland .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not even an attempt to indicate anything that the company is notable for, only that it exists and operates.  Straight up business directory listing .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fairly ROTM small water/drinks bottling company that, apart from its start as a social enterprise (prior to 2022 acquisition), is otherwise a fairly standard local/regional business.  With less than 50 employees, the only coverage I can find is the usual ""press release republished in local/regional papers"" type stuff we might expect for any similar business.  I've added some of this coverage to the article (Where it barely provides enough to cover the text/content - and does very little to establish/support notability).  The COI/SPA/PAID/PROMO overtones, clear in the article's initial creation, are also hard to overlook.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 14:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:NCORP as references do not meet the requirement of WP:ORGCRIT .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Fang Liufang: Fails WP:NPROF .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Law ,  and China .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - anyone with more expertise comment on Co-Dean at Chinese-EU University of Law?   It appears to be close to a WP:PROF pass as the highest ranking officer at a significant institute of higher education.   I don't know enough about legal academia to be a judge; visiting fellow at Harvard Law is not enough to pass the academic notability guideline, but it is generally a hint to dig deeper.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's held a lot of prestigious appointments at his university, including the deanship of the ""Chinese law"" side of the China–EU School of Law, dean of the Graduate School of Law, and vice chairman of the Academic Committee.  I'm not familiar with the administrative structure of Chinese universities – where I only worked for a single year – but I don't think the positions the subject has held quite meet criterion 6.  He's also been an expert on several temporary committees, including one for the World Bank and one for the Beijing (as a prefecture level city, not the national government).  He's written a couple books, but seems more involved in education than publication or research.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 03:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do remember that ""vice chairman"" of whatever is the highest ranking subject matter expert / professional in the group, because the ""chairman"" is always a party official, but I don't think that affects the overall analysis.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 04:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  If you believe this BLP article should be Kept, I advise you to locate sources that can verify the information and claims in this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not have sources that demonstrate passing WP:NPROF .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Adam Page and Kenny Omega: Tagged sporadically for a year, despite holding a championship.  Would be happy for a merge, but pretty much everything is already in the parent articles.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America .  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : One source used, nothing much else found.  Forbes contributor piece [33] then various non-RS websites.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This is not an argument so don't take this as whataboutism.  I created this article with inspiration from other tag teams that existed for around a year, such as Team Hell No and Vince's Devils .  I also followed the WP:PWTAG guideline where a tag team holding a championship for more than 100 days in a major promotion is considered notable.  I think the nominator's argument is valid.  However, I don't think it has lack of sources issue, although I agree most wrestling sites are dodgy, and that is why I relied on a book.  BinaryBrainBug ( talk ) 13:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per reasons provided by nom.  Llajwa ( talk ) 13:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bratislava New Generation-Day FM Festival: Appears to have been a one-night, one-off event.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Slovakia .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete noi evidence of noitability, abandoned article.  - Altenmann >talk 04:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ahwahnee Heritage Days: TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California .  TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , History ,  and Popular culture .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very little coverage, fails WP:NEVENT .  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 19:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"PES PU College, Mandya: — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India ,  and Karnataka .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Same as other nominations for school, this page too has poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gautam Kapur: In a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find any significant, independent, secondary coverage of him, just interviews in obscure news blogs like ""Hindustan Metro"", passing mentions in film notices, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid placement.  His acting has all been minor roles so far.  According to this reference , the short film he produced was an official selection at the Golden Door Film Festival , but the actual awards he's won so far are all from minor festivals of unknown notability.  Zero secondary coverage of his vitamin business.  Other editors interested in searching for coverage that I missed should note that there's an unrelated basketball player with the same name, and that this person's surname is sometimes transliterated as ""Kapoor"".  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople ,  and India .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Fashion ,  and Maharashtra .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Considering this was only created recently, do not believe a soft-deletion here will 'stick', so relisting to establish a consensus either way.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  For Linked-In.  Not Wikipedia.  MisterWizzy ( talk ) 03:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this non-notable model who has appeared in a few minor acting roles.  The article was created by an account whose sole purpose was to promote barely-known actor/models, suggesting COI.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:NMODEL , WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Howard Gentry Jr.: The attempted notability claim here is that he's a clerk of the county courts and vice-mayor of a city, which are not ""inherently"" notable offices -- they're offices where he could get an article if he were shown to clear WP:GNG on the basis of a lot of media coverage, but not ones where he would be automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because he exists.  But five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (stuff self-published by his employer, his own LinkedIn, etc.), and another is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a biography of his father -- which leaves just two footnotes that actually represent reliable source media coverage about him , which is not nearly enough to clinch the notability of a purely local political figure all by itself.  And notability is not inherited , so he isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because his father has one either.  Also note that another article about the same person was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Gentry Jr.  , but this article is different in form (but not really in substance) from the old version and the prior discussion was a soft delete due to minimal participation, so I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a G4.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee .  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Bearcat and the last AfD - he fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL , and there's some puffery.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Finance ,  and Law .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the above.   The sources in the article do not come close to the WP:GNG bar that consensus says local politicians of this sort must meet.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Proposed Warner Bros. Discovery-Paramount merger: Title is a misnomer: neither company has officially proposed a merger, and now Zaslav is walking back or downplaying the gravitas of his talks with Paramount ( source ).  All the information in this stub already comfortably resides in both the Paramount Global and WBD articles.  Should be redirected, drafitied, or deleted.  DigitalIceAge ( talk ) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (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/2023 December 24 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 00:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Events , Business , Companies ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I've also removed the details of this from WBD and Paramount Global because as it is right now, this is all unconfirmed business gossip and will remain so until the new year.  We're not the Yahoo Finance boards or Reddit, and only confirmed information about any deal should be listed here, not to mention that any deal certainly won't be a clean merger due to anti-trust concerns, adding other companies to the mix.  Nate • ( chatter ) 02:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, I agree that it is far too soon for its article, it's just proposed and hasn't happened yet LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 03:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete At this point, it's merely a possibility.  There isn't nearly enough traction to justify an article.  Rickraptor707 ( talk ) 18:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: WP:TOOSOON right now, arguably is also a failure of WP:NOTNEWS .  User:Let'srun 20:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Although it is merely speculation, it isn't uncommon for events that didn't occur to have their own page, an example being the page for Bojinka plot .  It helps let people understand what has potential to occur.  User:HaskeyM 20:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope We're not going to compare the plan for a terrorist attack to an unconfirmed media merger.  Are you absolutely kidding me?!  Nate • ( chatter ) 20:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm with Nate on this one, you cannot be comparing a proposed merger to a planned terrorist attack.  The terrorist attack deserves a page since it is notable, a planned merger than isn't official is not notable.  For example, the planned Six Flags-Cedar Fair merger does not have a page LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: If the merger doesn't happen at all, then there'll be no point in having this article at all.  2600:6C52:4C40:E77:C581:AD0A:548A:A2BA ( talk ) 23:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:TOOSOON right now its all just WP:SPECULATION .  If this merger actually happens then it might pass GNG but right now its just rumours.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Arbade Bironze: I used Ikinyarwanda Wikipedia for guidance as well but it's clear that that article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that make no mention of Bironze.  When an article has the title ""Soulcalibur V – Trophy Guide"" it's obviously not going to have anything about a Ugandan footballer.  Fails WP:GNG .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Uganda .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete So, per google: No results found for ""Arbade Bironze"" -wikipedia.  Rest my case.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 08:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , lacks significant coverage.  -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Searching in Thai turns up a few match reports from 2009, [2] [3] [4] [5] but nothing in-depth.  -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 13:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails GNG; cannot be considered as a notable as per search results!  Ekdalian ( talk ) 12:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Brisa Da Silva: All that I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2018 , 2019 , 2020 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Uruguay .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 13:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hoseynabad-e Alam: Linking to an .xls file doesn't make the article meet GNG Hongsy ( talk ) 14:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran .  If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#29), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable.  @ Hongsy , is Hoseynabad-e Alam listed?  Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE .  Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ A. B. - Just a note that we had a massive, massive problem with the Iranian census having places listed as abadi that Carlossuarez46 created ""village"" articles out of.  The problem is that abadi in the Iranian census are just places where the census was counted, including petrol stations, pumps, bridges, factories etc. and many of them aren't populated.  Something like 15,000 of them have been deleted so far.  See particularly these discussions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Large_batch_deletion_probably_needed User_talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive_13#Places_in_Iran Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agro-Industry Complex FOARP ( talk ) 09:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Woa so much popcorn 🍿 on that arbitration page.  Looks like these pages were missed out in the large batch deletion.  Hongsy ( talk ) 12:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we ask an admin to redo the large batch deletion?  Hongsy ( talk ) 12:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ A. B. Hongsy ( talk ) 12:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FOARP or maybe we can combine the multiple noms into a single nom?  is that possible!  Hongsy ( talk ) 12:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These weren't missed, instead people erred on the side of caution when the bulk deletion was done.  So only the articles that could be identified with near-certainty as being related to non-villages were deleted, and more grey-zone articles like this one were left alone just in case they related to actual villages.  FOARP ( talk ) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - There is nothing at the location cited in the map , which points to an empty field between two villages, neither of which has this name.  This is therefore a straight-forward failed verification.  Simply being an abadi in the Iranian census does not deliver a pass of GEOLAND since abadi are explicitly excluded from it (see above for why).  Similarly, simply being a listed in GNS does not give a GEOLAND pass as GNS since it's designation of places as ""populated"" is unreliable .  That leaves us with absolutely nothing with which to verify that this supposed village actually exists.  FOARP ( talk ) 09:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  FOARP , thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy , thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"John Bergstrom: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete per nom, this probably could have been A7d.  Mach61 ( talk ) 03:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NBLP due to lack of significant coverage.  — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 04:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  can't find anything that suggests notability  -- Devokewater | (tαlk) 17:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"An Song-il: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Search in Korean revealed no results.  No sign of notable coverage in the other language articles as well.  :3 F4U ( they /it ) 17:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"William H. Riffee: Vanity creation.  Nirva20 ( talk ) 23:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Medicine , Florida , Ohio , Texas ,  and West Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't see enough citations to his publications to convince me of WP:PROF#C1 , and dean isn't a high enough administrative position for #C6.  Nothing else in the article can be used to make any kind of case for notability.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per David Eppstein .  I don't see any WP:SIGCOV otherwise.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  nf utvol ( talk ) 18:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom   -- Devoke water 14:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He easily passes WP:PROF#C5 .  I updated the page with a link.  People seem to be simply voting to delete without doing a basic search on the subject.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 12:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bomdila Monastery: Boleyn ( talk ) 14:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Organizations , Buddhism ,  and Arunachal Pradesh .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"KoiKoi Nelligan: The subject fails WP:GNG and there has been no increase in coverage since the first nomination.  None of the sourcing in the article suggests significant coverage also.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , United States of America ,  and Washington, D.C. .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- DonCalo ( talk ) 21:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet GNG.  There is this interview and some transactional announcements , as well as a bunch of trivial mentions, but nothing that would constitute WP:SIGCOV .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Due to WP:SUSTAINED , as well as it failing WP:GNG .  Noorullah ( talk ) 05:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Igor Lestar: Not meeting notability for business people.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sweden .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , WP:NOTLINKEDIN .  A standard professional profile.  — siro χ o 04:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Clearly promotional, no evidence of coverage that meets GNG, heavy reliance on primary sources.  Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 05:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no SIRS coverage in Swedish news.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN .  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 12:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Quannnic: Instead there are Spotify primary sources and this Wordpress article which doesn't add to notability.  Binksternet ( talk ) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Binksternet ( talk ) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I plan to update the article with better sources tomorrow, consider it ""in progress"" as of now.  If I don't follow through with this plan tomorrow then there can be further discussion on deleting the article, and you can hold me to that BigChungusOnVinyl ( talk ) 02:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable.  Other than music streaming websites, there are no sources discussing about them even passing mentions.  AllNotAll ( talk ) 10:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lui Morais: Article is on the global title blacklist due to cross-wiki spamming * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Philosophy , Poetry ,  and Brazil .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This truely fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources are independent of the subject.  Redivivus carmina and Laboratório de letras are just personal blogspots. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 21:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I only see hits for a soccer player Junior Morais, nothing about this person. I don't see notability. Most sources used are non RS as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for lack of reliable sources . Bearian ( talk ) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- the Journal de Poesia biography looked like it might be independent evidence of notability, but the Journal seems more a directory of every Brazillian poet with thousands listed (the ""A"" list is over 400 long), so not particularly selective or confiring of notability.   I didn't see much else beyond this.   -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing demonstrates WP:RELIABLE sources independent of the subject and fails WP:GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Slatecut, Indiana: Mangoe ( talk ) 02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The second source (published in 1995) on this article states that it was simply a post office.  this source on places in Indiana, lists it as a postoffice only.  [34] .  Let's delete this post office.  James.folsom ( talk ) 21:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Raja Zulqarnain: Should be redirected to the primary topic Raja Muhammad Zulqarnain Khan .  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 22:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] Delete A 12 year old stub MNewnham ( talk ) 19:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Law ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  41.100.198.103 ( talk ) 20:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No SIGCOV.  Sources are dead links and no GNG.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Viviana Campanile Zagorianakou: The coverage that I can find is all very much concentrated around that one event, and is news rather than analysis ( WP:NOTNEWS , and she doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG .  Indeed, practically all of the first page of Google on her is mirrors and copies of this article.  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (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/2023 June 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Beauty pageants , Greece ,  and Italy .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I added some references, although they may not be enough to prove notability.  A bit of speculation: If she is still the romantic partner of Ilias Kasidiaris , a former member of parliament who is currently in prison, she may run for office herself.  I will leave it to people who are more familiar with Greek politics than I am to say whether this is likely.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that would fall under WP:TOOSOON , wouldn't it?  That is, we shouldn't have an article because of something that might happen (unless it's been covered extensively as a possibility in sources, so GNG is met that way): if we think she might become notable in the future, the usual pathway would be to delete the article for now but recreate it if/when the situation changes.  We do the same for e.g. sporting events in the far future: we shouldn't create 2048 Olympic Games at the moment, even though it's 100% certain that that topic will pass GNG and need an article in the future.  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 14:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete no, it is not even known in Greece, it only appears on gossip sites ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη ( talk ) 23:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not in depth coverage by RS.  ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk ) 10:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Electoral history of the Left Front (India): The four parties listed in the article do not have and have not had any ongoing *national* electoral alliance since the first Lok Sabha elections.  The electoral tally in the article is original research .  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 20:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics ,  and India .  Goldsztajn ( talk ) 20:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (Bharat) is relevant to this AfD.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 20:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Goldsztajn Would suggest you to merge both disscussions. Anyways once that page is deleted this too shall be deleted on own. Because if the alliance only never existed then what is the electoral history doing here. Shaan Sengupta Talk 20:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shaan Sengupta not really sure I understand your suggestion.  As far as I understand (happy to be corrected), it's not possible to merge a deletion discussion with one started earlier. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 15:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per the AfD outcome of Left Front (India) plus the additional absurdity of retroactively stretching the Left Front back in history before 1977. Also notably CPI(M) and CPI were electoral enemies until 1982, so combining the 2 during the 1970s is completely wrong. -- Soman ( talk ) 21:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as is original research.  Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 20:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Goldsztajn and Soman.They were not a united national electoral entity.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pharaoh of the Wizards @ Alextejthompson @ Goldsztajn @ Soman , Explicit has deleted the article of Left Front (Bharat) .  So I think that any more discussion is not needed.  This too can be deleted.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 02:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wellington Taira: I attempted to search for various formulations of his name, combined with teams that he's played for, including Romanian and Uzbekistani spelling; no meaningful results were forthcoming.  signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Uzbekistan ,  and Brazil .  signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – In Brazilian sources I found this article in Lance! covering about his time at Macaé Esporte and transfer to Moldova, a interview in Youtube, some posts in Instagram by account "" easy.progress "" covering the athlete's moments in Uzbekistan [41] [42] , and a post in LinkedIn showing his presentation at Newroz SC .  Svartner ( talk ) 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That was less than I expected.  Also pinging @ BrazilianDude70 for input Geschichte ( talk ) 12:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Geschichte : I'd say it barely scraps by.  There's another article about him at Linense and two articles about his move to Macaé , with the second one being from the Federação de Futebol do Estado do Rio de Janeiro .  I'd clearly disconsider the Instagram/Youtube sources since they all might be promotional, plus the LinkedIn post might not be a source indeed.  So, keeping the actual ""valid"" sources, there's four articles: two of them directly mentioning him, and two others with his name amongst others...  BRDude 70 ( talk ) 13:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"N. Satyen: Boleyn ( talk ) 20:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Karnataka ,  and Maharashtra .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably meets WP:CREATIVE for his multiple contributions as cinematographer to notable films (noted here , or here , for example) or  in various books (see GB).  These are passing mentions but they allow verification of his contributions.  Keep .  Worst case scenario, redirect to I Indian cinematographers - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 04:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO.  Two sources in article are database listings, BEFORE showed nothign that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 16:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jimmy Blakeney: Boleyn ( talk ) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems to be a NN industry journalist now MNewnham ( talk ) 20:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bader Al-Hagbani: Vyvagaba ( talk ) 11:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the article uses a single source, which is the player profile on a blog.  Vyvagaba ( talk ) 14:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"National Water Mission: A couple reference different, similarly named projects, but nothing independent about this project.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mar Mari Emmanuel: Hence, per Wikipedia guidelines, this may not sufficiently demonstrate Notability WP:Notability .  Additionally, we would also like to note that no evidence of permission WP:F11 was given for publication, even though HGMM is not deemed as an organisation himself, he is clearly associated both in the Wikipedia article and online through multiple sources (regardless of source notability) with the non-profit charitable church organisation that he both directly belongs to and oversees, Christ The Good Shepherd Church.   Finally, also as a personal request which we believe is as important as the aforementioned and as clearly stated in the Talk section, HGMM is recognised as a clergyman and true servant of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, by his community and others who know him personally, hence, out of obedience and respect to his wishes for this page to be deleted WP:U1 , we would also like to ask your help with kindly abiding by this request, please.  GraceHanna53 ( talk ) 01:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How can we believe that you are acting on behalf of Mar Mari Emmanuel .  It is possible for anyone in the world to come and say that they are acting on behalf of someone.  The criterias you mentioned for speedy deletion do not belong to mainspace.  WP:F11 is for files and WP:U1 is for userpages.  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 02:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Thilsebatti , this is an authentic request from the original source, directly from His Grace.  As mentioned in one of my previous comments on his talk page, ""...for any proof or legitimacy that this request has come directly from him, I ask you please contact the Secretary of our Bishop's church, Christ The Good Shepherd Church, with email that can be found on our Church website, www.cgsc.org.au."".  Unfortunately, when I tried to post the email itself in a prior comment, it was automatically omitted by Wikipedia.  I can try and dictate it here without the algorithm potentially omitting it again, i.e., ""admin, at, cgsc, dot, org, dot. au"".  I sincerely hope that helps.  GraceHanna53 ( talk ) 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment we accept Catholic bishops as notable (as far as I know), I'm not sure why this type of bishop would be any different.  I can't find sources, but I'll take a longer look.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In the past we’ve debated obscure bishops about whom almost nothing is known, and we’ve kept them.  We know quite a lot about this person, and indeed the article demonstrates that they are not just a private person at all.  Obedience and respect are not Wikipecia policies.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , Iraq ,  and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Smashes WP:GNG .  Doctorhawkes ( talk ) 08:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - could those voting ! keep please help me see how the subject meets the GNG?  I don't immediately see that a bishop who apparently overseas a single congregation of a splinter church is notable.  The references on the page are fairly weak in terms of notability IMO and I'm not seeing much else.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I mention to the nominator that WP:F11 applies to the deletion of files such as photographs.  There is one photograph in this article which was apparently created by User:Ghareebota as their own work, and Ghareebota themself indicates that they have given permission for use of the photo on Wikipedia.  (We are concerned with permission by the photographer, not permission by the subject of the picture.)  WP:U1 applies only to the deletion of pages in the User: space of Wikipedia (for example, User:Metropolitan90 is my userpage) and has nothing to do with deleting regular articles such as the article about Mar Mari Emmanuel that we are talking about.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably Delete -- If the subject was a diocesan bishop of a major denomination, we would certainly keep this, but he appears to be a schismatic bishop with a single church of his own but some ministry to a few other schismatic church.   I doubt that is enough to make him notable.   Is this sufficiently referenced for a BLP article?  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I get the impression that many people are giving opinions based on the obviously unsatisfactory nomination rather than on the available sources.  We have found only one reliable source which does no more than confirm that the subject was a suffragan bishop (i.e. an assistant bishop) in the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East in less than a single sentence.  It is claimed that he is now a proper bishop, but in a schism of a schism.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 18:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I hate to have to abide by a request for deletion that violates Wikipedia's processes, but I fail to see how the article meets WP:GNG .  None of the sources are reliable, with tweets, official websites and news stories not about the subject present, and the books (although I don't have access to them) seem like they would fall short of WP:SIGCOV .  If any of the people who voted keep could explain how the article meets WP:GNG and provide reliable sources, I am more than happy to change my vote.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 10:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are some published items from conventional news organizations about Mar Mari Emmanuel ( [19] ) or referring to him ( [20] , [21] ) and at least one book reference available on-line through Google Books ( [22] ), so he seems to meet the criteria for notability.  His past role in the Assyrian church is also probably enough to make him notable.  Bistropha ( talk ) 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From my understanding a one liner name mention in a book and a brief mainstream media coverage do not suffice the General notability guidelines of Wikipedia.  Happy to be corrected, with all humility and respect.  GraceHanna53 ( talk ) 03:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Daily Mail source is considered unreliable under WP:RSP , so I don't think that counts to notability.  The SBS and ABC sources aren't about the subject although do mention him, and the book is a single line in a list of people.  I still don't think this article is notable, despite the dubious circumstances in which the article was nominated for deletion.  And to be clear @ GraceHanna53 : , I don't support your church or your dangerous and hateful views.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand, @ JML1148 , and we are not asking for your support here whilst also not being judgmental, at the same time.  Regarding nomination, you will need to kindly excuse our novice & immature approach as this is our very first time attempting to perform this type of action.  GraceHanna53 ( talk ) 01:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 14:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  As others have noted, I hate to agree to delete when the request is an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy, however I cannot find significant coverage of this person in reliable sources.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there is clearly not enough SIGCOV for the article to pass GNG; he mainly just seems to be notable for a video saying some stupid stuff, which is not enough for an article.  I don't like having to agree to delete when the nomination is so against policy, but it is what it is.  AryKun ( talk ) 12:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  Closer should take the appropriate action regarding nom's group account.  // Timothy :: talk 10:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not enough in reliable sources to meet GNG/BIO.  Rupples ( talk ) 23:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Riverfront Broadcasting: The current sources are either press releases or are covering routine business transactions, and a BEFORE check didn't come up with much better.  Let'srun ( talk ) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Companies , Minnesota , Nebraska ,  and South Dakota .  Let'srun ( talk ) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 12:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wendy Starland: Hotpot for WP:PROMOTION , apparently.  Previously deleted, for context.  No apparent independent, verifiable sources covering subject.  Only press releases with passing mention exist.  SiliconRed (he/him • talk ) 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and United States of America .  — Karnataka talk 19:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE Web sources look to be content farms, possibly malicious websites, or dead links.  It also seems like there is an aggressive campaign by other editors to keep these links up even after revision or deletion.  69.113.144.213 ( talk ) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am nominating this article for Keep.  This article has been verified by numerous sources including major publications such as Forbes, Billboard, Authority Magazine, CBS local and others.  The recent announcement of Wendy Starland winning the popular music competition show Banded: The Musician Competition in the press explains the increased traffic to her Wikipedia page, since the show is syndicated and is airing to over 250 million households.  There have been repeated attacks and vandalism to this page that go against Wikipedia's policies.  All copyright permissions and licenses can be found at  the bottom of each of the pages on: == https://www.wendystarland.com/music == == https://www.wendystarland.com/campaigns-modeling == == https://www.wendystarland.com/art == == https://www.wendystarland.com/television == == https://www.wendystarland.com/wendy-starland == The following primary credible sources that validate most of the information in the article can found through these links: https://www.forbes.com/sites/allysonportee/2023/06/19/wendy-starland-the-woman-that-discovered-and-developed-lady-gaga-talks-fashion-and-music/? sh=7f95a0b63d92 https://medium.com/authority-magazine/inspirational-women-in-hollywood-how-wendy-starland-is-helping-to-shake-up-the-entertainment-256dafedeb37 Duanepem ( talk ) 21:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Delete and salt per nom, hasn't been improved since its 2014 deletion Nswix ( talk ) 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep subject has Billboard and CBS News coverage.  However, many of other sources are not so good.  Naomijeans ( talk ) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage looks real and verifiable, but everything about her seems to relate to Lady Gaga.  There is nothing else of note and I'm not sure that is enough information for an article.  She is mentioned on the Lady Gaga article and I think that's really all that is pertinent from an encyclopedic POV.  69.113.144.213 ( talk ) 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  I have listed the article at WP:CP , as everything currently in the article is copied from her website.  The problem appears to be foundational to this iteration, but does not extend into the version of the article that we previously deleted.  — Diannaa ( talk ) 13:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update : the copyright holders have released the source webpages under a compatible license.   — Diannaa ( talk ) 13:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong support of Delete .  Per nom.  Almost nothing is written on the article except for the infobox and a large possible copyright template.  🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！ ) 01:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Worth noting that that wouldn't be grounds for deletion @ Layah50 , as there are prior extant versions with content, and source assessment is done off all existing sources, whether (currently) in article or not.  Nosebagbear ( talk ) 10:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that the copyright notice was placed yesterday when Diannaa (see above) discovered copied text from other websites, but before that the article had some real text on Ms. Starland.  That text should be the basis of discussions of her notability and could possibly be re-written if she is in fact notable.  See this: [4] .  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - This one is really straining my philosophy of being an honest and ethical voter, because I have no regard for an article that was probably written by the person herself and is/was overly dependent on junk sources.  But I must admit that Ms. Starland has been covered by the reliable Billboard and CBS (noted by a voter above), while I also found coverage in Forbes ( [5] ) and Medium ( [6] ).  Outside of music she also has some notice in the fashion press, such as ( [7] ).  One problem for us is that her attempts at music and painting are absolutely non-notable, but she might squeak by the requirements at WP:ENTERTAINER given high-profile coverage for a Lady Gaga-related lawsuit and various other celebrity-ish endeavors.  Just barely, that is.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Side Note - If the article is kept, someone will have to volunteer to rewrite her biography from scratch and without the giant copyright violation.  If nobody is immediately interested, maybe Draftifying is a viable solution.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 18:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Copyright Permissions & Licenses- All copyright permissions and licenses can be found at the bottom of each of the pages on: == https://www.wendystarland.com/music == == https://www.wendystarland.com/campaigns-modeling == == https://www.wendystarland.com/art == == https://www.wendystarland.com/television == == https://www.wendystarland.com/wendy-starland == Duanepem ( talk ) 22:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete BLP1E at best.  Even if ""discovered Lady Gaga"" is actual personal notability rather than by association, and I'm not convinced except that that's really what so many sources keep trumpeting, that's all she really has.  Could mention her in Lada Gaga's page.  DMacks ( talk ) 21:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... and salt , given recreation after AFD-deletion, and 15+-year history of COI editing/self-promotion and sock-puppetry.  DMacks ( talk ) 11:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wendystarland , which includes an SPA here at the AFD.  DMacks ( talk ) 11:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See video proof of Lady Gaga crediting Wendy Starland for discovering her on the podium at The Songwriter's Hall Of Fame Awards ceremony: https://www.wendystarland.com/music Duanepem ( talk ) 22:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] It might have been a slip of the tongue but in that video, credit is definitely given to ""Wendy Starlet"", not ""Wendy Starland"".  Dorsetonian ( talk ) 06:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So...she wasn't really honored at the Songwriter's Hall of Fame?  She was just shouted out?  Weak.  Sounds like a typical Hollywood hanger-on reaching for relevancy.  69.113.144.213 ( talk ) 15:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and SALT .  I might have ! voted Weak Keep if the claims made in the article could be taken at face value, but something fishy is going on here and I am not sure they can.  The bulk of the article claims just don't seem to stack up; if this person was anything like as successful as claimed they'd be a household name and there would be lots of coverage of them in reliable sources - they're not, on both counts.  It stretches credulity to the point where it feels like this might be a complete hoax; I'm even beginning to wonder how much the one thing sources can be found for (that she ""discovered"" Lady Gaga) can be believed as well.  But even assuming it's all above board, I would still say this is a case of WP:BLP1E and should only be mentioned in the Lady Gaga page.  Given that it is mentioned in the Lady Gaga page, there is no need to merge.  SALT because of the past recreations and obvious promotion taking place, any attempt at a new article should be vetted by going through the WP:AfC process.  Dorsetonian ( talk ) 16:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm getting the sense this lady hired some sort of company to spoof her Wikipedia view numbers (although going wayyy overboard to the point that it rung a few alarm bells among editors) and make it seem like she is bigger than she is, although why they would try to fake her credentials through phony articles and dead links is beyond me.  The only real notable things about her is ""finding"" Lady Gaga and then winning a case against Gaga's then-producer to say she was the one who found her.  The rest of her work seems to be A&R and commercial work, which isn't really notable enough for a Wikipedia page.  The sock puppet accounts mentioned something about some overseas music competition show she's on, so maybe she's trying to make herself seem like a bigger star to please the producers of the show?  I don't know, this has been a wild ride.  I originally thought this was some weird AI celebrity experiment until I saw she was a real person.  I just want to know what the hell is going on, haha.  69.113.144.213 ( talk ) 02:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Due to WP:BIO1E .  The remaining coverage is largely self-published, interviews and passing mentions (and deadlinks).  MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"David Calloway Ross, Jr.: Shellwood ( talk ) 21:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alabama and Georgia (U.S. state) .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails to establish what the individual is actually notable for - no notable achievements apart from running a small local funeral parlour.  Dan arndt ( talk ) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete --I don't see any notability for this person either.  Drmies ( talk ) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the concerns raised about the article's subject, David Calloway Ross, Jr.  However, I'd like to provide additional context and evidence to support his notability.  While it's true that Ross's achievements may not be globally recognized, his contributions to the local community and funeral services industry are significant.  As the president and funeral director of Ross-Clayton Funeral Home, he has:Continued the legacy of his family's business, which has been serving the community for over 100 years; Provided leadership and guidance to the funeral home, ensuring its continued operation and service to the community; Demonstrated a commitment to the local community through his involvement in various organizations and initiatives; Regarding the lack of Google search results, I'd like to point out that not all notable individuals have a strong online presence.  This doesn't diminish Ross's achievements or impact on the community.  As for the article being created by a single-purpose account (SPA), I assure you that my intention is not to promote a business but to document Ross's historical significance and contributions.  I believe the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and verifiability.  Ross's achievements may not be widely recognized, but they are notable in the context of his community and industry.  I'm willing to work with you to improve the article and address any concerns.  Please consider retaining the article.  Mcrossphd ( talk ) 17:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Currently he does NOT meet our requirements; what is needed is reliable secondary sourcing.  You argued that the Ross-Clayton funeral home is the oldest in the city--that's not even verified and I'm not sure it's true. There's a few mentions in a few books, but nothing of significance. If you would produce reliable secondary sources, that would be a different matter. Drmies ( talk ) 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article on the business by Brad Harper is maybe a small step on the way to notability, but that's for the business, not the person. I note also that neither Harper nor the historical marker (I'm surprised the Alabama Historical Society accepted that text) make the ""oldest funeral home"" claim. BTW I'm about to write up the article on Lincoln Cemetery--there is no doubt that that is notable, on the basis of secondary sources and history.  For this person, that argument is hard to make though perhaps the business might be notable.  Drmies ( talk ) 17:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sir, please review Historical Marker Database for reliable source for Ross Clayton Funeral Home's History.  Also view link for David Callaway Ross's notability references Mcrossphd ( talk ) 17:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mrcrossphd , please don't call me ""sir""--""Drmies"" will do just fine, thanks.  Historical markers are not generally accepted as acceptable secondary sources here, and that particular text is so blatantly non-neutral.  Let me put it another way: it would be somewhat silly to dispute the facts on a marker (the Historical Association--Scotty Kirkland runs that--checks it) but we shouldn't be using historical markers as the basis for our articles.  A historical marker is an indication of some importance, but not by itself a guarantor of notability.  I've done that Google search, but better: I looked at Google News and Google Books.  Your search, unfortunately, does not deliver a single reliable secondary source; if you correct ""callaway"" to ""calloway"" and check news, you at least get the obituary from WSFA, but that's really all.  If you had checked ""books"", you'd have found this --but again, that's not much.  Sorry.  Drmies ( talk ) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I want to highlight two references regarding Ross Clayton Funeral Home notability as mentioned in ref. 1 and ref. 2.  also see Google Search Result Mcrossphd ( talk ) 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : fails WP:GNG .  Seems like the page creator has some undisclosed WP:COI .  Contributor892z ( talk ) 20:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG .  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to lack of even an allegation of notability.  He was a mortician, a useful and necessary but common profession .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"B. Syed Mohammed Yasin: Has held multiple roles during his tenure at IPS, but all of them are run-of-the-mill posts held by all IPS officers and nothing at the highest levels of the bureaucracy which may have earned him notability.  Is mainly notable for a faux pas when he was unable to identify a state minister.  Fails WP:GNG , adequate references not seen and is mainly created and edited by a single-purpose editor.  Jupitus Smart 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police , India , Andhra Pradesh ,  and Kerala .  Jupitus Smart 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Terrible article, but he did hold the highest possible rank in the Indian Police Service.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He holds distrit's highest rank not national's highest rank.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  15:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Director-General is the highest possible rank in the IPS, which is clearly what I said.  I said ""rank"", not ""post"".  Just as an army officer can hold the rank of general and not be head of his nation's army.  But we'd still write an article about him because of his rank, because reaching that rank is a clear indication of notability.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DGP is the highest rank in the state, but is not holder of the highest position.  Holding the highest rank does not make them automatically notable, though holding the highest post which is the chief of police staff in the state may do so.  Per this list, there are 5 DGPs and 15 ADGPs in the state [76] and Kerala is among the smaller states, and most of the 3200 IPS officers stand a good chance of retiring as an ADGP or DGP.  Besides there are not enough references to indicate WP:N is met.  Jupitus Smart 12:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not seeing notability, I can't find extensive mentions of him, only confirmation that he exists.  Kudos on the bicycle photo though.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per the discussion above, there is no presumed notability.  Per Oaktree b and my own searches, cannot find sufficient information for an article under WP:BASIC .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but clean up is needed.  Looks like an advertisement.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 16:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom does not meet notability guidelines.  Divesome ( talk ) 14:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Aidé Mendiola: I am unable to find the in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Bolivia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Genrobotics: Product is not a company started by college students.  All the other awards are non reliable and not helping in notability.  Lordofhunter ( talk ) 05:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India .  Lordofhunter ( talk ) 05:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree, I'm unable to locate any references that aren't just regurgitated PR.  I'm unable to find any in-depth ""independent content"" , topic fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing ++ 20:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Pierralit Tovonay: No indication of notability.  Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I couldn't find sources outwith of databases and none that pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 11:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Be With You (JD Allan song): Sources in article and BEFORE do not show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Only possible redirect is to another AfD JD Allan , so a redirect is only possible if this is kept.  // Timothy :: talk 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I was planning to nominate as CSD A9 if that AfD is closed as delete.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 00:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : found no additional coverage or evidence of notability for this single or for JD Allan.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not seeing anything to suggest that this song has anything like the sort of notability that would justify it having an article.  Dunarc ( talk ) 23:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per comments above.  I looked for a possible redirect target, but JD Allan doesn't have an article.  Boleyn ( talk ) 17:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sayyad Dadashov: Coverage online in English and Azerbaijani is limited to brief mentions in writeups of Azerbaijani athletes' performance, but does not have significant biographical coverage of the subject.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts ,  and Azerbaijan .  signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's a lack of significant independent coverage.   Success at the junior level has never been considered WP notable for martial artists.   As an adult he has competed at one European championship and two world championships, but he didn't even win a single match at any of them.  Papaursa ( talk ) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Asif Mahtab Utsha: The photos and content suggest a conflict of interest.  It should be deleted for the lack of notability and verifiable sources.  Many tangentially linked sources are gathered to create a wall of references, but none cover the subject in-depth, which is needed to prove notability.  The subject has no claims of significance and does not hold any office that would confer automatic notability.  There is one event coverage of his contract not being renewed at a private university allegedly over homophobic and transphobic comments, which generated some coverage but would fall under Wikipedia:Oneevent .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Sexuality and gender , Education , Islam ,  and Bangladesh .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The person in question is one of the most searched person in Bangladesh.  He is covered in almost all the mainstream media and the links of those media is referred.  The pictures in question can easily be collected from his page and should serve as further evidence.  And therefore, to suggest the 'photos' suggest a conflict of interest is not true.  Given the importance and relevance of this figure in Bangladesh, I recommend the article to stay.  Nafisa06 ( talk ) 04:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -Popularity is not the same as notable.  Let us do a source review of the 78 sources present.  Source 1: One line mentions the subject.  Source 2 about his contract not being renewed at a private university and mentions the subject's transphobic comments.  Source 3 and 4 have one line about him.  Source 5 is about a University English club speaking competition in which the subject came third.  Source 6 does not mention the subject despite it being used to claim subject co-authored booklet.  Source 7 is a YouTube video.  Source 8, an academic article written by the subject in the Philosophy and Progress journal, could not find an impact factor.  Sources 9 to 28 does not mention the subject .  Source 29 is a YouTube video blog.  Sources 30 to 34 do not mention the subject.  Source 35, YouTube video of a talkshow.  Source 36 is a YouTube video of an interview with the subject.  Source 37 is about subject's contract not being renewed.  Source 38 is a YouTube video.  Source 39 is a non-reliable source about the subject of tearing a high school literature book for featuring a story about a transwoman.  Source 40 is a news report on YouTube.  Source 41 is a critical opinion piece criticising the subject for his transphobic and homophobic comments.   Source 42 has one line about the subject.  Source 43 is a news report on his termination.  Source 44 is a news article about a anti-LGBTQ rally calling for subjects reinstatement.  Source 45 is not a reliable source.  Source 46 is a news article about his termination.  Sources 47 and 48 are about his termination.  Source 49 is a duplication of source 3.  Sources 50 to 62 do not mention the subject.  Source 63 is a news report about the street protest against Israel, in which the subject was one of the speakers.  Sources 64 to 70 do not mention the subject.  Source 72 triggered my anti-virus.  Sources 73 to 75 do not mention the subject.  Source 76 is a Facebook post by subject.  Sources 77 to 78 do not mention the subject.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 00:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - 43 out of 78 sources, more than half, do not mention the subject.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 00:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A stack of sources can be found in this article, but the sources have not written independently about the individual and most of the sources do not even trace the individual's name.  Imitation of WP:NOTEBOMB .  Ontor22 ( talk ) 06:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE - Clear case of paid article creation without meeting WP:GNG .  Irrelevant links are used as reference, where most are not even mentioning the subject.  -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 16:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per source analysis by Vinegarymass911.  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 09:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Parcel audit: ~ T P W 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not seem to be a common term.  All mentions I find are in Business Wire and other press-release articles.  Not sourced to any RS here either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Komtar Bus Terminal: Google search gives no sources.  Brachy 08 (Talk) 05:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Transportation ,  and Malaysia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The article was originally part of a larger article I wrote with full and complete citations.  However, an editor split it but failed to move the references.  I waited for changes but no response was made.  gavre  (al. PenangLion) ( talk ) 07:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Makes it easy when even the creator wants it gone.  James.folsom ( talk ) 23:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was thinking why does this name sound familiar, and then I remembered I went there a few weeks ago to snap buses there myself.  Back on topic, this does not change the fact that I'm going to vote delete per above.  I'm happy with a redirect to Komtar#Transportation as well.  S5A-0043 Talk 05:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"David McDonnell: I did not nominate for BLPPROD as there are sources that confirm the subject's existence, but my searches of the web and of newspapers.com did not identify any coverage that would help demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG .  BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 12:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cue sports ,  and Ireland .  BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 12:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I mentioned previously that if the consensus should favour deletion, I'd happily vote that way in future discussions of a similar nature - David McDonnell's case is similar, and I haven't been able to find anything to the effect that he passes GNG either, so that's fair enough.  The only mitigating factor might be that he has compiled a maximum break in professional play, but there again, that's hardly a notable achievement these days!  Montgomery15 ( talk ) 14:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zakir Hossain Raju (professor): Not meeting the requirements in WP:NACADEMIC as a professor, nor in WP:ENT as a film/documentary maker.  Also, the subject appears to have a WP:COI with the article author .  — MdsShakil ( talk ) 12:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh .  — MdsShakil ( talk ) 12:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I concur with the nom; the subject fails GNG, NPROF, and ENT notability policies.  UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your review of the Wikipedia article on Zakir Hossain Raju.  I appreciate your diligence in ensuring that articles meet the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.  I would like to address your concerns: Notability (WP:GNG): Zakir Hossain Raju has made significant contributions to the fields of media and journalism studies, particularly in Bangladesh.  While it's true that he may not have widespread international media coverage, he is recognized in academic circles, and his research papers are highly regarded in his field.  Universities in bangladesh included this research paper as course-guided material (Books, Article, Research Paper).  Academic Notability (WP:NACADEMIC): While it is correct that Professor Raju may not be widely known outside of his field, within the academic community in Bangladesh, he is well-regarded for his contributions to media studies.  The Prestigious Film Festival like Venice Film Festival , International Film Festival Rotterdam invited him as a jury chair in the asain film category.  His books on cinema are widely available in Europe.  Entertainment Notability (WP:ENT): As a documentary maker and filmmaker, Zakir Hossain Raju may not be a household name, but his work has had an impact on the documentary and filmmaking landscape in Bangladesh.  He has contributed to the cultural and artistic representation of his country through his films.  His films were selected for festivals like the Busan Film Festival and others in the 1990s.  So that the news and information about this matter are not on the internet.  Conflict of Interest (WP:COI): As the article author, I can confirm that I am not personally related to Zakir Hossain Raju and have no conflict of interest in creating or editing the article.  My sole intention is to provide accurate and reliable information about a notable individual.  And there is misinformation or delusions on the internet about the name; there is a filmmaker Jakir Hossain Raju with a similar name whose job is filmmaking.  I myself got puzzled by searching the books of him (Zakir Hossain Raju).  This is another reason why I chose this person to create an article about him.  Since 2015, I have liked to contribute in Wikipedia in the area of cinema, I know my contribution to Wikipedia is nothing but a drop of water in this area.  Furthermore, it's worth noting that Wikipedia's notability guidelines allow for the inclusion of articles about individuals who are notable within specific geographic or academic contexts, even if they do not have international fame.  Zakir Hossain Raju's impact in Bangladesh and his contributions to academic research make him a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.  In summary, I believe that the article on Zakir Hossain Raju meets the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and I would be happy to work with you to address any specific concerns or make improvements to the article as needed.  Let's make Wikipedia more informative together!  Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Best regards, Parbon CuriousCrafter 16:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article will be kept only when that person meets the notability criteria.  You have to prove which points he passed and also provide reliable sources.  — MdsShakil ( talk ) 18:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You uploaded his picture as your own work on Commons, so how can we assure that you have no WP:COI?  — MdsShakil ( talk ) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That has all the hallmarks of a ChatGPT authored screed.  Polyamorph ( talk ) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Subject's entry in Bengali Wikipedia, his entry in IMDb as well as his faculty profile in addition to the 13 inline cites appended to his English Wikipedia entry confirm notability.  — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bangla Wikipedia entry is also on AFD and was created by the same user.  IMDB is not a reliable source, and the faculty profile doesn't seem to have any point; that could be passed WP:NPROF.  The source mentioned in the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV about him.  — MdsShakil ( talk ) 18:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Roman Spinner , I am baffled that someone with over 50,000 edits and almost two decades of experience could argue that a WP entry (regardless of which language it is in), an IMDb entry, and wikilinks constitute arguments in favor of notability.  WP and IMDb are user-contributed sources, none of this means anything here.  And a faculty profile is not an independent source and soesn't mean anything for notability either... -- Randykitty ( talk ) 08:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The presence of a Wikipedia page in another language should never be considered as an argument to keep it in a different language. However, if we were to use that logic, note that the page in Bengali Wikipedia has now been deleted. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  agreed with @ Roman Spinner 103.113.149.244 ( talk ) 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG , WP:NPROF .  I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 18:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] news from The Daily Star , Bangladesh Post, Dhaka Tribune, etc. and ISBN/DOI ID, festival website mentions are not independent, reliable sources?  What are the reliable sources, I wonder?  There are a bunch of bengali news, journals, and book publications of/about the subject on the internet; I didn't cite here for the English readability.  CuriousCrafter 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I opened the refs and it passes BASIC.  Desertarun ( talk ) 18:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Add .  5 refs have been added since the start of this afd, so the ref count is now 18.  Desertarun ( talk ) 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Count is irrelevant.  Quality is what matters when it comes to notability.  An assertion of notability must include (at least three?) references that each have these qualities: reliability , independence from the subject , and provide significant coverage of the subject .  - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will try.  Ref 1 & 2 = profile, Ref 3 = passing mentions, Ref 4 = review of his one book, Ref 5 = unreliable, Ref 6 = passing mentions, Ref 7 to 13 = written by subject Zakir Hossain Raju himself, Ref 14 & 15 = passing mentions, Ref 16 & 17 = profile, Ref 18, 20, 21 = usual news e.g. Raju hands award to Japanese filmmaker, Ref 19 = ? , Ref 22 = passing mentions.  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Subject has an h-index of 5 and cannot find anything about him which would lend me to believe he meets any of 8 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC .  He would also not meet WP:NFILMMAKER as these do not even appear to be notable films.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has a lot of books to his name, potentially satisfies WP:NAUTHOR .  neutral h-index is not a good indicator of anything in the humanities (or indeed any subject, as it is easily manipulated through self citations or publishing in junk journals).  Potentially statisfies  5. and  6. of WP:NACADEMIC (head of department, dean, founding director...of various institutes).  Polyamorph ( talk ) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] edit:changed to 'neutral', not as many books as I first thought, several chapters and research articles.  Does have some coverage in independent reliable sources, not sure if it's enough.  Polyamorph ( talk ) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as head of a department, full professor, and journal founder.  I'm hesitant to support based on judging a film festival, which is not a factor and, from my insider knowledge of other film festivals, is often done from friendships and horse-trading, rather than ability to judge anything.  Coverage per SIGCOV is somewhat weak, but he still passes the Prof test.  Bearian ( talk ) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bearian , I don't see the ""journal founder"", can you please clarify?  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 09:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Being full professor or head of a department is not enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG is not met either. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 09:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't see a pass of WP:Prof .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 02:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete .  He's one of only a handful of academics writing about Bangladeshi cinema.  Unfortunately that hasn't resulted in his work (one book based on his PhD thesis and various chapters and journal articles) being highly cited.  And I agree with আফতাবুজ্জামান's source assessment.  So doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG .  Worldbruce ( talk ) 09:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Brighton & Hove bus route 1: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Run of the mill bus, only sources are timetables bus maps or self published fansites.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:06, 13 May 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 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not notable.  Athel cb ( talk ) 09:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of chief pastors of the Pentecostal Mission: I'm thinking this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Religion , Christianity , Lists ,  and Sri Lanka .  Shaws username .  talk .  23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No sourcing.   Seems to be established in Sri Lanka .  Most faiths vary by geographical locations, and likewise adapt their practices and hierarchy accordingly.   This is the first time I've seen the (assumed) Pentecostal structure of ""Chief Pastors"" and ""Deputy Chief Pastors"".  — Maile ( talk ) 03:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and explanation per User:Maile66.  MNewnham ( talk ) 03:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , concur with the nominator's explanation.  Dan arndt ( talk ) 08:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination -- Konstantina07 ( talk ) 18:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  Also, as said above, none of these people are notable.  TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 02:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per W:SNOW , WP:LIST , and WP:MILL .  I think the consensus is to delete, and based on that along, is fine.  I note, in addition, that a list of things or people has to be one of notable things or people.  This is a small minority religion that hasn't attracted any ethnographic or religious studies.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lin-ay sang Tablas: Hariboneagle927 ( talk ) 11:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Philippines .  Hariboneagle927 ( talk ) 11:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Silvia Caballero: Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Biology .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  See coverage by Time at https://time.com/collection-post/5718877/silvia-caballero/ and Technology Review (the second biography) at https://www.technologyreview.com/innovator/abhinav-kandala/ Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both are not significant coverage of the individual, each is barely a paragraph, telling us briefly about her biography.  We need more extensive sourcing of the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Oaktree b this is going to be continued to be improved upon as part of the sfsu collaboration with wikipedia.  We're working on finding more sources for this article.  After we've added some more sources, I encourage you to review the article once again.  Lykourgos3444 ( talk ) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lykourgos3444 and Eastmain : The quote, from the MIT source, ""She played a key role in the creation of the world’s largest library of human gut bacteria and led a campaign to test thousands of species for their ability to kill those three menacing organisms."" sounds interesting - but can you find more info on those achievements?  Pam D 07:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If ""this is going to be continued to be improved upon"", as you say (beyond the way in which this is true of almost every Wikipedia article), then please add the {{ under construction }} template or work on it in draft, so that editors do not waste everyone's time bringing it to AfD within 3 days of it being created in mainspace.  But, better, do not create an article in mainspace until you have included enough solid sourcing to demonstrate notability.  Pam D 07:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We encourage you to work in draft, where you will get a more meaningful review.  Deb ( talk ) 08:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Clearly passes WP:Sigcov .  Maliner ( talk ) 18:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly?  On what evidence?  Relevant guidelines are WP:NPROF .  Under which criterion/criteria do they pass?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, WP:SNGs are addenda to the GNG.  Meeting the GNG always overrides any need to pass an SNG.  Guettarda ( talk ) 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You cannot meet WP:GNG without meeting WP:NPROF .  But the question is still: what is the evidence for the claim that this clearly passes WP:SIGCOV ?  I am not, at this point, willing to say I do not believe she does, but there is no evidence here or in the article that she does?  Under what NPROF criteria is this academic deemed to be notable?  The nom.  says no references are found.  Do you have references that, per SIGCOV, must be significant reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You cannot meet WP:GNG without meeting WP:NPROF - no, that's not the way it works.  Please read the guidelines you're linking to.  Guettarda ( talk ) 19:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you saying that an academic need not meet NPROF to establish notability?  or are you saying this person is notable for being something other than an academic?  Again, what sources are you relying on?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously the former.  They only need to meet the GNG.  Guettarda ( talk ) 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not obvious to me.  NPROF says: ""This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements"".  The caveat in NPROF is about notability for something other than their academic achievements.  However, as you clearly are not going to provide any sources to demonstrate notability under any guideline, I'll leave the meta discussion there.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Any topic only needs to meet GNG.  It does not matter whether they're an academic, a cat, a restaurant, a pillow, or even a wikipedia controversy.  If a topic clearly meets GNG, there is no need to worry about why they meet GNG or any SNG, it's beside the point.  (Note I make no comment on whether the subject of this article does meet GNG.)  Nil Einne ( talk ) 07:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and if this person meet GNG for some reason other than their academic career (e.g. because they have significant coverage for some other interest or activity) then they meet GNG and can have an article.  But when it comes to evaluating their academic career, the relevant guideline is NPROF.  SNGs specifically show how notability is achieved in that subject specific area.  The NPROF guidelines reflect the community consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you're mistaken.  Again, it doesn't matter why they meet GNG.  If they meet GNG for any reason then they're notable and can have an article.  If they meet it because of their academic then what NPROF says does not concern us in any way.  Although again the concept of someone meeting GNG for their academic career is fairly silly anyway.  We do not evaluate why someone meets GNG because it's a completely pointless activity and sometimes people may meet GNG for a multitude of reasons and sometimes it may not even be that clear.  Nil Einne ( talk ) 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is meta and not really helpful.  We do not agree, because as I said at the start (perhaps insufficently clearly) you cannot meet GNG for the academic career without meeting NPROF.  It is possible for an academic to be notable in some other way under GNG or other subject specific guidelines, but the purpose of NPROF is to establish and spell out the community consensus ""about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements.""  Yet while we disagree on semantics, I doubt we disagree in practice.  I don't get the impression that you are saying that one can fail NPROF and yet still be considered a notable academic based on the fact that, say, they have x number of publications.  If you are saying that, I won't discuss it further here but feel free to ping me to your talk page.  If you are not saying that, then I doubt the semantics difference needs resolving, and we can leave it there.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  She is an award-wining scientist in the medical community with an extensive background of published research.  I added the reasearch and citations, but didn't have time to inculude all published research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky ( talk • contribs ) Keep (struck) - per WP:NPROF , criterion 1 and, I think, 7.  The number of publications remains relatively small, but these are highly cited.  Scopus profile .  The h index is 12, but the subject remains at a very early stage of their career.  The inclusion in the TIME 100 NEXT list also indicates that the subject is having a significant impact in their field of study.  This supplementary evidence should be caveated that this is having, not had, and that the sources added that are discussing the inclusion look like they are based on a press release that would not be independent, but this is still a significant level of notability that, in my opinion, meets criterion 1.  That she is working in Vedanta Biosciences, developing therapies, could also meet criterion 7 but I will not consider that further as it is a keep per criterion 1.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thinking about this, I think my own arguments here raise a question of WP:TOOSOON .  The failure of anyone to present further sources beyond the impressive start to the research career that I found with Scopus, and the fact that the TIME 100 NEXT listing is itself about potential impact, rather than past impact may suggest we are not yet in a position to write an encyclopaedic article about the subject.  I'll leave my ! vote asis for now, but pointing out the weaknesses there for the closer.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Striking my keep per WP:TOOSOON .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While she is close, an H factor of 12 is not notable, and she is not corresponding authors on any according to scopus.  Her publications (over 10 years) are in general too low for tenure in most universities.  It would help if there was a Google Scholar profile, awards listed, format corrected for refs etc -- see other faculty pages.  If someone can improve the page quickly I might change my vote.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 14:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article by another WikiEd'er who doesn't seem to understand notability conventions.  ""X under X""-type awards like this one and the others noted in the article do not go toward notability.  She certainly does not satisfy any general notability criteria.  Her higher-cited contributions look as though they were from grad-student days and have large author lists, with her being neither lead nor corresponding author.  And, her overall citations are pretty low relative to the high-citation field she has been working in.  I would echo the point made by Ldm1954, which is that this is a record that would not generally satisfy tenure requirements at a research university.  There is no compelling evidence that this individual is notable under the PROF guidelines.  128.252.154.3 ( talk ) 18:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:NPROF .  She may some day in the future be notable, but not now.  We can’t build articles for an academic based on one or two short profiles.  Thriley ( talk ) 03:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nowhere near the required evidence of notability.  What's going on with this course?  The student editors don't seem to be having their work reviewed by anyone experienced before they shove them into mainspace.  Deb ( talk ) 08:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Agree with nominator, we need to be getting rid of these articles which are not up to the amount of WP:SIGCOV needed.  Also does not meet NPROF.  User:Let'srun 01:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"K24HH-D: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity ,  and Texas .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Found nothing as independent references for the subject.  Won't pass WP:GNG Hkkingg ( talk ) 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mikko Kärkkäinen: The article’s author is a suspected paid editor .  I think I know where this is headed.  Biruitorul Talk 15:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO .  Theroadislong ( talk ) 15:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  I think CharlesBNB should be blocked for undeclared paid editing Usimite ( talk ) 16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PR items used for sourcing.  Nothing found otherwise.  Being named your schools top alumni isn't notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Unfortunately none of the sources in the article provide enough WP:GNG .  Just a bunch of press releases, etc.  -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 22:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Businessperson did business things.  No WP:SIGCOV ; fails WP:ANYBIO .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Uptown School: I could not find coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  Note there are other schools in the world with the same name.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and United Arab Emirates .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete: I've read through the article and I cannot find anything on it that indicates that it is notable.  Seems run-of-the-mill.  Also, your mileage may vary but this reads like an advertisement to me. I'm not entirely sure though.  QwertyForest ( talk ) 08:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zach Schreiber: Only incoming link is from surname.  Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 05:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions .  Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 05:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iowa .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Non-notable player, all sources are routine roster movements.  Nothing in-depth.  Skipple ☎ 01:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a WP:ROTM minor leaguer.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 01:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Baghdad operation: A 2 plane bombing mission where 1 plane was shot down isn't notable and fails WP:GNG Mztourist ( talk ) 06:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  Mztourist ( talk ) 06:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Mztourist ( talk ) 06:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This fails to indicate any degree of notability.  Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meet WP:GNG : planes in order to show Baghdad's airspace as unsafe and with the aim of preventing the holding of the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Baghdad. -- Patricia (Talk) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable.  Intothat darkness 16:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Any notability would seem to be on the meeting of the NAM... a meeting for which I cannot find and article (or strong RS).  The operation itself in clearly NN.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 19:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: see this : Non-Aligned Movement Summits.  (1892 cancelled due to Iran–Iraq War). -- Patricia (Talk) 13:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why I was confused.  The NAM article shows the 6th (1979, Havana) and 7th (1983 New Delhi), and the only reference to 1982 in the article is the publication date of a source.  The article in question here has a very weak source (it's hard to call ""a semi-official news agency of the Iranian government"" an impartial RS), but I was able to find these two [53] [54] that might add value to the NAM article.  I still see no value in this one as a freestanding article.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added a paragraph for Baghdad Operation to the NAM article, summarising this fascinating incident and included the new sources.  I omitted only the Mehr citation which I just cannot justify as an RS. I kept the dubious shahid-dowran.ir one simply because I can't confirm anything negative about the source itself, even though it certainly carries a highly-partizan tone.  If there is someone who reads Persian natively, your input would be invaluable.  Google Translate just doesn't cut it for evaluating the quality of a source overall.  This does not impact the discussion of whether this subject deserves its own article (I still believe it does not), but the NAM article deserved at least a summary.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So Much Thanks.  Undrestood.best. -- Patricia (Talk) 14:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of EuroLeague broadcasters: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL .  I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Basketball , Lists ,  and Europe .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relisting.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a directory.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No indication WP:LISTN is met: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... — Bagumba ( talk ) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Victor Adegbile: Sources are regular Run-of-the-mill and paid paid sources.  This clearly states its sponsored.  The rest of the sources are written by contributors and are WP:PROMO who in itself are not independent of the subject.  Subjects fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Africa ,  and Nigeria .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Most sources explicitly state his name, and sources provided are promotional in nature.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 12:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : several articles have detailed info and are from reliable Nigerian publications listed at WP:NGRS , including The Sun , Daily Trust and Nigerian Tribune .  Royal88888 ( talk ) 08:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I don’t see anything in the bio that would make him notable, and the sources are interviews or churnalism.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm not convinced coverage describing him as ""visionary"" can be considered independent or reliable.  Not notable — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Murder of Kim Damti: Content appropriate to the event, ( Re'im music festival massacre ), not a standalone article, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  15:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as nom.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  15:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Crime , Events , Terrorism , Israel ,  and Ireland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Re'im music festival massacre .  Damti did not play a major role in the event, was not notable beforehand, and her death in particular has not led to any notable results (ie, widespread vigils, protests, notable art/music, etc).  ForsythiaJo ( talk ) 15:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Re'im music festival massacre , as nom.  Parham wiki ( talk ) 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article should not be deleted , for the following reasons: (1) Kim Damti’s death was commented upon by the Irish head of state ( Michael D. Higgins ), the Irish head of government ( Leo Varadkar ) and the Irish deputy head of government ( Micheál Martin ).  No Irish citizen killed outside of Ireland has had their death commented upon by all three persons holding those offices without there being a Wikipedia page to go along with it.  (See, for example, Murder of Michaela McAreavey ).  (2) Kim Damti is, so far, the only Irish citizen to have been confirmed dead in the Re'im music festival massacre .  The population of the Republic of Ireland is 5 million.  The equivalent would be 66 US citizens being killed in the attack.  (3) Several victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks have their own Wikipedia page ( Benjamin Clark , Kevin Cosgrove , Welles Crowther , Frank De Martini , Melissa Doi ).  They have not been deleted, and continue to exist in their own right.  WarrenWilliam ( talk ) 16:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:PIA — TZ The principle relevant policy in this case is WP:SINGLEEVENT .  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to the September 11 articles (and it should be noted that at least some of those articles are about people notable for their actions on the day, being included in documentaries, phonecalls used in court testimony, etc.) 260 people were killed at the Re'im music festival massacre ; 1,300 people overall were killed in the Hamas attacks.  An article for each of the non-notable victims wouldn't be justified.  An article for this non-notable victim isn't justified just because, as the only Irish victim, she was mentioned by Varadkar, Martin and Higgins.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC) r [ reply ] ^ seconded.  And I think the mentions of a person by heads of state are confusing indications of notability, with a person (or their death) being notable .  A notable person or event is likely to be mentioned by authority figures, but that doesn't mean everything an authority ever mentions is notable - i.e., WP:INHERITED .  ForsythiaJo ( talk ) 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even those articles are iffy, the chef appears rather routine.  I might even revisit the need for those two, thank you for pointing them out.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Ok, but what did she do to become notable?  There is literally nothing about her life and two paragraphs about her death and aftermath.  Dying in an attack doesn't get you past the notability requirements; to be blunt, she was 22 with a full life ahead of her, which kind of implies there wasn't much before that point (likely just school and normal teenage/young adult life experiences).  NOTMEMORIAL applies here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Oaktree b.  Nothing worth merging here.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sadly one of but many victims, makes no sense to given them their own individual pages.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Is war victims now going to be on wikipedia.  All crime victims as well.  She is completely non-notable.  scope_creep Talk 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  She was not independently notable, before or after her death.  Nothing came of her death specifically.  ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 15:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Spleodrach ( talk ) 20:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Since there are no earlier mentions in the media.  Also, the murder was within a massacre.  gidonb ( talk ) 06:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This unfortunate death does not confer notability on a subject by itself.  Prior to the event, she was as anonymous as I am.  Expressions of sadness by politicians are also insufficient criteria for notability according to Wikipedia policies.  When a particularly gruesome traffic accident occurs in Ireland or if, for example, a whole family was killed in such an accident particularly if very young children were involved, politicians tend to make remarks of regret about such incidents as well, to voice the dismay of the community at large, but they are not truly notable in the greater scheme of things: they are merely banal traffic accidents, no matter how painful.  This death does not warrant a standalone article.  Tragedy is not notable because it is so commonplace, therefore, an individual death is unremarkable by itself without additional markers of notability.  O'Dea ( talk ) 13:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While tragic, her death is no more special than others who perished at the festival, and I removed a bunch of unnecessary quotes from the article as it's not an obituary.  In fact, this conflict has spawned a ton of articles on subjects editors have suddenly deemed notable after their deaths, and frankly it's getting a bit out of hand (see Deaths in 2023 ).  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 04:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable, per all the above comments.  No significant impact beyond the immediate tragic incident.  The fact that Ireland's leaders mentioned her is to be expected and does not contribute to her notability.  Unlikely search term so a redirect is unnecessary.  Mooonswimmer 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Maria Avraamidou: Her one claim to notability is being a runner-up in a tournament that does not seem to meet WP:NBAD .  When searching in Greek, the best I can find is CUSF , which is not at all sufficient for meeting WP:GNG .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Badminton ,  and Cyprus .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Florentyna ( talk ) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on what sources?  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ignore per WP:JUSTAVOTE .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 00:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  Sources in article and BEFORE fail to show anything meeting IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo.  // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No apparent notability, practically a database entry.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 20:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and QuicoleJR.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 03:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sevil Soyer: A Google search doesn't return much.  The creator of the article was only active between late February and early March 2011, and all except two of their edits are on this article, and the rest are also related to the topic, indicating possible COI: [1] Aintabli ( talk ) 23:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Turkey .  Aintabli ( talk ) 23:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST .  No significant coverage.  Not in any collections.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Superleague Formula broadcasters: The rest are primary sources; directly drom their own website which I doubt now exist.  Fails WP:LISTN .  In short, not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY or was.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 22:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Motorsport ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 22:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nomination, very straightforward.  5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 02:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nominator's rationale EnthusiastWorld37 ( talk ) 07:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Shishu Niketan Higher Secondary School: Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  There are some news articles mentioning the school, but they don't reach SIGCOV.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India ,  and Tripura .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 10:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kul Bazan-e Yek: From WP:GEOLAND : Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.  Hongsy ( talk ) 08:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran .  Hongsy ( talk ) 08:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig: Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG .  HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 23:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  Codenamewolf ( talk ) 06:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The nominator has been blocked as a sock and they started quite a few AFDs in their three weeks of activity.  L iz Read!  Talk!  01:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Codenamewolf.  Can't find anything of note in Pakistani media.  41.97.58.27 ( talk ) 20:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unsourced BLP and likely lacks notability.  The fact the nominator is a sock should not affect the outcome of the discussion.  Broc ( talk ) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Uncited with no GNG.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 10:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Adam Kroener: Coverage is solely related to the already-deleted Carbliss ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbliss ), and WP:NOTINHERITED in any case.  ~ A412 talk!  01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America .  ~ A412 talk!  01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete as it seems promotional and not very notable Gaismagorm ( talk ) 17:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Brighton & Hove bus route 5: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 11 May 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 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not notable.  Athel cb ( talk ) 09:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per route 1 and 6.  Only primary sources and not a topic getting treated in significant independent sources.  Remember to remove all routes from Template:Brighton & Hove bus routes .  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bruce Judd: The article in it's current form is a resume so would be willing to attempt to clean it up if someone can prove notability.  Qcne (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Qcne (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:46, 23 August 2023 (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 23:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not pass notability guidelines as per nom.  Furthermore, article was heavily edited and contributed to by the subject himself.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 09:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this article was poorly created and articles should have references.  Catfurball ( talk ) 21:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Arkadia Joint Lyceum: All available significant coverage is from official websites.  Media coverage exists, but it is either in local news providing list-style coverage of high school graduates and test scores, or it is routine coverage in news related to school openings and closings.  One news story appears to constitute significant coverage, but one is not enough to clear the hurdle.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Finland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Finland .  Owen× ☎ 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"ESpew: Trying to find any information about this website at all doesn't produce many, if any, results.  Most references to eSpew are Wikipedia mirrors.  S EMMENDINGER ( talk ) 19:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Already PROD'd, not elgible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I find absolutely nothing.   If it ever did exist as a search engine, there is no evidence now.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - lacks references to support.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can verify that it existed, but that's about it.  Jacona ( talk ) 01:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Yuliya Shiryayeva: My searches of Kazakh sources led me to Sports Arena , which mentions her twice in the main body and once in an image caption.  Sports.kz is a squad list mention only and Pro Sports mentions her as a goalscorer and again in the squad list.  None of the above are examples of significant coverage for a footballer as they do not address Shiryayeva directly and in detail.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Kazakhstan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Alexa Pacheco: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Dominican Republic .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Alan Rogers Travel Group: Possible advert.  Sources provided are primary.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products .  –– Formal Dude (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT following a search of Google, GNews, and GBooks.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Haynes Aero Skyblazer: Category indicates it is an abandoned project so doesn't have any expectation of gaining any notability.  Fails WP:GNG .  Additionally, article was created by the creator of the topic.  Perhaps a merger into another article to fulfill WP:ATD .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a host for individual project's pages.  It junk at best.  Fails WP:SIGCOV .  scope_creep Talk 08:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Zero coverage of any sort, only some hit on a Russian website, which looks sketchy to begin with.  Nothing in Gnews or newspapers.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The CNN Money piece used for sourcing is literally an image caption; the second deletion discussion proposes that there were sources that exited at the time in 2013 (the first one was for a Gsearch which now gives a 404, the second links to the Deseret News site, but the article in question is gone).  I'd revisit if we had something more than the Deseret News source (assuming it's even extensive coverage), but I can't find anything.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jang Jong-hyok: Simione001 ( talk ) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV , but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Barnea Jaffa Lande: My concern from then still stands: I can't find any sources that indicate that WP:CORP is met.  SmartSE ( talk ) 01:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business .  SmartSE ( talk ) 01:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sourcing is entirely to a JD Supra website; nothing we can use for sourcing.  Routine announcements used to build the article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't think ""Barnea Jaffa Lande"", or ""Barnea Law"", passes WP:NORG .  Few law firms in smaller countries do.  Lawyers quite a few.  gidonb ( talk ) 05:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  In this list from 2023 , the law office ranks 14th in Israel.  Not small, not huge.  gidonb ( talk ) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Michael Pierre Price: The article is mainly referenced to primary sources from a group exhibition called ""Techspressionism"", in which he showed an artwork.  An online BEFORE search finds lots of social media, and user-submitted content, and more primary sources.  I found one good news source, [7] but that is not enough to put him over the bar, as what is needed are multiple , independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources.  WP:COI seems evident.  Netherzone ( talk ) 22:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Visual arts ,  and Technology .  Netherzone ( talk ) 22:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Games , Spirituality , Science ,  and Computing .  Netherzone ( talk ) 00:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada , Arizona , Indiana ,  and Ohio .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails notability guidelines.  Here's what I found: this source as mentioned, it only describes the subject without anything in detail, this source which reads more like a letter with a youtube embed that is basically an interview (and thus not secondary).  More interviews and profiles, this source about one of his works in addition to a conversation with the subject (fails GNG), another source which also doesn't meets GNG .  I stopped analysing more but others are simply interviews and other non GNG passable sources.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 15:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep [8] isn't hugely detailed, but it is non-trivial coverage.  [9] in Arizona Daily Sun looks strong.   His history with TSR should have some sources--if nothing else we have articles on a fair number of the things he's written.  I tend to think that's strong evidence we should have an article on the creator. Hobit ( talk ) 00:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on Hobit's reasoning regarding sources. BOZ ( talk ) 00:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the two sources Hobit posted--one of which I note the nominator had posted, so thank you for that BEFORE work--and address any COI or puffery issues outside of the AfD process.  Jclemens ( talk ) 04:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of sources found.  It would be great if those brought up in this discussion could be added to the article.  And also, does the article creator, User:Gwanwata have a response here?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am not finding sufficient RS sourcing for this article.  The coverage is mostly local (Arizona) of regional shows.  The artist is not part of any notable collections, nor been part of any notable exhibitions.  There is no reliable sourcing for biographical information presented.  The article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:ARTIST .  I am finding nothing to bring it up to notable.  Sentences like ""In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist. Combining his technical expertise with artistic vision, he began creating unique and thought-provoking artworks that explore the relationship between technology and human expression."" are not encyclopedic.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I fail to see how the article subject meets GNG, and there is no indication the artist meets the notability criteria for visual artists, NARTIST.  There is one good source, AZ Sun, but the other one mentioned above by Hobit is a two paragraph modified press release announcing the show, it's a very week source.  Netherzone ( talk ) 17:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello Netherzone .  I am the subject of this article and I understand that I have a conflict of interest, but I would like to work through the process to fix the issues here.  I am in uncharted waters with regards to how Wikipedia operates, but I do believe I have substantive sources on both the game design side of my career and also for my art career.  What I have done in my 30 years as a game designer is much greater than my art career, but I am hopeful that there is a good case to be made on my behalf for me as an artist and game designer.  However, let me say that my sources are strong for the game industry as I have reviewed the Wikipedia pages of past colleagues this week.  I would appreciate any guidance you might have in how best to move forward.  I have new sources that are not currently being used in my article, but I don't know how to present them and who to present them to, since it looks like I should not make edits here on my own because of the conflict of interest.  Thank you for your attention and help.  ConradJens ( talk ) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ConradJens , Thank you for your message and for disclosing that you are the subject of the article, welcome to Wikipedia.  You are free to post on this AfD discussion.  Just so you know, in compliance with WP:COI you should not edit articles about yourself or close associates or family (other than minor corrections and things like punctuation fixes), and if you create any new articles they should be run through Articles for Creation, rather than created directly in article space.  COI editing is discouraged because introduces systemic bias into the encyclopedia, as well as potenital original research and non-neutral material, and promotional content .  If you have sources to share about your work in the game industry, post those references and links here for assessment.  At this time the article only has one decent source, the Arizona Sun article.  A general rule of thumb is there should be three solid references that are significant coverage published in reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject to definitively establish notability.  Good sources would be newspaper articles (not press releases, calendar listings or the like); reviews about your work, games, or publications in reliable sources (not blogs, social media, or primary souces like user-submitted content, interviews, etc.); book chapters or significant coverage in journal articles about you or your work.  These should be independent, not written by your or your close associates or colleagues.  Wikipedia is interested in what neutral others have said about you and/or your work in reliable sources, not what one says about themself.  This is how the integrity of the encyclopedia is maintained.  Hope that helps.  Netherzone ( talk ) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Netherzone , I would like to address the issues in two stages.  I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up.  And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career.  One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco.  I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed.  First off - TSR.  I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.  Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover) https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit) https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.  https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php? op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.  ps://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.) The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.  https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals.  In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.  https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.) As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.  Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.) I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price.  Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days.  Thank you for your attention.  ConradJens ( talk ) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is a mess, but I agree with Hobit .  Much of it could be/should be deleted, particularly the WP:PROMO parts, but there are sufficient sources for a stub.  -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The two sources Hobit noted are good enough to establish notability.  TLA tlak 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question - I have a sincere question to the experienced editors or watchers.  I may have missed some guideline changes about notability criteria for BLPs – things do change quickly around here – but I can't find anything about changes to GNG or NARTIST.  It's always been my understanding that at least THREE solid sources that are independent, significant coverage, and published in a reliable sources (national or international being preferred over local) were required.  Q: Is one good-quality local source, and one local press release/calendar event all it takes now to establish the notability of a person?  Netherzone ( talk ) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Netherzone , This question might warrant a talk page discussion on the pertinent policy page.  But my understanding about the ""law of Three"" (that's my term, not Wikipedia's), is that editors in AFD frequently ask for the best three reliable sources (sometimes out of dozens included in the article) as a way of gauging whether or not a subject is notable.  It's not a policy guideline or recommendation, it comes from a User essay, User:RoySmith/Three best sources .  But it's a valid question to ask to help AFD discussion focus on what's important.  Unfortunately, over time, it has been misunderstood by some editors as being a policy rule but it's just a shorthand to help editors come to a decision on whether or not sufficient sourcing exists and to cut through refspam on some articles.  But, by contrast, our BLPPROD guide only requires one reliable source to be preesnt on an article to prevent deletion.  L iz Read!  Talk!  19:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you @ Liz !  I guess I'm still a bit confused; I understand it applies to BLPPROD.  Could you please, when you have a moment, clarify if that means that GNG and/or NARTIST is met by only one reliable source?  (The reason I'm asking here is I'm considering withdrawing the nom if that is the case.)  Netherzone ( talk ) 23:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:GNG does say sources , plural.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's currently just a single source (Arizona Daily Sun) providing anything close to significant coverage in a reliable source, and that looks like just fairly routine coverage of a local art show.  ConradJens says above that they are the subject of the article, and that they have possible additional sources.  It could be moved to ConradJens user space if they want to try to cut back the unsourced promotion and add reputable sources for everything.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 14:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello.  I am copying this message here because it was placed above in direct response to my ongoing conversation with Netherzone a couple of days ago, but I see that new comments need to be added here.  My apologies if I initially posted this comment in the wrong place.  I am trying to make sure the information I am providing helps address some of the issues previously identified.  Netherzone , I would like to address the issues in two stages.  I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up.  And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career.  One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco.  I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed.  First off - TSR.  I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.  Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover) https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit) https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.  https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php? op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.  https://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.) The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.  https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals.  In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.  https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.) As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.  Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.) I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price.  Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days.  Thank you for your attention.  ConradJens ( talk ) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I checked at least the first few links when you originally posted them.  They don't change my view, as they are as you say just ""credits"".  Yes, they show you worked on these projects, but what we are looking for is what is described at WP:GNG , which is basically in-depth coverage by reliable sources, like multiple paragraphs written in a book or a reputable newspaper.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the sources provided by ConradJens do little to better the case for meeting WP:GNG .  But, wouldn't the review of They've Invaded Pleasantville in The Space Gamer contribute toward meeting WP:CREATIVE ?  See #3 ""major role"" in work that was critically reviewed?  How many of these would be needed?  -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you cite the review you are describing? Elspea756 ( talk ) 21:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Barton, William A. (August 1981). ""Capsule Reviews"". The Space Gamer. Steve Jackson Games (42): 31. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the links ConradJens, however these are databases, credits, name-checks or user-submitted content.  In the same way that WP does not consider IMDb a reliable source to establish notability for actors/film industry professionals, so not so sure about these.  As part of a WP:BEFORE , per WP guidelines and RSP, a search for game industry reliable sources, but unfortunately did not get any results.  It's clear that you did this work, but what I can't find is significant coverage of your role in these works as analyzed by independent industry experts to fulfill GNG.  I know it's disappointing, and I'm sorry for that, but what is needed are more than mentions.  Agree with @ Elspea756 above.  Netherzone ( talk ) 21:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello Netherzone Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.  Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196.  The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.  2600:8800:122:4A00:6DEE:364F:687F:E669 ( talk ) 03:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello Netherzone Sorry, I was not logged in previously.  My apologies for the previous post just above.  Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.  Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196.  The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.  ConradJens ( talk ) 03:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I'm not sure whether to close this as No consensus or relist but reading this discussion over (again), it feels like we are still in the middle of a discussion, not the end.  Can we have any more opinions on the source offered?   It would be great if this could be in a Deletion sort for Video Games.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) removed duplicate listing. [ reply ] *' Comment Thank you for the suggestion Liz . I will add it to Games. The subject does not meet notability for artist. Indeed, the subject of the article would prefer it be focused on game design career. If the article isn't edited into notable under those criteria, I would vote for . -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry--- I cant find a category specifically on video games, and I have already voted for delete. [ reply ] Found video games. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 17:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I've looked at the review of ""They've Invaded Pleasantville"" that ConradJens and Jaireeodell have asked us to look at.  It is on page 35 of this 48 page pdf , numbered as page 31 in the upper right of the page.  It is 5 paragraphs that say nothing about Michael Price other than that they are the designer of this game.  This does not provide significant coverage of Michael Price (see WP:SIGCOV ).  Jaireodell asks if this would satisfy WP:CREATIVE #3 which says says ""significant or well-known work ... must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.""  No, this does not show that They've Invaded Pleasantville is a significant and well-known work, and this is a single review, not multiple independent reviews.  My advice remains: WP:TNT and put in the effort to start over in user space.  If there is a decent article that could be made on this topic, I'd be happy to see it, but if one is possible it is currently buried under so much unsourced self-promotion like ""Leveraging the experience gained with 3D immersive entertainment"" etc that I am not seeing it.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 00:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello.  It appears we have been talking past each other and that may be because of my lack of understanding what you all are looking for.  I had been attempting to provide sources to back up the statements that had indicated the previous sources were not acceptable and I have done that, but apparently the real issue is the significant coverage, so here goes: Game Industry (1) https://www.newspapers.com/image/110332711/ and https://www.newspapers.com/image/110332797/ This is a significant article from the Louisville Courier-Journal business section dated March 22, 1998 regarding Indigo Moon Productions and Fierce Harmony, interviewing Michael Price.  (2) Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196.  The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.  Art Industry (3) Math & art: The enigmatic creations of Michael Pierre Price | Cover Story | azdailysun.com (archive.org) Arizona Daily Sun which has been indicated above is a reliable source.  The archived link provided here actually is the entire interview.  (4) 'Call Me Ishmael' art exhibit experiments with augmented reality (downtowndevil.com) September 6, 2021 Interview of Michael Pierre Price about his solo art exhibition Call Me Ishmael.  The Downtown Devil is run through Arizona State University.  I hope this helps address the concerns expressed with regards to significant coverage.  ConradJens ( talk ) 20:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete with 2 or 3 good sources, he is not quite there.  Article also lacks proper sourcing, so if it is kept, it needs to be trimmed down.  Bikerose ( talk ) 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In general, 2 or 3 good sources meets the GNG which just requires ""multiple"" Hobit ( talk ) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems notable in two fields and per ConradJens' and others comments and sourcing research.  Meets GNG.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] source analysis [ edit ] Source assessment table: prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://www.phoenixmag.com/2016/12/01/artist-of-the-month-michael-pierre-price/ ?  Local coverage of No Strangers – Annual Members’ Exhibition at Art Intersection in Gilbert, from December 13-January 7.  ✘ No https://www.playform.io/editorial/callmeishmael ""Playform"" is an AI product.  This is the product website Interview ✘ No https://azdailysun.com/flaglive/cover_story/math-art-the-enigmatic-creations-of-michael-pierre-price/article_68547405-3390-5da4-8e86-cca1d83de1c2.html This is an  local arts listing and interview non-sig coverage ✘ No https://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/d-day-50th-anniversary-in-a-farmhouse-in-france-they/article_12f6cb0f-77e4-5f7a-8dec-d8d2f4230807.html ?  ?  an article about D Day?  ?  behind paywall.  can't access ?  Unknown https://aaqeastend.com/contents/aaq-portfolio-southampton-arts-center-exhibit-art-techspressionism-digital-beyond/ ?  ?  AAQ Portfolio Essay Southampton Arts Center no text.  Promotion of 2022 show non-sig coverage ✘ No https://www.playform.io/editorial/michael/ ""Playform"" is an AI product.  This is the product website ✘ No https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/47/6/531/1051174/Nonrelativistic-contribution-to-Mercury-s? redirectedFrom=fulltext 1979 academic paper ""Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury’s perihelion precession"" written by the subject of the article - primary source n ✘ No https://artintersection.com/event/maps-enigmatic-landscape/ Art Intersection is a local gallery promotional listing for MAPS: Enigmatic Landscape is a solo exhibition of digital prints by Michael Pierre Price shown in the Jewel Gallery at the Coconino Center for the Arts in Flagstaff, AZ.  ✘ No https://thewrong.org/Cyberiana Virtual exhibtion - no idea if it is juried passing mention ✘ No https://www.mesacc.edu/arts/event/2023-02/future-printmaking-survey-graphic-arts local coverage event listing for ""The Future of Printmaking: A Survey of the Graphic Arts"" at Mesa Community College ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  The remainder of the citations are to pages at https://techspressionism.com/ a non-independant soucre and one more - https://www.lafleurartworks.com/event-22-secondary-page-1-2023 an event listing.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a biography, this isn't subject to WP:NCORP , so there is no audience requirement .  Therefore, I'd consider the first and third sources in this table to be GNG sources.  ~ A412 talk!  05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT , article is a mess, almost the entirety of the prose fails NPOV and is cited to primary sources.  That being said, per my reply above to the source assessment table, I think he's mildly notable.  ~ A412 talk!  05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The source analysis is vague at best.  Why is Phoenixmag not reliable?  How are 4 paragraphs of coverage purely on the topic not ""in depth""?  [10] is also quite in-depth, I've no idea why it's marked otherwise.    The analysis ignores [11] which appears to be reliable, in-depth and independent.   I just don't see how the GNG bar isn't met.  Hobit ( talk ) 21:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My reading of the Phoenixmag piece is that it is a promotional for the show.  The Phoenix Flag piece is a friendly interview.  The downtown Devil piece is another puff piece.  None of the three article represent significant analysis of the work, just the artist's ideas about his work.   None of the articles present a NPV or contribute to notability. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for creating the source table, @ WomenArtistUpdates . This paper: [12] is a a journal article written by the subject of the article. It does not contribute to notability, so that should be changed in the source table. As to the Phoenix Mag piece, it's a ""Preview"" for the show which is like a press release. It's promo for his upcoming show. It's not a serious analysis of his work. Netherzone ( talk ) 23:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The source analysis table is too opinionated (and dismissive of other opinions expressed above) to be taken seriously this late in the discussion. I stand by my original 'Keep' assessment, and want to thank the article's subject for participating here transparently. Jclemens ( talk ) 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Anyone can make a source analysis table or rewrite an article to bring it up to notable. I feel the WP:BURDEN at this point is with those who think this individual should have an article. Best. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 17:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Thank you, WomenArtistUpdates, for putting in the work to create the source assessment table.  I disagree with Jclemens.  As long as this discussion is open, it is not too ""late in the discussion"" for editors to participate, and I'll say a collaborative project works best when we consider all collaborators are ""to be taken seriously.""  Elspea756 ( talk ) 19:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Elspea756!  I would like to add that I am not late to the discussion.  I ! voted delete on March 11th.  I decided to create a source assessment table after this had been relisted again.  I don't find the arguments FOR the article to  be persuasive.  No changes have been made to the article.  The article isn't focused on his game development, however it is being asked that the article should exist because WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES .  Seems like there's not any support for his art work.  The subject himself agrees.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT , without prejudice to a recreation as a stub based on reliable sources by a non-COI editor.  In terms of notability the subject is borderline, but the article is essentially a non-neutral autobiography (""In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist""), and needs deletion and recreation from the ground up.  Sandstein 10:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pointing out needed edits is not a reason to delete an article (have edited the sentence that concerned you and other encyclopedic language).   Many editors above have reasons to Keep, so this easily fits my essay WP:SHADOWOFKEEP : ""If a large percentage of experienced commenting editors find value within an article, category, or the encyclopedia's other forms of transmitting information, then Wikipedia's readers should continue to benefit from that same value"".  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And this is even part of the WP:TNT essay: ""When you see this as an argument to delete, don't give up. If you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable. If you can't repair it in a timely manner, then this is the simplest argument to refute at WP:DRV; after all, they said it couldn't be fixed and you fixed it.""  BOZ ( talk ) 13:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per the analyses by WAU and others.  Not seeing a GNG pass here that doesn't require weakening our tolerance of non-independent material.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the COI, above (although stilted) analysis of the sources, the style of writing makes me prefer a WP:TNT but even after that, I do not see any clear reason for this individual to meet even WP:GNG and being included here.  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Talia Barnet-Hepples: Limited google news hits and article solely based on primary sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Roger Chang: Rift ( talk ) 05:43, 10 October 2023 (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/2023 October 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  Mooonswimmer 15:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk ) 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sisante Wind Farm: This wind farm might exist, but i cannot to find any sources which would confirm that it actually does.  Jexio ( talk ) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions .  Jexio ( talk ) 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It exists, but you have to search in Spanish.  Here's some sources 1 2 3 4 Comment : I've had a look at the sources you provided.  Keeping in mind that the nominated article was written in 2007 and talks about a 196MW wind farm.  The article is from 2021 and talks about 3 installations near Sisante with a combined capacity of 148 megawatt.  This is much lower than the claimed 196MW.  Is about a 49.5 MW wind farm in Sisante consisting of 33 wind turbines.  The article is from 2018 and talks about a future 300MW wind farm.  The location as described in the source matches with this one on OpenStreetMap: [14] , which according to there was commissioned in 2022 and is not actually located in Sisante.  This matches with a group of wind turbines here: [15] However, there is no mention of the installed capacity of the wind farm.  Only that they use "" a section of real wind farm located in Spain featuring 115 turbines. "" for their simulations.  None of the sources you gave seem to support the claim that there exists a 196MW wind farm located near Sisante.  Only that there are various wind turbines and wind farms in that area of Spain.  Together they might add up to 200MW, but none of the given sources actually confirm that.  Jexio ( talk ) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/merge if there is suitable target Why didn't this get a prod first?  I don't see one in it's history.  I think it's moot to argue it's existence or nonexistence.  This is about the article, and the state of this nominated article is not encyclopedic #Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information .  Based on what I saw, this one subject will not make an acceptable article.  What should have happened was that somebody should have written an encyclopedic article about wind power in Spain, they could then list various wind farms in that article.  But we don't need one line articles about individual wind farms on Wikipedia.  James.folsom ( talk ) 00:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Violet Cripps, Baroness Parmoor: 11 years ago I created this article and now I do not know what I was thinking.  I can hardly find any information about the subject other than basic genealogical data such as whom she married and to whom she gave birth, so this falls under WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTGENEALOGY .  The title is also nonsensical, as noted at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Where to move an article?  .  In my defense, I was young, very young .  Let's get this over with and never speak of it again, please :) Surtsicna ( talk ) 11:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility ,  and United Kingdom .  Surtsicna ( talk ) 11:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as proposed.  -- Hoary ( talk ) 11:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Delete .  There's this passing mention about her interests here , which is not SIGCOV.  Not sure what the proper redirect target could be, given her numerous marriages and being initially born into a baronetage herself.  Pilaz ( talk ) 14:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete only mention I can find outside genealogy is that she was ""A leading member of the Society of Friends she had been connected with peace movements in Britain and the Continent for nearly 50 years, and has been for some years president of the Women's International League."" but nothing to flesh out anything encyclopedic.  MilborneOne ( talk ) 14:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect ...she was of some note as Violet Duchess of Westminster if you search on that name but the article on her second husband (the 2nd Duke of Westminster ) could be the best place to cover her.  108.29.145.226 ( talk ) 18:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A note of admiration to the nominator for not only admitting to a well-intentioned error from a long time ago, but also taking a very public step to correct it.  This is wonderful to see.  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Olivia Sanabia: Recent news articles about her, which include her being in a parade or holiday season projects in late 2022, have been simply mere mention or in such a way that she's not shown as prominent.  Even a Billboard article talking about Tanya Tucker's A Nashville Country Christmas [4] gives Sanabia only a mere mention.  She may barely pass WP:NACTOR , with her more notable projects in Just Add Magic and Coop & Cami Ask the World , but recent, successful AfD's I've seen for a couple of other actresses who would technically meet NACTOR (e.g., Abby Donnelly and Lauren Lindsey Donzis) are indicating that the more important guidelines for notability are the general ones above, and the current sourcing in this article, plus what I could scrape from searching, are insufficient in establishing that.  Sanabia doesn't meet the WP:NSINGER requirements.   Three songs listed, none of which have articles and none of which have made a presence on a national music chart that isn't WP:SINGLEVENDOR (so Spotify and Apple are excluded in this criterion).   Even if she were to meet NSINGER, like she does NACTOR (again, barely ), there must be significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources to establish that and overall notability.   As of right now, however, WP:TOOSOON on NSINGER.  This has been made a redirect before, to her main project Just Add Magic .   Because she is main cast in Coop & Cami... as well, redirect isn't feasible at all.   I might have thoughts of placing this in draft space instead, but I can't say her acting and/or singing careers are expected to blossom big in the next couple of years.   So I'm favoring deletion.  MPFitz1968 ( talk ) 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  -- IJBall ( contribs • talk ) 18:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to open with a comment – subject gets only passing mentions in Variety , THR , and Deadline , and went almost entirely unmentioned in Entertainment Weekly (and New York Times ).  This is a bad sign for passing WP:BASIC ...  That said, she does appear to have a profile in Los Angeles Times from 2016, though it's in their ""sub-publication""(?) called High School Insider (which likely lessens its importance as a source): [5] I'm definitely leaning ""delete"" here (draftify might make sense if she has stuff in the pipeline, but I don't see any evidence for that) – I think this may be another case where a subject ""passes"" WP:NACTOR , but only in a technical sense, but fails the far more important WP:BASIC criteria.  However, I would like to see if someone comes up with anything else first.  -- IJBall ( contribs • talk ) 18:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : OK, it's been a while now, and no one has come up with anything. I'm going to formally vote ""delete"" – unless somebody comes up with something else, there is just not enough here to clearly pass WP:BASIC . -- IJBall ( contribs • talk ) 17:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 17:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject .  If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.  Sources Schulte, Stephanie (2016-01-13).  ""TV: Acting makes magic happen for Corona girl on Amazon series"" .  The Press-Enterprise .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""Six years ago, Olivia Sanabia was in a movie theater watching “Ramona and Beezus” when she knew immediately what career path she would take. ... Olivia was only 6 years old. Now 12, the Corona actress has landed a leading role in the new Amazon series “Just Add Magic,” which will air its first full season Friday. ... Determined, Olivia honed her craft and auditioned for commercials, movies and television roles, undeterred if she didn’t land the job.""  Robbins, Caryn (2015-12-11).  ""Olivia Sanabia to Star in New Original Amazon Series Just Add Magic"" .  BroadwayWorld .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""Multifaceted actress Olivia Sanabia stars as Kelly Quinn in Amazon's new original series JUST ADD MAGIC. The anticipated series premieres January 15, 2016. ... On the big screen, Olivia is set to star in Day Six and The Secret Life of Me both coming out in 2016. Notable credits include Life in Pieces, The Birthday Boys, Nickelodeon's Sam & Cat, and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn.""  Christi, A.A. (2022-11-11).  ""Laguna Playhouse & Lythgoe Family Panto Announce Full Casting for the Wonderful Winter of Oz - A Holiday Panto"" .  BroadwayWorld .  Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 .  Retrieved 2023-05-15 .  The article notes: ""Olivia Sanabia (Dorothy) is a 19 year-old, multi-hyphenate actress and singer. She is most well-known for her starring role as ""Kelly Quinn"" in Amazon's ""Just Add Magic. "" She began acting at the age of 7 in musical theater and commercials. She then appeared on shows such as ""This Is Us"","" Sam & Cat,"" ""Colin in Black & White,"" ""Extant,"" and ""Life in Pieces,"" among others. She recently starred in Disney Channel's ""Coop and Cami Ask the World. "" Sanabia's love for singing, songwriting, and playing instruments is evident in her original music. Her recent singles include ""Evergreen"", ""The Train"", and ""Stars Crossed"". She can be seen in Netflix's upcoming spinoff ""That 90's Show. """" Hammer, Katherine (2020-11-15). ""Exclusive!  Olivia Sanabia's latest single is a love note to anyone who's ever felt different"" . Girls' Life . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""Olivia Sanabia knows what it's like to feel different—and that's what her newest original song, ""The Train,"" is *all* about.  ""The song is kind of a personal journal entry, a peek inside my mind,"" the Coop & Cami Ask the World star shares with Girls' Life. "" Potter, Logan (2018-10-12). ""Olivia Sanabia dishes deets on Disney Channel's newest show"" . Girls' Life . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""After tons of commercials, guest-starring roles on Sam and Cat and Incredible Crew and a starring role on Just Add Magic, the ever-so-talented Olivia Sanabia is back!  Tonight, she'll grace our screens on the series premiere of Coop & Cami Ask the World. "" Petski, Denise (2022-01-27). "" 'Just Add Magic' & 'Coop And Cami Ask The World' Alumna Olivia Sanabia Signs With Stagecoach Entertainment"" . Deadline . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""Olivia Sanabia, known for her breakout role as Kelly Quinn in Amazon’s live-action series Just Add Magic, has signed with Stagecoach Entertainment for management.  Sanabia starred on all three seasons of the hit Amazon series Just Add Magic, and also starred as Charlotte Wrather in Coop and Cami Ask The World, which aired for two seasons on Disney Channel. "" Emery, Debbie (2019-12-13). "" 'Snow White Christmas' Star Olivia Sanabia Explains Panto: 'Boo for the Bad Guys, Cheer for the Good' "" . TheWrap . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""...  Disney Channel star Olivia Sanabia, who plays the title role of Snow White, explains ...  The 16-year-old “Coop & Cami Ask the World” actress admitted that she is also a little nervous about the open forum-style theater that dates back to 16th century Britain.  ...  Along with her acting credits that include Amazon’s “Just Add Magic,” Sanabia released her debut single “Stars Crossed,” last month, which she says was “deeply inspired by my love of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ — it’s an alternate take on the timeless classic.”  Currently playing the dream role of her favorite princess, Snow White, her next bucket list role is to play Shakespeare’s famous female protagonist, Juliet Capulet. "" Schulte, Stephanie (2016-06-12). ""TV: Magic happens for local actress"" . The Press-Enterprise . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: ""Corona-based actress Olivia Sanabia a will be reprising her role as spirited Kelly Quinn in the Amazon series “Just Add Magic,” based on the book by Cindy Callaghan.  ...  Sanabia, now 13, knew at a young age she wanted to become an actress.  ...  During a January interview, Shannon Sanabia recalled her daughter as a toddler grabbing a turkey baster and singing her heart out. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Olivia Sanabia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 07:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The current sourcing is terrible , but it's potentially just a case of WP:TOOSOON . I would not oppose a draftify. Bearian ( talk ) 15:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. The above source eval shows there is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . Sources are one or two sentence mentions, from interviews and promo, nothing with SIGCOV. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 04:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Bearian has not explained why the ""current sourcing is terrible"". Olivia Sanabia was profiled by The Press-Enterprise , a regional newspaper that is the primary newspaper for Riverside County, California , which has a population of two million people. The Press-Enterprise is a high quality reliable source. The Deadline article is 130 words long and is completely about her. Deadline is a high quality reliable source that covers the entertainment industry. The Press-Enterprise article and the Deadline article alone are sufficient for Olivia Sanabia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says ""multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"". Once The Press-Enterprise article, the Deadline article, and the other sources listed in this AfD like Girls' Life and TheWrap are combined, there is clearly more than enough material for her to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria . Through her major roles in Just Add Magic and Coop & Cami Ask the World , WP:NACTOR says Olivia Sanabia is ""likely to be notable"" since she has had ""significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"".  The sources I found demonstrate that she is notable.  Cunard ( talk ) 05:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your source eval clearly shows these are promos and brief mentions.  // Timothy :: talk 16:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of sports television composers: Virtually all of those bluelinked are not specific to sports broadcastings; for example, a bulk of John Williams' fame was from movie composing.  Are we going to every film and TV composers who worked on the Olympics too.  Are we going to list Emerson, Lake & Palmer ( Fanfare for the Common Man ) and Fleetwood Mac ( The Chain ) too?  I cannot see this passing WP:NLIST too.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It's nothing but trivia.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 19:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - It seems to have some people who work exclusively in sports programming but there are probably many more; and it also throws in some notable composers (as mentioned by the nominator) who happened to sell a few things to sports programs but there are probably many more of those as well.  Simply not a tenable list per the requirements at WP:NLIST .  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  Svartner ( talk ) 08:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of songs about Chennai: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:LISTN and WP:OR .  There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context.  This has even been deleted previously.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Lists ,  and Tamil Nadu .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Whole article is a trivia.  Orientls ( talk ) 17:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Syron Saut: Contested PROD.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Philippines .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the sources provided do not amount to significant coverage.  C 679 07:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Thur Deephrey: Searching for coverage brings up nothing on this artist beyond start concert and festival listings.  InDimensional ( talk ) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , Germany ,  and Ukraine .  InDimensional ( talk ) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  I have done a quick Google search and all that comes up are just events, press releases of which none covers the subject in depth.  -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 21:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only search result that isn't routine cataloguing seems to be a passing mention in a review of a different artist that they did a backing track for. -- D'n'B - t -- 10:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sana Raees Khan: She was eliminated on Day 55 and did not play a significant role WP:BLP1E .  The remaining sources are passing mentions from the cases she was handling.  Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , India ,  and Maharashtra .  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :Hello @ Jeraxmoira , She is not only known for Bigg Boss but also for her high profile cases and she was in BB House for 55 days and had lots of controversies which kept her in significant role till she was in Biggboss house. , Notability doesnot mean how many days you spend in bigboss house but how notable you were in those days matter and references for same are as follows: [1] [2] [3] [4] The article also has references for the high profile cases she handled like Sheena Bora murder case, Aryan Khan Drug case and following are few references which can prove the notability : [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] She is also seen in major role in the web-series titled The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth.  [10] [11] Points to consider : She is been known for the High profile cases and then she was called for BiggBoss and then while in biggboss she was in many controversies  and was notable by almost all reliable sources.  SAN2221 ( talk ) 06:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 5 is a paid article authored by Bizz Impact .  Source 6 is a video from Big boss.  7 is unreliable.  8 Big boss.  9 Big boss.  10 and 11 - are routine announcements from the docu - series and Pinkvilla's gossip section is unreliable.  All sources related to Big Boss count as one.  The high-profile cases she has handled were only covered with Sana as the primary subject after she entered Big Boss, whereas previously, the coverage of her was only a passing mention on those cases.  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 08:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Check following references as proof and considering notability: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] SAN2221 ( talk ) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Jeraxmoira , Kindly reconsider and review the references given above.  SAN2221 ( talk ) 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing to reconsider as whatever you are adding are just paid articles and more Big Boss related coverage.  Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 09:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Jeraxmoira , the references are not about bigboss its about the cases.  and check this latest interview of her too [88] https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/entertainment/tv/interviews/sana-raees-khan-discusses-post-bigg-boss-life-isha-samarths-breakup-bollywood-debut-and-more-video-110472213 and following reference of bar and bench is about her bigboss enterance as she is wellknown before bigboss too.  [89] https://www.barandbench.com/news/advocate-sana-raees-khan-contestant-reality-show-bigg-boss .  If she has so many news articles covering her with few reliable sources, that means she is notable enuff to pass [GNG] and to be on wikipedia.  SAN2221 ( talk ) 18:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A contestant on Bigg Boss show does not make the subject notable and neither any of her high profile cases have any significant coverage in the reliable sources.  The subject is not well known who had any significant achievements, incidents or an allegation (even if negative) worthy of notice or relevant to warrant a page on her.  RangersRus ( talk ) 12:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Check following references as proof and considering notability and reconsider your views: [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] SAN2221 ( talk ) 18:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ RangersRus , Kindly reconsider and review the references given above.  SAN2221 ( talk ) 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Being a member of the Women in Red Movement, I always try to improve the articles related to women, increase the number of women's articles on Wikipedia.  But unfortunately, at this time this article is not passing WP:GNG .  good luck!  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Check following references as proof and considering notability and reconsider your views: [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] SAN2221 ( talk ) 18:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Youknowwhoistheman , Kindly reconsider and review the references given above.  SAN2221 ( talk ) 09:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are PROMO, trivial coverage or non-RS.  Working as a lawyer isn't notable either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources are all about the tv show, not about this person, I don' see any we can use.  delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom sources are about the show rather than the subject.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ayyaloori Subhan Ali: - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 06:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , India ,  and Andhra Pradesh .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 06:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Low level politician, no independent sources provided, none found.   Draft was declined by three different AfC reviewers and rejected by a fourth.   After inquiring about the rejection at the AfC help desk, article creator ignored the provided advice and moved the draft into mainspace themselves and contested MPGuy’s prod without comment or improvement.   -- Finngall talk 07:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Creator has attempted a move back to draftspace, which was quickly reverted.  -- Finngall talk 13:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Not a major political figure who have received significant press coverage.  Fails WP:NPOL .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Just winning a local election does not make him notable per NPOL; no sources found.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable.  Killarnee ( talk ) 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly not notable per our guidelines.  Nobody ( talk ) 08:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly failes WP:NPOL , also WP:GNG .  Agree with Nom!  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 11:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: Article creator has been blocked as a sock, making this article eligible for G5 speedy deletion.  -- Finngall talk 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom. Does not meet GNG . Drowssap SMM 20:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom -- Devoke water 11:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Andrew Kimbrell: Most of the superficial referenciness is taken from directories or ""About"" pages of groups he is part of.  Guy ( help! - typo? ) 19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Law ,  and Environment .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete: no reliable sources at all Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV .  At least one of the sources is arguably reliable , but appearing briefly as one of 50 is not significant coverage.  I've never heard of him, but his work appears to be useful, if not notable, and there are lots of lawyers (like me) who have been involved in the environmental movement .  Bearian ( talk ) 14:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ecodan: It is written like an advertisement, and most of the page is unsourced.  𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 14:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete The three sources used for this, one is the company's own site, another is an article written by the product manager for the product, and the third mentions the brand as an aside.  So no sign given of notability.  -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 14:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"James Freemantle: There are a handful of reliable-looking sources out there, but even with them, it still seems like an edge-case.  I'm also weary of some of the sources out there, because this seems like such an obvious COI-created article.  Whisperjanes ( talk ) 08:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Arts , Literature ,  and United Kingdom .  Whisperjanes ( talk ) 08:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment - To save others some time, the best sources I found were 1: this National Library of Wales blog post [47] , and 2: this collector's magazine article [48] .  The rest of the sources I've seen are mainly passing mentions, non-independent, or primary sources/interviews.  - Whisperjanes ( talk ) 08:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - so far I'm not sure.  I feel generally that the nom is likely correct that there is limited referencing to show notability.  However there do appear to be a number of interviews - and I'm unconvinced that these don't show anything about the individual.  I understand the argument but for me if independent publications have decided that someone is worthy of an extended interview, that is showing that they are considered notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 14:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is paywalled [49] , hits on the name.  Nothing else found; I honestly expected to find something about this fellow.  Lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : 3, 6, and 14 are sources per the source tool, so iffy.  9 is red, so no good.  Rest are not identified by the source tool/bot.  I don't think they help for notability as they don't appear RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Certified Financial Manager: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First: If the programme was discontinued, as the article implies, then it is no longer of interest, is it?  The article attempts to describe the certification but it is vague.  And towards the end it mentions a completely different qualification (ChFM).  It's a delete for me.  Looks incoherent and somewhat lost.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Defunct, run of the mill certification; few current reliable sources exist.  Bearian ( talk ) 19:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"CRUMBS: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Non notable.  Llajwa ( talk ) 15:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG and lack of sources.  I did look for a few book and news sources - and found nothing.  The current article notes a few sources, but they don't look reliable .  Please message or alert me if you find anything.  Bearian ( talk ) 20:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Angeline Gustave: I found a couple of pieces covering her move to France ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ), but nothing in-depth.  #3 is probably the best source.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Haiti .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Agra (given name): This name fails WP:NNAME as having no Wikipedia articles about people with the name, and having failed NNAME fails WP:GNG as having no WP:SIGCOV and having hardly any reliable sources outside of simple databases.  It might even fail WP:NOTDICT .  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Lists of people ,  and Latvia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the only information is that a few hundred people have that name.  The only person listed is redlinked.  —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts!  16:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: No indication this meets the WP:NNAME , with a lack of coverage either in the article or elsewhere.  Let'srun ( talk ) 18:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , namecruft.  Geschichte ( talk ) 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't meet WP:NNAME .  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 21:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The references in the article are enough to establish notability.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how.  A few mentions in databases, calendars and frivolous sources of questionable reliability does not seem to indicate notability.  And the sources you added are about the person listed, so I don't see how they contribute towards notability of the name itself.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Paul van Rietvelde: Fails NBAD , BASIC and ANYBIO too.  Cannot find a single RS which mentions ""Paul van Rietvelde"" more than once except this and this , which are only promotions for a new sponsorship, and some local news/interviews like this (maybe the best source but still doesn't help the article achieve BASIC) and this (routine charity event that doesn't provide coverage for the subject except for some feelings from him).  1E might also be applicable as these two sources exist just because he was going to participate at the Commonwealth Games; (""preparing for the Commonwealth Games"", ""I'm definitely going for a medal"", ""competing at a home Games is always important"", ""hoping to take part in the Commonwealth Games"") no similar coverage could be found after the Games.  Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Scotland .  Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Stanley Modrzyk: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 18:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Paganism ,  and Illinois .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking through The Wild Hunt, the main Pagan news site, there seem to be a couple of mentions that Modrzyk passed away but little beyond that to really sustain notability for Wikipedia's purposes.  Midnightblueowl ( talk ) 12:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing in EBSCOhost.  ProQuest has a few news articles in which he is briefly quoted, e.g. ProQuest 309969259 , ProQuest 420258868 .  Similar articles in newspapers.com.  I don't see any significant coverage.  No reviews of his books.  Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG .  Jfire ( talk ) 03:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"IC 4223: C messier ( talk ) 12:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : non-notable galaxy.  I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 14:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : does not appear developable now nor in the near future.  ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf ) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as it is not notable and there is no significant commentary on this object.  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 04:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"House management: Boleyn ( talk ) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre , Business ,  and Management .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Entirely WP:OR .   -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 20:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:NOTDICT ,  this is nothing but a show business trivia definition.  — Maile ( talk ) 22:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT .  The scope of the article, or its possible use as a dab, is not well stated.  ""Front of the house management"" is an occupation, but I'm not sure this is the right title.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Self-regulated in learning about students: Topic is not notable as a term.  Possible redirect to Philosophy of education as {{ r from search term }} microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 00:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete per G1.   Free association; nonsensical.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete: My understanding is that G1 does not apply (being actual words that when strung together do make sense) but I have reviewed the CSD and I think A11 applies.  I have tagged.  Update: denied microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 01:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This looks like a student essay, no real place for in wiki.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agreee, this looks like an essay and not a real article.  @ MicrobiologyMarcus 47.147.185.67 ( talk ) 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Computing ,  and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete It is a student essay; the user's history points to the course.  Mangoe ( talk ) 02:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , Wikipedia is not a place for essays.  Captain ☎ 09:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Yes, this looks like an essay (maybe written by ChatBot).  Athel cb ( talk ) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Wikipedia is not a place to write essays.  Take it to Pages.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  Drowssap SMM 14:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , could also have been speedied db-g1 per User:WeirdNAnnoyed above, or db-a10 for Self-regulated learning .  This is a word salad with a journal paper thrown at it for credibility.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: page has been moved to Self-regulated in learning about students .  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sophia Leone: Death is not a notable event.  Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 16:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Multiple news articles surrounding this person's death.  Should not have been marked for deletion.  71.147.48.38 ( talk ) 16:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet it was.  Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 16:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please keep the discussion civil.  An administrator can decide if this page will remain.  Counterfeit Purses is now ranting on my Talk Page.  Like I said, I am OK with the decision of the administrator either way.  This is not personal.  Yellowbear48 ( talk ) 22:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge to an appropriate ""list of deaths"" article.  Looks to be WP:BLP1E for her death.  Phönedinger's jellyfish II ( talk ) 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the jellyfish.  All news coverage about her appears to be exclusively about her death. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Only passes notability test because of death.  Breaches.  WP:BLP1E Jamesparkin ( talk ) 18:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would counter that she is notable NOT for her death, but for being in over 150 adult films, amassing over a million dollars, and for being a social media influencer.  Her death was an event that covered her career (many events) as documented in the Internet Adult Film Database.  Yellowbear48 ( talk ) 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Sexuality and gender ,  and Florida .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question/suggestion (feel free to consider it's a !vote): coverage being what it is, redirect to List_of_pornographic_performers_by_decade#Female_7 .  I've just added her name there (choose any of the numerous refs you might want to add).  Note: I can't find any list of deaths that her page could be redirected to.  Pornography in the United States might also be considered. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why does it need to be redirected to anywhere?  How is directing her name to a list that she isn't in helpful to a reader?  Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She is in the list.  Redirecting as alternative to deletion because coverage exists, allow me to repeat myself.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Sorry I thought I had added her before to the list; did not publish the edit; just did it now) - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mushy Yank She wasn't in the list when I made my comment.  She won't be in that list if this article gets deleted.  Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 20:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the first sentence, -again, my bad I had forgotten to publish her insertion- not the second: not all actors in the list have a standalone page (edit: on the English WP).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are free to disagree if you want, but that is a list of notable porn performers and Sophia Leone will be removed if this article is deleted.  Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, if you say so.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Should be kept regardless of if her name shows up in some arbitrary list.  FrostSpider ( talk ) 00:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She actually was a notable performer.  Let's be blunt about a couple of things.  I'm sure there are scores of notable performers in the adult film industry that don't have pages because someone might be afraid to suggest creating one.  They don't want to open themselves up to be called names for suggesting one.  Second, she's more notable that a lot of names I see pop up on the recent passings page.  I've seen countless regional TV and Radio host appear on the page, as well as many very obscure political figures from overseas.  Some of who even Alexa could not find information on.  Trust me, you delete Sophia's page, and I and others could recommend close to 5,000 pages on here for deletion.  Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else.  ( talk ) 12:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fallacy I detect here by the pro-delete crowd is that she is notable due to her death - this is factually untrue and seems to miss the one-event stipulation's purpose.  She did in fact receive massive coverage mainly after her death, but this coverage was based on many notable events throughout her life (on one major adult site, she is mentioned in numerous articles over the years).  I also read the notability guidelines with regard to celebrities, and as a performer with over 100 films, in addition to the media coverage and her social media influence, she seems at minimum on the border of notability.  Given that she now has an article from People magazine, I believe this crosses over into notability.  I also note the growing number of objections to deletion on this page.  Yellowbear48 ( talk ) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Most sources are non-RS, the New York Post and others.  I'm not sure why the Hindustan Times covers an article about her death from halfway across the world, when non-RS on this side of the planet ignore it.  That strange sort of undisclosed promotional items in Indian media, that have no other coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Her death is notable in the sense that recently quite a few people with similar jobs have ended their lives.  The pattern is notable.  So Delete , but maybe cause for a meta topic?  95.96.130.127 ( talk ) 02:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Typical superficial 'mainstream' news coverage most porn performers get when they die.  Most of the sourcing seems questionable as well.  Nothing else out there of substance to create a better article.  GoldenAgeFan1 ( talk ) 03:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added Complex and Parade Magazine.  These are fairly reputable sources.  Yellowbear48 ( talk ) 06:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Upon re-reading this comment, whether conscious or unconscious, there is condescension regarding the profession of the performer (note the wording ""most porn performers"").  Notability is not decided by the moral views of editors.  This is not meant as an attack on the editor - I merely note that the career-choice of the performer appears to be influencing some editors.  Yellowbear48 ( talk ) 07:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm rather shocked she didn't have a page, considering she was one of the top performers in adult films in adult films in the late 2010's and very a brief time, was one of the top paid.  The fact she didn't have one while she was alive was clearly an oversight.  I say we keep her page and flesh it out better.  Because if what you said is going to be the standard, then there might be a couple of thousand pages that would be subject to deletion.  Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else.  ( talk ) 12:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I understand the arguments from everyone here and I also wholeheartedly agree with the majority of the editors opinion on this article.  Abishe ( talk ) 16:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Abishe So you think the article should be deleted?  Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 16:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Humanly I feel deeply sorry for her premature and unjust death, but as porn actress she never made the definitive leap towards undisputed notability, probably because she never engaged in scenes which could grant her relevant awards in the industry.  -- Blackcat 21:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I did some quick digging on Sophia, and in addition to her extensive adult career, covered by significant news sources, she was a social media influencer with over 100,000 followers on Twitter and 300,000 followers on Instagram.  I am certain that if given the time I could dig up sources to make her page more substantial with proper sourcing.  I think an opportunity should be given to improve the article for some set period.  Yellowbear48 ( talk ) 04:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will list here the reputable sources used or added for Sophia Leone.  1. People  2. The Independent  3. Complex  4. Parade Magazine There are also other decent sources that have been added.  I believe this list is superior to other pages I have seen on Wikipedia.  Again, this is just my opinion.  Yellowbear48 ( talk ) 08:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  No indicia of encyclopedic notability.  BD2412 T 19:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Jmg38 ( talk ) 23:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She had a following (over 300,000), people are curious.   This is where we go to learn.   It sounds as if you have another axe to grind possibly with her employment.  66.214.145.179 ( talk ) 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am inclined to agree with you that some may have an issue with her employment.  She had over 400,000 followers on Twitter and Instagram combined - almost a half-million - and news coverage of her has been extensive.  I will object to this article's removal at the highest levels, and will request a greater grace period.  There is no consensus here as defined by Wikipedia policy.  Yellowbear48 ( talk ) 01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Titans Mobile: QuietCicada chirp 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and China .  QuietCicada chirp 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Zero coverage whatsoever.  TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"SSSniperWolf: the article was created in april 2023, but we won't go there.  ignoring all the primary sources (stuff that doesn't amount to anything for notability), the first source is an interview (not independent ), third comes from a gossipy site, fourth is a ""forbes profile"", which is a joke, eighth and ninth literally just mentions the name, and tenth is reporting on vapid gossip.  a google search turns up nothing but crap like a dexerto source ( unreliable ), whatever the hell this is , and some new york times article about cultural appropriation that mentions her for some reason .  i note here that there was a previous afd that resulted in delete, but this article was recreated for some reason.  edit: turns out this is the third afd, but it wasn't detected due to the second afd having a lowercase w for some reason.  update: this is the fifth afd .  this is madness.  ltb d l ( talk ) 06:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) (edited 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC), 06:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 06:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The above ignores that this article was kept here , also I found [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , etc.  Clearly notable, literally has over 30000000 subsrcibers, many sources like in ongoing high profile career.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i'll prepare a response to this later.  copying your argument from the last afd is not a very convincing argument... ltb d l ( talk ) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Tuko piece looks really spammy - probably not reliable.  The Vogue piece is an interview, not independent.  Win.gg should not be used for BLP information per this discussion .  The Tubefilter piece is mostly an interview, with surface-level analysis of her view counts/subscribers.  SVG.com is an unreliable source per [34] .  The AZcentral piece is only good source for notability amonst 9 listed.  Having a large number of subscriber count, while impressive, does not automatically grant notability.  The fact that the article is kept before is irrelevant as consensus can change at a later date.  Because of all this, I find this argument  very weak.  Ca talk to me!  13:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would suggest looking for reliable sources that come under the topic of video games.  I found two sources stating that she had taken part in two different tournament events and have added them to the article.  1keyhole ( talk ) 14:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ca : As I mentioned in the previous nomination, Tuko is an independent news source based in Kenya.  It's about on par with The Guardian .  The article does not seem to pull from any specific interviews and looks more like a reporter's intuition to pull from other sources.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this is a WP:BFDI situation where there should be good sources, but there simply isn't .  Ca talk to me!  00:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  Frankly there might be enough partials to make an article, but in its current condition, it is not.  Even so, I find that only Tuko is a good enough article.  I prefer to have three good sources.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Boilerplate delsort notices Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ captain raju : this may be overkill.  ltb d l ( talk ) 06:41, 10 September 2023 (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/2023 September 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 06:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - listed multiple times by the verge, business insider, etc as one the top 30 youtube creators 1keyhole ( talk ) 10:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 1keyhole : that doesn't contribute squat to notability.  ltb d l ( talk ) 12:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It also seems to be wrong.  Socialblade puts the top 100 most subscribed YouTube channel at 37 million subscribers (above the subject's subscriber count), and YouTubers.me puts her at 122.  That said, a number of channels on those lists may not fall under ""content creator"" here.  Cortador ( talk ) 21:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I've ! voted ! delete less than 2 months ago, I can't see how notability has changed in those two months...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  i voted delete last(?) nomination and looking back through the article, all of the previous issues i had are still there.  nothing has happened in that time period to increase notability even a little bit.  once again, internet points ≠ notability.  DrowssapSMM ( talk ) 20:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article seems to be built on sources that are primary, unreliable, or only tangentially mention the subject.  And ""But she has so many subscribers"" isn't a reliable source.  Cortador ( talk ) 20:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am mostly commenting here just to cast my vote.  Other commenters have already provided adequate sources from news and business websites, as well as good arguments for why this article should stay.  She is among the most popular Youtubers to have ever existed -she is very notable.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, should this article be deleted, a new one should pop up soon after, made by a fan again.  Safyrr 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ safyrr : so if i'm understanding you correctly, we should keep this just because a new one should pop up soon after, made by a fan again ?  ltb d l ( talk ) 02:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt No sign of notability and it's honestly impressive how this article got recreated and not immediately deleted, when it sources crap like ""SSSniperWolf Twitter Bio"".  Negative MP1 23:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep At min she meets WP:BASIC because there is so much coverage on her.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Some of these may not be considered too indepth, but based on WP:BASIC if someone has massive coverage they could be combined to show notability.  BTW, my 9-year-old niece is watching her YouTube videos all the time and she is somewhat of a celebrity to many kids and teenagers.  People also nominated Kim Kardashians's page for deletion many times.  Wikipedia needs to have pages for popular people.  This is one of the purposes of Wikipedia, so some of you need to take it easy a little.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 23:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional comment: She has also won Kid's Choice Awards (Gamer of the year) in 2019 and 2020 based on these articles [ Kids' Choice Awards 2020: ],  [ Sssniperwolf Kids Choice Awards... ], so she possibly meets WP:ANYBIO as well.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you able to make the case that any of the first three are significant enough as a source?  Or would you consider them to be partial?  I'm asking as this would push forward my ! vote.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's really not enough to meet BASIC.  Current consensus as described in WP:VG/S is that Game Rant (1) shouldn't be used in biographies of living persons , Dexerto (2,4,5) is unreliable, Sportskeeda (3,7) is unreliable, and that SVG (8) is unreliable.  This leaves us with two industry publications of unknown reliability (Win.gg and Tubefilter), Nickiswift which is a tabloid gossip website ( WP:NOTGOSSIP ), and AZcentral which is likely the only reliable source of the lot.  Add up everything reliable, and there likely isn't even enough SIGCOV to justify a standalone article about the subject having a YouTube channel and a house for sale.  Pilaz ( talk ) 20:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to be a work still in progress.  I removed the Notability tag, which was there from a previous redirect to this page - completely irrelevant.  I'm voting ""keep"", because looking at the history shows so many different versions and redirects of whatever this page started out as, or evolved to, that I don't think that the creations of this article has reached its final phase yet.   Let it play out and see how it improves.  — Maile ( talk ) 00:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hkkingg, WP:BASIC has clearly been met.  Also listed by Yahoo Finance as one of the 30 richest Youtubers here .  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 03:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional comment - she's also received coverage by Business Insider India as being one of the 30 most popular content creators on YouTube here .  The Irish Mirror lists her as the 2nd-highest earning Youtube gamer here .  Prolific North (admittedly not sure about RS status for this one, but seems reliable) notes she's the only female streamer in the top 10 here .  She's also mentioned in the discussion of streamers in Influencers and Creators: Business, Culture and Practice (Kozinets, Gretzel, Gambetti) though I'm not sure exactly how much, as Google Books isn't giving me a complete preview.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ satellizer : being rich ≠ notable.  ltb d l ( talk ) 03:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being rich does not equal famous (e.g. why we don't have every Walton family member).  However, notability can be met with WP:BASIC .  There are a lot of partials.  Personally, I'd rather see two fully-supporting sources to ! vote keep.  Right now, like the other nomination, I'm undecided.  However, the Tuko article is a covered source.  So, if anyone wants to provide a reasonable source, then sure I'll ! vote keep.  In the meantime, remember that AfD is not cleanup.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes being wealthy does not equal notability in and of itself, but if she's received RS coverage for being one of the 30 most successful people on what is the world's second-largest website, surely that's an indicator of notability.  Same with having received RS coverage for winning the Kid's Choice Awards (Gamer of the Year) twice in a row.  I'm getting strong WP:IDONTLIKEIT vibes from the nom statement and the badgering of keep ! voters.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : already voted on this, but just noticed that the number of deletion nominations is quintuple the amount of reliable sources, which probably doesn't mean anything, but still... interesting.  DrowssapSMM ( talk ) 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree that notability doesn't seem to be there.  I'm weighing in now only to add that the ""awards"" she seems to have won seem cosmetic at best...it appears that the award itself has only been given twice, and both times it went to SSSniperWolf.  One of the references in this article (""Sssniperwolf Kids Choice Awards Win Called Out by KEEMSTAR"") even points out how dubious it is.  ChristianCanCook ( talk ) 22:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Delete and salt (all variations of the name, as needed). Being rich does not equate to notability; being popular does not equate to notability. The sources presented fail to show GNG/SIGCOV, and as ChristianCanCook pointed out, the awards she has won are... questionable. Additionally, I am... disappointed, by Safyrr's argument that we should keep this article just because a fan will remake it if deleted again. No. That is what salting is for. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt per User:SilverTiger12 's comments above. Poor sources, and she doesn't seem to have significant coverage. Maybe one day she'll be notable enough for an article but this seems like a WP:TOOSOON case. -- My Pants Metal ( talk ) 16:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt : the sources in the article and those brought forward by Hkkingg are not reliable (most of which are discussed in detail at WP:VG/S and WP:RSN ) and/or do not provide significant coverage , leading to WP:BASIC not being met. Tuko seems to just aggregate data from elsewhere without further analysis (analysis of primary sources is something we would expect from a reliable secondary source, per WP:SECONDARY ), and I concur with Ca in that the only reliable source available at this time is AZCentral, whose coverage of SSSniperWolf I find really limited (house being bought and sold and subscriber numbers are pretty mundane stuff). The awards/nominations are also too minor to justify keeping this article solely on ANYBIO . Given that it's the 5th time we get a recreation, maybe it's time we apply some WP:SALT to make sure that if this article gets recreated, it is done so in compliance with the existing policies and guidelines. Pilaz ( talk ) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to disagree wp:basic has been met she has taken part in many events with other celebrities and I provided reliable sources. Game Informer ploygon VentureBeat If you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources you will see there listed. 1keyhole ( talk ) 12:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Taking part in events with other celebrities doesn't make one notable by default, see WP:NOTINHERITED . And at the cost of repeating myself, simply being reliable isn't enough: Game Informer, Polygon and VentureBeat do not provide significant coverage , which doesn't help the subject of this article meet WP:BASIC . Pilaz ( talk ) 21:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding to my previous comment, Satellizer proposed four other sources: GoBankingRates (Yahoo News) seems to simply compile basic information from elsewhere, and I don't think it's really the kind of source we're looking for to gauge reliability, since we're striving to get some sort of analysis per WP:SECONDARY ; the same happens with Business Insider India ; the Irish Mirror piece only mentions her once, hence not SIGCOV ; and while ProlificNorth seems to be a digital advertising industry-oriented outlet with some journalists on its payroll, I can't quite find an editorial policy, so I am also not sure we can slap the RS tag on them. Pilaz ( talk ) 13:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt . Really poor quality sources being suggested here. Dexerto, Sportskeeda, and SVG are all unreilable per WP:VG/RS . Gamerant cannot be used to indicate notability. Some of the other commenters already demonstrated how bad the other sources are. Delete and salt, please. TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is true, but there are other sources that are actual reliable sources. Game Informer ploygon VentureBeat 1keyhole ( talk ) 12:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ex. the Polygon article states ""Here's everyone playing in Epic's major Fortnite E3 tournament"". Looking at the title itself and after seeing the content, it appears that they didn't talked about SSSniperwolf directly or mainly, so it is not a sogcov and does not help with notability. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per rationales above. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete' This editor has no understanding of what a constitutes a good source.  Seems to be WP:CIR issue here.  scope creep Talk 20:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scope_creep Which editor?  Also, would anyone here be willing to consider a draftify and salt as opposed to a full deletion?  Not all of the sources (but quite a lot of them) are bad, and incubating it into draftspace until editors are fully confident she meets GNG seems like a fairly suitable compromise .  PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It feels like this YouTuber has been popular for a while now.  If she hasn't gotten proper sourcing by now, will she ever?  Conyo14 ( talk ) 00:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; maybe somehow and sometime in the future, someone will write a reliable secondary source about her for something she does.  But it's not like there's nothing in the article worth salvaging.  The AZ Central source seems like reliable SIGCOV, and the Business Insider and Yahoo sources could flesh out parts of the article too.  Also, the Forbes profile seems to list her as a recipient of the 30 Under 30 award which is a pretty credible claim of significance - at least much more than the Kids Choice Award.  PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 01:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt the subject fails to meet WP:GNG .  The sources to argue it being kept are either unreliable, promotional, or not independent of the subject as demonstrated by Pilaz.  Spy-cicle💥 Talk ?  22:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The debate consists of keep voters listing sources, and then delete voters saying those sources are bad or unreliable.  I think there is a fundamental difference in how the voters are interpreting WP:GNG .  Based on how there are so many sources given, and then all of them are dismissed for some reason or another, it seems like the vast majority of sources are unreliable, which means you can  make the same argument to show that any youtuber is not notable.  70.27.1.63 ( talk ) 02:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and then all of them are dismissed for some reason or another, it seems like the vast majority of sources are unreliable, which means you can make the same argument to show that any youtuber is not notable no, the argument is that the vast majority of sources for this specific youtuber are unreliable.  ltb d l ( talk ) 03:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ornela Livramento: The best I found was this interview.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Basketball , Africa ,  and Rhode Island .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 21:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV .  All of the sources in the article are either primary or are namedrops.  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Steve Crabtree: four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kentucky .  Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Journalism , Television , Pennsylvania , Tennessee ,  and West Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : articles aren't deleted because they're inadequately sourced; they're deleted because their subjects aren't notable, or the statements in the article are unverifiable.  WP:BEFORE expects a reasonable effort to locate sources before nominating articles for deletion; articles shouldn't be nominated merely because they don't contain enough sources.   Being an unsuccessful candidate for a state office may not be enough to establish notability, but it might be combined with some of the other assertions to do so.   Even unsuccessful candidates for office generally receive news coverage, but that hasn't been cited—so we know there are sources out there that haven't been included in the article.   Once a reasonable attempt to find sources has been undertaken, then we'll be in a better position to tell whether the subject is notable.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment @ P Aculeius : I looked and coulndt find anything top three results are an IMDb, facebook profiles and a linkedin.  Google news bring up various obituaries.  Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Comment is accurate, articles shouldn't be deleted simply because there is a lack of sources in them nor for any reason that can be corrected through editing.  I think it would help to look at those WP pages that have lists of good and bad arguments for deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  No sources out there.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 14:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just added several sources.  Notably the October 1995 Lexington Herald-Leader article has a fairly lengthy profile of him as part of coverage of the secretary of state election.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I appreciate the effort to add sources, but at this point I don't see enough GNG level coverage to justify a keep for this working individual.  Coverage seems mostly limited to the election in which he was a failed candidate, and the consensus here is that type coverage is not significant and is routine level.  If there is an article on the 1995 Secretary of State race, I would support a redirect.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To assess addition of sources by Sammi Brie which has been evaluated by Let'srun, further input needed.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Let'srun.  Coverage doesn't appear to be sufficient to meet GNG.  - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 16:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I read the article and discovered it fails GNG .  It also fails WP: people and WP:JOURNALIST .  Though the article is well written, there's no in-depth coverage of the subject by secondary sources , reliable and multiple sources.  Google does not show relevant information about the subject except obituary...  I, therefore, agree that this article should be deleted.  You can read WP:NOT .  Ezra Cricket ( talk ) 01:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Eurocypria Airlines destinations: This is a listing of the destinations of a (now defunct) airline.  It is not clear to me why this article should be treated any differently to, say, one listing exhaustively the locations of the outlets of Benihana , Roy Rogers , Tower Records , or Little Chef might be.  Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or Expedia.com, it is an encyclopaedia that summarises what reliable independent sources say on the subject - an exhaustive list of all the products/services of a commercial enterprise is the opposite of a summary.  Even if the WP:NOT /RFC issues could be removed somehow, this article would still fail WP:CORP as it is sourced only to the company's own website.  WP:CORP applies as this article is related entirely to the activities of a commercial enterprise.  Nothing that would pass the audience requirements of WP:CORP was found in my WP:BEFORE search.  FOARP ( talk ) 08:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists ,  and Cyprus .  FOARP ( talk ) 08:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the thorough reasoning laid out by FOARP.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 12:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Delete (but bundle henceforth): I fail to see why this particular airline destination list (or the other two listed in RfD today) is any more or less notable and encyclopedic than any of the numerous other airline destination lists that still exist despite that 2018 RfC, including many for defunct airlines.  If the intention is really to delete all airline destination lists, then let's do it in a single RfD.  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FOARP and Rosbif73 : So let's withdraw the other two AfDs and add the other airline destination lists to this AfD?  That's what the WP:MULTIAFD guideline sets out for multi-page deletions anyway.  By the sounds of it, it'll be a fairly lengthy list, but I'd be happy to help.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 18:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rosbif73 and Tserton : - This is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.  I'd prefer to work on these individually to avoid the inevitable ""Keep, it's a trainwreck!"" ! votes.  Maybe after another few small batches of these articles has gone through I'd try a bundled nomination, but not yet.  FOARP ( talk ) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not so much arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF as a procedural keep on the basis of WP:MULTIAFD .  I hope I'm mischaracterising your intent, but it sounds awfully like ""let's start with the obscure ones that almost nobody is watching, then use these deletions as precedent for the rest"".  If you really want to start with just a few articles to test the waters, wouldn't it be better to go with something more representative, such as British Airways or American Airlines ?  Also, for information, have you nominated any other airline destination lists for deletion recently?  Have any been deleted?  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to distract from your question to FOARP, but just to comment - the RfC is precedent enough, given that it was specifically on this very topic.  It would probably have been sufficient basis for speedy deletes when it was held in 2018, and might even still be now since the consensus hasn't changed.  It might have been tactically marginally better to start with a major airline, but in light of the existing consensus to not have these articles (and of course in general always) I wouldn't be so quick to set aside the assumption of FOARP's good faith.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to note that speedy deletion of the articles was attempted in 2018.  An AN discussion was then held saying effectively that the RFC decision stood but that deletion had to be done through AFD.  FOARP ( talk ) 22:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let me in turn assume good faith in that your intent here is not to set up a Catch-22 where these articles can neither be nominated for deletion individually because they have to be bundled, nor bundled for deletion because “it’s a train-wreck!”.  I should point out, though, that bundling is not mandatory, and should not be done where you think people will likely raise a train-wreck objection.  I think that is likely in this case.  Personally, I think this article and the other two nominated today is very representative of the airline destination lists corpus as a whole.  If you want to see the other airline destination list pages that have been nominated for deletion you can see them by clicking on the aviation or lists DELSORT links above.  One (Adria Airlines) has already been closed as delete, but there are two others from previous days still running (I’m on my mobile so I can’t get their exact names).  FOARP ( talk ) 22:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Certainly there is no obligation to bundle them, but there must be literally hundreds out there and I can't see any good reason to do them one by one.  Admittedly there will probably be more opposition for some of the major airlines' lists, and the age of the RfC will no doubt have to be addressed at some point ( WP:CCC ).  How about a compromise, bundling large groups of minor and/or defunct airlines together, then addressing the majors individually or in smaller groups?  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 06:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rosbif73 - Honestly, having handled a few of these bundled deletions in the past (the Turkish Mahalle articles, the Iranian ""village"" articles), I really think it's best to run through a reasonable number of them one-by-one before I even think about bundling.  Bundled nominations tend to guarantee drama, and WP:TRAINWRECK accusations are easily made.  It also helps bring out the arguments that are likely to be made in a wider discussion so that you can see what they're going to be ahead of any wider discussion.  Reviewing the three earlier bundled deletion attempts (2006, 2007, 2015) diving straight in to a bundled deletion appears to have been a mistake.  Smaller bundled discussions may be the next step after some more of these discussions have been closed but not yet.  FOARP ( talk ) 13:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since there are simultanoeus RfDs involving different lists of airline destinations I propose to center the discussion in a single page. -- Jetstreamer Talk 21:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the 2018 AN discussion linked above the view was expressed by a number of editors that there should not be a mass AFD of all of these articles.  The close of that AN discussion stated that they should be dealt with “in orderly fashion”.  It also clearly stated that AFD is the only forum for such discussions.  I’m open to that consensus having changed and dealing with all of these airline destination articles in one go.  However, it cannot be the case that deletion en masse is not allowed AND deletion individually/in small groups is not allowed.  That just sets up a Catch-22 where articles that manifestly fail our policies and guidelines (particularly the 2018 RFC, WP:NOT , and WP:CORP ) remain on here permanently.  FOARP ( talk ) 06:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nominator.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 23:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Belerica Oquendo: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Puerto Rico ,  and Texas .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Fingazz: Sources are all un-RS, discogs and the like.  Nothing found in RS, appears PROMO.  Was also deleted way back in 2017, for lack of sourcing, same as this nom.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Most of the sources are unreliable.  Fails WP:GNG .  US-Verified ( talk ) 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not seeing coverage necessary to meet WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC .  SmartSE ( talk ) 20:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Charmaine Yee: Until a few hours ago this article had many sources that were obvious junk; those that remain are also more or less junk.  None has substantial content.  Googling either ""charmaine yee"" or ""余嘉甄"" site:sg brings nothing substantial.  Hoary ( talk ) 08:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions .  Hoary ( talk ) 08:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  Hoary ( talk ) 08:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding because it's not immediately obvious: The Straits Times is owned by the same company as the radio station she works for, so those aren't independent sources.  The rest of the sources in the article are at the moment all primary and/or also non-independent.  (Also, between this, SPH Media 's {{ Undisclosed paid }} tag (Update: yep-- User:Sphcorp , though they at least added the disclosure on their userpage) , and John Klass , who works for the identical radio station and also has an extremely-promotional article edited by none other than User:Johnklass , I'm thinking this web of promotional edits expands a bit beyond Yee alone. ) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D1A0:7BBB:E6CF:5C27 ( talk ) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here ) [ reply ] IP, please review Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion .  However unfortunately, policy fails to say that either ""Material only sparsely provided with references to reliable sources"" or ""Advertising or other spam"" is to be deleted.  ""Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content "" is to be deleted; and of course it's easy for a starstruck fan, some well-meaning but otherwise deluded person, or of course a PR company, to leaven the promotional junk with some ""relevant or encyclopedic content"" (not least because what the content should be ""relevant"" to goes unspecified).  Thank you for drawing our attention to the wretched article John Klass , but this discussion is limited to the encyclopediaworthiness of Charmaine Yee.  -- Hoary ( talk ) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay then.  Specialized notability criteria Don't think she meets wp:ANYBIO .  (She received Trinity College's 2023 FS Alum of the Year ), but the university has multiple Alum of the Year awards and I'm not sure an award from a single university counts as a ""well-known and significant award or honor""--when I hear that I think of akin to the Nobel Prize, but maybe I'm wrong, and wouldn't that need secondary sources supporting it also regardless? ) Does not meet wp:ENTERTAINER from what I can see (she's been part of a whopping two radio stations).  Sources in the article Trinity College: An interview, so a primary source from what I understand.  The Straits Times: Owned by the same company (SPH Media) as the radio station she worked for, so not independent.  Kiss92: doesn't even support the claim that's made, but even if it did, it's her own radio station so not independent.  YouTube: a primary source.  Hotfrog: A business directory whose Products & Services describes how one can ""book Charmaine for your next Dinner Dance, Wedding Event, Birthday Party..."", so I suspect non-independent.  Other sources There's an AsiaOne article written from the first person (not independent), an Apple podcast episode interviewing her (again primary from what I understand), and several other Straits Times articles (also not independent).  Best article I could find was https://pride.kindness.sg/kiss92-dj-charmaine-yee-growing-up-with-brother/ , which I'm not seeing any immediate problems I know of with, but one source alone wouldn't count as "" multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject "", so unless I've misunderstood things or other better sources come up delete .  2603:8001:4542:28FB:39F5:C84:F994:ED49 ( talk ) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tazehabad-e Tumar: Hongsy ( talk ) 14:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran .  If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#24), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable.  @ Hongsy , is Tazehabad-e Tumar listed?  Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE .  Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ A. B. - This is an abadi article created by Carlossuarez46.  See particularly this discussion where 13,157 of them were deleted and the ARBCOM case related to this .  Abadi are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND.  FOARP ( talk ) 09:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - It is impossible to confirm the existence of this ""village"" so this is a straight-forward failure of WP:V .  Abadi are simply locations at which the census was taken, and can include petrol stations, pumps, farms, etc., and are therefore excluded from GEOLAND for this reason since they are not populated places per se.  FOARP ( talk ) 09:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  FOARP , thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy , thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Juggalo Championship Wrestling personnel: JCW is a small promotion and promotes a few shows per year.  There is no website, so no source for a company roster.  Most sources are from 2011.  No way to verify these wrestlers are under contract with JCW.  HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 18:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please does not include Pro wrestling into martial arts.  It is not a martial art.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 23:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Although the roster of JCW could be somewhat verified using Cagematch.net (a wrestling database listed as part of Wikipedia:PW/RS ) I am inclined to agree with the OP that list is superfluous.  OP is correct to point out that JCW runs sporadically and is not one of the most notable promotions in it's country.  Many of the listed performers do not have their own articles, which makes them not notable ( WP:BIO ), and damages the usefulness of the list.  Many similar ""List of wrestling personnel"" articles have been deleted as part of a broader recent effort by Wikipedia:PW to adhere to WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  The deletion of this article would gel with that effort.  CeltBrowne ( talk ) 19:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of this topic.   Juggalo appears to be a minor organization whose article could well be considered for AfD.   A list of their employees, gleaned from their own website, doesn't strike me as ""encyclopedic"".   I didn't see any independent sources that discuss or refer to this topic/list.  Papaursa ( talk ) 01:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kamran Imanov: Does not meet notability standards.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians ,  and Azerbaijan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : the Azerbaijani Wikipedia version currently cites 11 sources, have those sources been inspected yet?  Left guide ( talk ) 13:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As best I can tell, they're all Azerbaijan government websites.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 13:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] they’re all primary and routine announcements of appointments and end of posts.  No in depth third party coverage.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nomination.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing in here looks like a claim of notability.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 08:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nathaniel Lamptey: The best that I can find are Modern Ghana and Ghana Web 1 , that mention him once in passing.  Other than that, I found a basic transfer announcement at Ghana Web 2 , about him initially signing for Karlsruher but transfer announcements like this one are rarely considered to be sufficient.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Ghana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis.  Jogurney ( talk ) 02:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't see a good option to redirect.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Apt.core: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance , Christianity ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - It's a project by a studio sideman who worked with a few notable musicians, but it was unnoticed by the reliable music media and can only be found in the typical streaming and self-upload sites.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mubarak Al-Breik: No sign of any WP:SIGCOV .  The closest that I can find is a press conference quote in El Sport , which contains no significant independent analysis of the player.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Qatar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Shaine Orderson: All I found were trivial mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Conrad Hughes: After the sock was blocked, I removed all primary sources.  I was left with only two, one of which has the subject talking about another topic (his school) in an interview.  This subject appears to fail WP:GNG , WP:NACADEMIC , and WP:NAUTHOR .  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Please see history for an extensive record of puffery.  Drmies ( talk ) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah--this is where this came from: a socking case of COI-puffery.  JFHJr , in such cases, don't even bother cleaning up the article; not doing so makes the fluff stand out nicely.  Drmies ( talk ) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I try to present each specimen in its most favorable light.  And without extraneous reading.  Anyone wondering about the application of my edits can see the history.  Thank you for your comment.  I always appreciate your input.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For everyone's consideration and time-sinking availability, this version is what we are talking about.  Cheers.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm opposed to you wanting to delete this article.  Looks like an attempt at illegitimate blanking.  Wikiviewer2 ( talk ) 21:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also opposed, who is crossing out wikipedia user's statements?  Jane asia ( talk ) 13:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Same question!  Why are Wikipedia user statements being crossed out?  I'm genuinely curious as to why someone would be so determined to delete an article about a legitimate, leading practitioner in the field of international education.  Annabella25 ( talk ) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , South Africa , Switzerland ,  and United Kingdom .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Independent coverage seems to be limited.  Deb ( talk ) 08:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really, in the article you took down there were at least 10 independent references and there are many more out there, just look through the web!  213.55.220.222 ( talk ) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, I'm left wondering: who is striking through Wikipedia user's statements, and for what reason??  Annabella25 ( talk ) 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] I was surprised to see the previous article removed.  Dr Hughes is well known in international education.  Have you googled him?  Why should the article be reduced or deleted, according to who?  213.55.220.222 ( talk ) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is not removed, and ""well known"" should be supported by reliable secondary sources.  ""Have you googled him"" is not a reasonable or helpful question to ask.  Drmies ( talk ) 17:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's easy to find articles on him: https://www.k12digest.com/designing-and-implementing-educational-systems-for-the-future/ https://www.internationalschoolparent.com/articles/interview-with-dr-conrad-hughes-ecole-internationale-de-geneve-ecolint/ https://www.letemps.ch/economie/chatgpt-fait-son-chemin-dans-les-ecoles-privees Have you seen all the things he's published with UNESCO?  It seems a bit weird to want to remove him, is there some personal vendetta going on here?  - Lefka1 ( talk ) 20:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] That's two interviews ( WP:BLPSPS ) and coverage that includes Hughes talking about a different topic (the in-depth coverage is not about Hughes but AI in private schools).  How does that approach WP:ANYBIO ?  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 20:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So why are you deleting those two interviews?  In the article you removed there were lots of sources Wikiviewer2 ( talk ) 21:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Wikiviewer2 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] The interviews have not been deleted.  They're still at their URLs for anyone who googles this subject to find.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in education, just by his publications for the World Economic Forum, Springer, The Conversation, his doctoral research, and dozens of articles.  He's a well respected scholar.  This alone meets  WP:ANYBIO Lefka1 ( talk ) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] I agree!  Now, I'm genuinely curious about the motivation behind someone's relentless effort to delete an article about a reputable, leading practitioner in the field of international education.  Annabella25 ( talk ) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You or whoever removed the first article took out lots of independent references.  There's an interview with the International Baccalaureate for example.  That's not a primary source, why are you removing it?  There was also an article in the TES about him and by Cambridge's SHAPE.  I am opposed to your proposal to delete this .  213.55.220.222 ( talk ) 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I'm about to block a socking account.  The nay-sayers here likely have conflicts of interest, but worse than that they lack a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what the processes are.  Interviews and whatnot do not count towards notability.  If there is an ""enduring historical record in education"", there will be secondary sources that say that.  That someone published articles also does not make them notable--unless others have written about those articles.  If there's any more socking, this AfD will be semi-protected.  Oh, Lefka1 , if you make any more comments about ""personal vendetta"" or whatever, I will happily block you too.  Drmies ( talk ) 22:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello.  I'm intrigued by the controversy surrounding this article.  I have no axe to grind about Hughes, one way or another, and I don't necessarily espouse his views, but - whether one likes it or not - he is unquestionably prominent and influential in international education, and increasingly so.  Are the editors who propose the deletion of the article familiar with this field?  International educators throughout the world would be puzzled to hear that quite a small article devoted to Hughes has been earmarked for deletion, on the grounds of insufficient notability.  An article providing some basic, sober information, free of ""puffery"", about who Hughes is and does fulfills Wikipedia's responsibility to inform its vast reading public, in an objective and neutral manner, about noteworthy people and topics, with the support of solid citations.  I can't say I care enough about the Hughes article to do extensive research on its behalf, but as far as secondary sources go, you might look at the reputed TES journal (29 May 2020, ""Rethinking school: a special issue"", by Alistair McConville), the McKay interview with Hughes on World Radio Switzerland (29 February 2024), or the June 2024 ""Formation"" supplement (""Ces écoles centenaires"") of Bilan magazine, page 4).  So my advice, as an experienced Wikipedia reader (though not editor) would be DO NOT DELETE .  All those in the field of international education understand why there is an article about Hughes in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they share his well-known educational goals.  By the way, I notice that some previous contributions to this discussion have been crossed out.  Why, by whom, and on what authority?  Those deleted comments are somewhat assertive, but by no means rude or irresponsible.  I hope that this is not how Wikipedia functions, with certain editors censoring the reasonable contributions of others.  83.79.254.53 ( talk ) 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You were blocked as User:Tamara Santerra pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.  Roderick-Grove and now you're participating in this discussion logged out (block evasion).  Why do you think it's okay for you to continue trying to participate here?  (pinging @ Bbb23 : if you have 30 seconds for followup, as blocking admin for Tamara)  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've heard this speaker in conferences, he's well know in international education circles.  But when I go to wikipedia I see someone is trying to delete the page.  I am opposed to this page being deleted.  Jane asia ( talk ) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] @ Drmies , since your comment re page protection, we've gotten 2 new SPAs here, 1 more SPA at this page's talk; a blocked sock trying to vote here as an IP; a second IP that certainly belongs to one of the others; and more talk about a personal bias motivation (vendetta).  If you have time today, could you please SPP this discussion?  Any feedback is appreciated.  Cheers!  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] JFHJr , just let it roll.  Don't respond.  Tag them as SPAs if you like, and straighten out their indenting.  I ran CU on a couple and they're all roughly in the same area, but not enough for me to block them on technical grounds.  I bet this will all be over soon.  Drmies ( talk ) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Seeing no evidence that article's subject is sufficiently notable re: WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR . The article itself is quite poor.  Boredintheevening ( talk ) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP.  Hughes is a widely known figure in international education.  To anybody who is knowledgeable about this field, that's obvious.  I'm surprised that this can be such a controversial issue.  Basic research about Hughes will confirm his notability.  77.59.138.101 ( talk ) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The deletion proposal is not controversial.  It does not require controversy to happen.  Just a crappy article and crappy sources.  The only controversy here is all the WP:SOCKs , who are apparently determined to edit logged-out after blocks (editing logged-out is much like editing naked, leaves very little in doubt).  You're making it much easier to tie a single sock to multiple IPs, so thank you!  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP.  Dr. Hughes is a prominent figure in international education, widely respected for his significant contributions.  He has authored two important books and numerous articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and he leads one of the oldest and most esteemed international schools in the world.  His direct involvement with UNESCO and other international organizations, as well as his frequent invitations as a keynote speaker to global events, further underscore his expertise and influence in the field.  Moreover, he holds two PhDs!  Any attempt to delete his Wikipedia article may be motivated by personal bias rather than factual grounds.  It's deeply troubling and shameful to witness someone of such high regard being placed in such a situation.  Annabella25 ( talk ) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Delete – WP:ANYBIO is clearly not met, and I can't see how he meets WP:NACADEMIC either.  As pointed out (repeatedly) above, secondary sources are required, and they simply aren't there.  -- bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   The best case for notability is via NAUTHOR, but this would require multiple reviews of multiple works in reliable sources.   Reviews are not evident, and I did not find them on my search; noting that searching is complicated by the subject's common name.   The history of sockpuppetry and promotionalism here is indeed concerning.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  Falls short of WP:GNG (the one Tribune de Genève article) and of WP:AUTHOR (I could only find two reviews of one book [48] [49] ).  Weak because he's partway there on both criteria.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV .  Two interviews are not enough.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. I have been taught at schools with IB and other independent (""private"" or  ""prep"") school for 5 years.  I have never heard of him.  He is not known world-wide, or at least not in New York City.  15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC) 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.",delete
"Eugene C. Lee: KH-1 ( talk ) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  KH-1 ( talk ) 02:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Fulmard ( talk ) 06:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , lacks significant coverage.  Fulmard ( talk ) 06:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : this person is not notable enough and doesn't fit the notability guidelines for people.  EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This article doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a biography, lacks depth and notability.  Waqar 💬 20:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Marisa Tayui: Looking at her credits, she has largely had extremely minor roles, appearing mainly as unnamed bit-parts (i.e. ""Student"", ""Reporter"", etc).  The only appearance of any note at all that I can find is as a reoccurring role in The Gorburger Show , but that by itself would not be enough to pass WP:NACTOR .  Searches did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources on this individual.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Television ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete little to no third party coverage, credits do not appear to be notable. - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Franke-Schenk: No refs.  Pepper Beast (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Germany .  Pepper Beast (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I think art galleries are often hard to find third party sources for but I literally can’t find any for this.  The business has closed down in recent years, I don’t see any news coverage at all, and while there are book refs (inaccessible online) they all seem to be produced in association with the gallery.  It looks like it was a major gallery and dealership but I can’t see any sourcing that would meet our requirements.  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As stated above, the Franke art gallery (founded in 1913), the Dr. Schenke gallery and the Franke-Schenk gallery (apparently closed in 2020) were major galleries.  There are plenty references of important art work acquired through these galleries.  I have found some references that establish notability.  I think we should keep it.  Comment of the five sources added to the article, (1) is published by the gallery so not independent (2) also published by the gallery (3) passing mention of travelling exhibition dates, not in-depth coverage (4) Brief passing mention, nothing substantive (5) is a company press release shared on a full-service PR portal.  On that showing it is most definitely not notable.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom and Mccapra source eval.  Fails GNG and NORG, nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 19:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kiany Vroman: Article was created by me at a time that WP:NFOOTY existed - he made one single appearance (not even 90 minutes) for Club NXT two years ago in Belgium's second division, but nothing since.  I could not find any articles whatsoever online.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belgium .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON .  SportingFlyer T · C 11:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"AS/NZS 3760: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per WP:GNG and WP:KITCHENSINK .  TarnishedPath talk 09:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  No third party sources provided.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ashish Kansara: While language is an issue, sourcing is mostly inappropriate for a BLP and no assertion he meets N:ARTIST.  Appears to be a commercial artist, vs. one who would be in a museum or otherwise meet Notability criteria.  Star Mississippi 23:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , India ,  and Gujarat .  Star Mississippi 23:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, it's not the first time the article was pushed into mainspace .  In any case, the sources seem mostly promotional in nature, so I would say delete .  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 00:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They've been promoting the artist for a month now.  I will block for UPE if they don't declare.  Star Mississippi 01:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, you are right, I am promoting the artist because, Rogan painting artist is now rare.  now only two artists, that's why I care so much.  this is not for promotional purposes.  Thanks Usblogger27 ( talk ) 02:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.  Please stop, or you will be blocked.  Star Mississippi 12:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Usblogger27 's recent claim, it seems the issue is leaning towards WP:ADVOCACY .  But they are unable to accept that Wikipedia is not for it per WP:NOTADVOCACY .  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 12:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  A strange article I have seen.  I have checked about the article person in all Google search (found nothing) and the references also.  Even those YouTube videos too don't cite the article person instead the art.  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 12:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move back to draft and move-lock the page so as to require administrative review before this can be restored to mainspace again.  BD2412 T 17:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can't find any indication this person passes WP:NARTIST .  - UtherSRG (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Catfurball ( talk ) 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This article bears a similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish shantilal kansara .   Very questionable pictures uploaded to the Commons.  The article is about a working craftsman, but does not rise to the level of notable.  Quite a bit of the article is about Rogan painting rather than the artisan.  WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, that was helpful.  I just pinged you in the SPI Star Mississippi 02:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move back to draft , agree with BD2412 , I could see this becoming an article, but it's certainly not ready for mainspace in its current form.  Wikipedialuva ( talk ) 06:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Murad Gayali: No sign of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5.  The best sources found were a goalscorer listing in Sportal , a transfer announcement based on a social media post in Offside Plus and a squad listing in Redaktor .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Azerbaijan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —per nom.  I couldn't find anything of substance on this player.  Seems not to have played in four years...  Anwegmann ( talk ) 20:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Suchodębie PGR: Kotbo generated these articles based on articles in PL Wiki, but this one has already been deleted.  The location is in Suchodębie which we already have an article about.  FOARP ( talk ) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  FOARP ( talk ) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No pl interwiki, no evidence this State Farm (PGR) has stand-alone notability.  TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Piotrus -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Homa (company): BoraVoro ( talk ) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This topic has been deleted previously.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homa Games .  Hitro talk 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies ,  and France .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The article was created and edited by User:Kevin Wolstenholme who has a self-declared conflict of interest with the article subject.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't satsify WP:GNG for my liking and shouldn't be made by COI editor.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It has coverage from sources that indicate notability - VentureBeat (considered reliable) and Techcrunch (likely reliable in this instance).  It may need paring-down, no doubt, as some of the content referenced from less reliable sources may not meed the standard.  WmLawson ( talk ) 00:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey WmLawson , neither the VentureBeat article (regurgitated company announcement on raising funding) nor either of the TechCrunch articles (both regurgitated funding announcements) meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, or am I missing something?  Can you indicate which paragraphs in those articles contain ""Independent Content"" and I'll take another look, thank you.  HighKing ++ 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I believe there is no need for deletion for this article.  It has coverage, and is a relatively notable company, I would not delete this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 ( talk • contribs ) Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jonathan Ávila (footballer): Simione001 ( talk ) 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  His career would suggest there should be coverage.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"CaseOh: The Esports Illustrated paragraph is probably ok, but it's not enough.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Video games , Entertainment ,  and Internet .  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TO THE CLOSER OF THE ARTICLE: Here is why I believe that this article should be kept: CaseOh is a quickly growing streamer on Twitch, over the past few months he has grown substantially, reaching MILLIONS of subscribers and followers on multiple different platforms.  He is extremely well-known, especially on Twitch and Tiktok, and (saying this as an exaggeration), you could ask pretty much anybody on these social platforms who CaseOh is, and they will immediately know.  His channels have grown exponentially recently.  I understand this alone does not prove notability, but it shows that he is well-known, so more sources about him are likely to appear very soon.  CaseOh has received multiple awards.  He has received the silver play button and the gold play button from YouTube.  Although there are many people who have received these rewards, so they may not be super significant, but they are well-known, which is criteria in WP:ANYBIO for presumed notability.  He has also received an award from The Streamer Awards , and was nominated for 2 other awards.  These awards are both significant and well-known.  Very few people have received an award from the Streamer Awards, less than 100 based on the amount of Streamer Award shows that have taken place.  However, the event is growing quickly, it reached 645,000 concurrent viewers this year, according to this main source , but also many other sources like this one and this one .  I believe that this definitely passed WP:ANYBIO , due to the significance of that award, and the 2 nominations.  There were also many internet celebrities attending this event, along with it being broadcasted on many places on the internet, with articles about it being made from large companies such as IGN , who made not one, but two articles about it.  According to WP:SNG and WP:Notability , it says the subject does not need to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:SNG.  For WP:ANYBIO , it says they are notable if they won a significant award, or were nominated for multiple significant awards.  Even if you say I am wrong and meeting WP:SNG does not overwrite WP:GNG, I still believe that there are at least 2 sources in the article that meet WP:GNG.  As I stated in my reply to another editor, "" I believe stwalkerster made a mistake in his source assessment, as he marked the sources from VentureJolt and The Tech Education as unreliable, specifically because they ""publish too frequently"". Based off of the size of the articles being published and the possibility of them being made earlier before publishing, I do not believe this has nothing to do with the reliability, therefore those 2 are reliable sources which would both count to WP:GNG. However, that is up to the closer to decide. If these sources are counted as going toward GNG, then the article is definitely fit to keep on Wikipedia. "" He also marked the articles from ESportsIllustrated, a reliable source, as "" Little more than a list entry "", but these articles do not just list CaseOh, they talk about him and his streams, and even feature him in multiple large images in the articles.  I strongly believe this article should be kept, but if my arguments for keeping it are not enough, I request that this article gets draftified until more sources can be found.  However, once again, I believe that shouldn't be needed, because I think the article should be kept on the mainspace (just maybe with a banner to encourage finding more citations).  Thank you.  Antny08 ( talk ) 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see the gold and silver play button information even being sourced.  Cortador ( talk ) 11:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CaseOh - YouTube He has over 2 million subscribers, which means he has earned both the silver and gold play buttons.  Here is CaseOh receiving his gold play button .  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Subscribers alone don't guarantee you the buttons.  YouTube sometimes choose not to award channels the buttons e.g. music or news channel generally don't get them.  Case evidently got his button, but if all you have is a primary source, that won't contribute towards notability.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CaseOh is obviously not a music or news channel.  According to WP:ANYBIO , this does contribute to notability.  As long as you are able to prove he has received the award (which I did prove), then it counts.  Antny08 ( talk ) 12:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  EDIT: Changed vote to draftify, as arguments from others do make sense.  Tosay he is not notable makes absolutely no sense.  If you have a social media account you will almost guaranteed know who CaseOh is.  He has not thousands, but MILLIONS of followers.  According to WP: Notability (people) , significant awards automatically make the subject presumably notable.  CaseOh has recieved the silver and gold play buttons, both very significant awards, but most importantly, he won the Best Variety Streamer Award (with multiple great sources to prove it), which is a very significant and rare award.  These awards alone are enough to make CaseOh presumably notable.  The sources in the article are reliable enough and provide enough coverage of CaseOh to finish out that notability.  CaseOh is known by millions upon millions of people, it does not make any sense to say he is ""not notable enough for Wikipedia"".  Antny08 ( talk ) 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention sources like this [24] , which are also from ESports Illustrated.  Not only is it a reliable source, but it literally says he is the 5th most popular streamer on Twitch and the MOST POPULAR variety streamer.  To comment on your writing about venturejolt, the link that you sent does not state it is a blog anywhere on there.  Also, that very page you sent says this “ At VentureJolt, we uphold the highest editorial standards to ensure the accuracy and reliability of our news content. Our team of experienced journalists and contributors follow rigorous fact-checking processes and adhere to journalistic ethics. We strive to present news in an unbiased manner, providing you with a well-rounded perspective on the stories that shape our world. ” That shows they have high editorial standards there.  Antny08 ( talk ) 11:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Popularity isn't really a factor for whether a subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards.  A subject is notable if that subject has already been written about extensively by others who are independent of the subject in published reliable sources , and I'm just not seeing that here.  The best alternatives are indeed the awards, or WP:CREATIVE which I think we're even further from.  On the subject of awards, there are various sites which claim there are tens of thousands of gold play buttons awarded so I doubt that these are at the level of significance intended by WP:ANYBIO .  I've briefly been through the sources in the article as it stands at the moment, and I agree with the nominator that there isn't really enough significant coverage (see table below which I've barely even populated and yet it's still entirely red on the right hand side).  On the subject of ESportsIllustrated, (whether or not it's reliable) the information there about CaseOh is purely as a list entry with almost no coverage.  I've not properly assessed VentureJolt/TheTechEducation, but they do give me vibes of being content-mill websites rather than sites with journalistic integrity.  The author of the VentureJolt article appears to be publishing about 5 articles daily , which makes me nervous how much time and effort is being put into each article.  The author of the TheTechEducation article appears to have an even faster publish rate.  stwalkerster ( talk ) 12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure The Streamer Awards would survive an afd, but it might.  It exists, that much we know.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 13:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean?  The Streamer Awards is a well-known events that gets tens of thousands of viewers.  645 THOUSAND PEOPLE WATCHED IT!!!!! You cannot say that is unknown of!!!! Antny08 ( talk ) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You’re still ignoring the fact that he has millions of followers and is so highly known and recognizable on many social media platforms.  If you ask somebody on TikTok or Twitch or YouTube who CaseOh is they will know.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We're ignoring follower counts because it's simply not relevant to WP:N .  stwalkerster ( talk ) 14:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But there are new sources bound to come about him at some time.  Maybe instead of deleting this article we could draftify it until more sources are released?  Please let me know what you think.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The speed at publishing does not affect the reliability and you cannot just assume it’s unreliable just because you don’t like how fast he publishes.  Publishing frequently can actually be a sign of reliability, not the opposite.  The streamer awards alone proves notability for CaseOh.  There are multiple articles about it.  The Streamer Awards received 645 THOUSAND concurrent viewers this year.  He was nominated for not one, not two, but THREE different awards and won an award from the event, the BEST VARIETY STREAMER.  The Streamer Awards were highly broadcasted online and had many famous figures and viewers.  This shows notability.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I replied on my talk page, a high speed of publications from a single author makes me doubt that any substantial research and fact-checking has gone into any of the articles published by that author.  It also makes me doubt that anyone is giving proper editorial oversight over that publication.  Neither of those are good signs for the journalistic integrity or reliability of those sources.  Sure, it's just an indicator and not a firm point, but a relevant one.  stwalkerster ( talk ) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand, but once again due to the length of the articles and the potential of them being made before-hand, it doesn’t make sense to consider them completely unreliable.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That shows what they say about themselves.  You may or may not find this essay of some interest: Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability .  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe that his win at Streamer Awards prove him notable for Wikipedia, but, if the consensus still disagrees after my arguments, then I suggest that we Draftify the article until more sources can be published.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objection to draftify.  This discussion will be closed in a week or so, we'll see what the closer thinks.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 15:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see any problems with this article.  He's notable, gaining popularity in the past few weeks, and, sure, the article may be a little short, but that's fine.  Waylon (he was here) ( Does my editing suck? Let's talk. ) ( Also, not to brag, but... ) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another thing, according to WP:SNG and WP:Notability , it says the subject does not need to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:SNG.  For WP:ANYBIO , it says they are notable if they won a significant award, or were nominated for multiple significant awards.  CaseOh was nominated for 3 different awards at the Streamer Awards and won one of them.  This event had 645,000 concurrent viewers, and was broadcasting everywhere online during its airing.  It is a very popular event with many famous people attending and watching.  I believe this proves the notability.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Start reading higher up on the page: ""People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.""  This is followed by ""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.""  My emphasis.  That means, if they meet the following standards, WP:BASIC sources are likely to be around.  If they're not, they're not.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Considering his cultural relevance, I think it's safe to assume Baker is worthy of an article.  A testament to this fact is the myriad of satirical content published about him (for example popular YouTuber Meatcanyon's [25] recently published satire about Baker and his streams).  By merit of his growth and awards I believe him to be worthy of an article, although more sources would be optimal hitherto expansion of the article.  Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov ( talk ) 17:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I believe that there are reliable sources in the article.  I believe stwalkerster made a mistake in his source assesment, as he marked the sources from Venturejolt and The Tech Education as unreliable, specifically because they ""publish too frequently"".  Based off of the size of the articles being published and the possibility of them being made earlier before publishing, I do not believe this has nothing to do with the reliablility, therefore those 2 are reliable sources which would both count to WP:GNG.  However, that is up to the closer to decide.  If these sources are counted as going toward GNG, then the article is definitely fit to keep on Wikipedia.  Antny08 ( talk ) 01:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NEW SOURCE: [26] Here is a new source for CaseOh, just released.  It is from thesportsgrail.com, which is used as a source in hundreds of articles.  This source may meet WP:GNG, please let me know.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: prepared by User:stwalkerster Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_/games Stats tracking only ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/@caseoh_/about Subject's own social media page ✘ No https://venturejolt.com/2024/02/25/who-is-caseoh/ High frequency publishing from author I'm feeling charitable ✘ No https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-who-caseoh-twitch-streamer-s-meteoric-rise-popularity-explored WP:SPORTSKEEDA ✘ No https://thetecheducation.com/who-is-caseoh/ High frequency publishing from author ✘ No https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_ Stats tracking only ✘ No https://esi.si.com/news/twitch-top-10-feburary-27th-to-march-4th Not much more than a list entry ✘ No https://esi.si.com/news/twitch-top-10-best-streamers-and-games-feb-19-26-2024 Not much more than a list entry ✘ No https://streamscharts.com/channels/caseoh_/subscribers Stats tracking only ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=x5m5eTY3xug user-generated content ✘ No https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikestubbs/2024/03/08/how-jynxzi-became-the-biggest-streamer-on-twitch/ WP:FORBESCON Name drop only ✘ No https://esi.si.com/news/streamer-awards-2024-nominees List entry only ✘ No https://www.tubefilter.com/2024/01/25/2024-streamer-awards-nominations-kai-cenat-jynxzi-hosted-qt-cinderella-pokimane/ List entry only ✘ No https://thestreamerawards.com/winners List entry only ✘ No https://esi.si.com/news/streamer-awards-2024-winners Little more than a list entry ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Delete For failing WP:NPERSON - the source analysis seems right on the money.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, according to WP:ANYBIO , he meets notability guidelines.  Please reconsider.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where are the WP:THREE best sources then?  I don't see even a single source that is both reliable and significant, much less multiple ones.  ANYBIO simply suggests the person is probably notable, proof is still required in the form of sources.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggested we should draftify the article, until better sources can be found.  Please consider changing your input to draftify rather than delete so we can provide time for better sources to emerge.  Thanks.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally, I don't see evidence that draftification will save the article.  You say ""give time to come up with sources"" but they would have come to light already if they existed.  If you want to preserve the article you can do it locally but I wouldn't recreate it, even as a draft, unless the sources are there.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CaseOh is a popular figure with his popularity only growing.  New sources are inevitable to appear soon.  Draftifying the article will allow it to be accessed by Wikipedia editors and allow for new sources to be added.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""He will get popular, trust me"" is not the most compelling argument as it has no obvious date where sources might appear, compared to a work of media, for example.  I don't mind userfication of the article, but I do think that proving notability within the 6 months required for a draft to stay active will be a tall order.  So, you are free to put it in your userspace until such time it merits being a draft per WP:WOOD .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, do not delete this article.  I have spent so long on it, if it gets deleted I will probably leave Wikipedia.  I really like this website so I do not want to.  New sources will definitely emerge in the next few months, it will not even take 6 months.  CaseOh is a popular figure so new sources are bound to emerge.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, I apologize, can you explain userfication vs draftifying to me?  I think at may be a bit confused.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft is putting it in draftspace.  However, drafts are still expected to be an article fairly soon and are deleted after a period of inactivity.  Userfication is putting it in your WP:USERSPACE .  They can be kept there indefinitely and are more suited for pages that might be notable but which there is no proof it will happen anytime soon.  I'd not suggest WP:BLACKMAIL however, as it's not going to sway anyone to your side.  People are generally not Wikipedia editors for only a sole article, that suggests some degree of not being here to build an encyclopedia .  One has to be open to a ""you win some, you lose some"" mentality.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand, I did not mean to come off as blackmail, but if the article gets deleted then it will double my deleted edits count, which will strongly hurt my chances of getting administrator someday.  I want to be an administrator to help people out and to help build Wikipedia, and I do not want all of my hours of work to be for nothing.  If putting it in my user space does not mark the edits as deleted, then I am fine with that as well.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here, having stuff we write changed and deleted is part of the WP-learning process.  It's how we learn how stuff like WP:RS and WP:BLP works.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, but if I have a lot of deleted edits nobody is going to want to vote for me to become an administrator.  I work really hard on my edits, 99% of them are non-automated edits, so I do not want my hard work actually ending up looking bad for me.  Antny08 ( talk ) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you check some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA , I think you'll find it hard to find one where discussion about deleted edits had any effect on the outcome.  People look at other things, excellent content creation, understanding of PAG, etc.  But, off-topic.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 20:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually being worried about how something will affect one's adminship later is going into the realm of WP:HATCOLLECTING .  Otherwise I'm not so sure why you'd be so concerned about it, given that it's essentially a purely janitorial role.  You can't do ""whatever you want"" as an admin so it's something you naturally get when you are already doing the work of an admin and require the tools to expedite it.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify/Userspace: There is no doubt in my mind that CaseOh will eventually qualify for inclusion; but as said by others above, I'm not sure it's now .  I'd say we incubate it until we get even one or two reliable sources.  Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) ( Talk ) 21:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since all refs currently in the article are from January and forward, there is also a WP:SUSTAINED problem.  Give it a year or two, maybe he will have staying power.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 11:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The WP:SUSTAINED does not define what length of period counts as being “sustained”.  Due to other text in the WP:SUSTAINES and sections surrounding it, I believe it is more talking about flash events like a shooting or something like that, where sources are very new (>1 month) and are likely to go away soon.  The sources about CaseOh are multiple months old for some, and there will most likely be new sources emerging rather than not.  This does not fall under WP:SUSTAINED Antny08 ( talk ) 11:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify/Userfy - Sources present do not demonstrate notability, and I can find none elsewhere.  While I don't think there will be any significant coverage from reliable sources in the near future, draftifying/userfying is probably the best route.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 04:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, I am also okay with deleting the article, to avoid no consensus.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There will be reliable sources in the future.  Case’s popularity has been growing and is still growing since I wrote my first message about his popularity growing.  There is no reason to delete the article, since new sources are bound to emerge.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The following has been moved from my talk page, as it is more relevant here – Pbrks ( t · c ) 15:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do you believe that CaseOh should be deleted from Wikipedia?  You did not present any arguments, other than the fact that you said “you don’t think that any new sources will appear”.  Multiple other people have stated the exact opposite, including me, so I do not understand why you would think that.  Case’s popularity is constantly growing, and new sources will definitely come out.  Please reconsider in your vote for deletion.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Antny08 : As I said, there are not any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject.  Saying new sources will definitely come out is a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL argument.  CaseOh does not meet WP:GNG .  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 14:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read my reasons to keep that I created for the closer, I stated how  1. If he meets WP:SNG (which he does), it says he does not need to meet WP:GNG, and  2. Two of the sources in the article I believe do meet WP:GNG.  I do not believe it is a Crystal argument.  He is a very popular figure with no stop in popularity, so based on the rate of sources now there are gaurenteed to be more soon, it’s hardly even an assumption since it’s pretty much gaurenteed.  You are saying you don’t think that more sources will appear, you are the only one who said that, but most people including me believe the opposite.  Deleting the article makes no sense, since time should be given to improve it.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Antny08 : I do not believe that he meets that SNG criteria.  The sources present have one of two problems: (1) If it is a reliable source (e.g. Esports Illustrated), then it does not contain significant coverage of the subject; and (2) If it contains significant coverage of the subject, then it is not reliable (e.g. Sportskeeda).  It is absolutely, 100% a crystal argument to say that sources will exist in the future.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then isn’t it also a crystal argument to say sources won’t exist in the future?  Also, WP:SNG is not WP:GNG.  All you need to do is prove that they won a significant award for WP:SNG , which he did and the sources do prove that.  I think at least some of the ESports Illustrated articles provide significant coverage of him.  It is more than just a list entry, there is a whole paragraph talking about him, and there are 2 photos featured of him in one of the articles, including in the main photo of that article.  Antny08 ( talk ) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Antny08 : Yes, it is a crystal argument to say that arguments won't exist, and while I did mention that I don't believe sources will come in the near future, that was not my rationale.  For one, I do not believe the subject meets WP:NBIO (the Streamer Awards is hardly a well-known award).  Moreover, if you read NBIO, you would have seen that meeting one or more does [criteria] not guarantee that a subject should be included .  Lastly, if the most coverage from a reliable source that we have is ""a whole paragraph"" and a few images, then the subject certainly is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In WP:Notability , it states, “A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.“  It says it must either meet GNG OR SNG. The Streamer Awards is not hardly a well-known award . This year, the event had 645,000 concurrent viewers, with similar amounts in previous years. It was broadcasted by many popular celebrities and internet streamers, along with many celebrities in attendance. Less than 100 people have won something from the Streamer Awards, making it significant. That viewer count also definitely makes it well-known. Antny08 ( talk ) 15:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The (intentional) problem here is that the ""well-known"" is subjective, so it is a matter of opinion. I am aware of the viewership, and I do not consider that to be a significant enough number to be deemed ""well-known"". Well-known awards would be the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Grammy Awards, ARIA Music Awards, The Emmy Awards, etc. Lastly, a presumption of notability is not the same as a guarantee of notability. A presumption of notability means we give the subject an initial ""benefit of the doubt"" at AfD. It does not mean it gets a ""free pass"" at AfD. – Pbrks ( t · c ) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, but it does not seem like anybody is giving CaseOh the “benefit of the doubt”.  Also, the ARIA Music Awards only received less than 300,000 (238,000 to be exact according to https://tags.news.com.au/ ) viewers last year.  So if you perceive that to be well-known, then so is The Streamer Awards.  645,000 viewers is well-known.  That would be like the entire population of Luxembourg watching the Streamer Awards.  The 645k figure is just the peak concurrent viewer amount, not the total viewer amount.  While there does not seem to be a total viewer count (I have not researched that much), it is likely much higher than the 645,000.  Antny08 ( talk ) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Antny08 : If you are trying to argue that the three-year-old Streamer Awards are a more well-known event than the 37-year-old ARIA Music Awards, we are done here, I believe.  Again, what ""well-known"" means is a matter of opinion, and I have stated mine numerous times.  I will WP:DROPTHESTICK and let the AfD run its course.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 16:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, we can end this debate here.  Personally, I have never heard of the ARIA Music Awards.  What matters it that currently, the Streamer Awards are much more popular.  “Well-known” is subject to interpretation, but you can most likely agree that viewership plays a major part.  Have a good one Antny08 ( talk ) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most sources are from non-reliable places (examples include WP:SPORTSKEEDA ) Yes he is very popular , but that doesn’t constitute most things.  Remember WP:BFDI lvrlol / sv1ad talk 14:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: AFDs like this one, with voluminous comments, are why bolded votes are helpful.  There is a lot of debate going on here, like comparing viewer count for awards shows (?) that is not helpful for coming to a consensus.  Several reminders: Do not bludgeon this discussion and reply to every comment you disagree with, this rarely convinces people to change their minds.  Secondly, we base notability on existing sources, in the article or brought up in this discussion, not on hypothetical future media coverage.  Finally, I am wary of Draftifying options as I think the article would stay in Draft space for a few minutes before being moved back to main space and then we would start AFD2.0 immediately afterward.  Let's not do this whole thing over again in a week or two.  But regardless of my apprehension, consensus will be honored.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just for clarification: I would not move it back to draftspace in a few weeks.  I would be fine with waiting multiple months if needed until new sources emerge.  Antny08 ( talk ) 11:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with a comment.  All right, I will try to summarise my perspective from the discussion above.  First, kudoz to @ User:stwalkerster for the reference analysis table, until I learn the ins and outs I will always have praise for those who do the table.  What we have here is someone who has recently gained some sort of popularity in a niche environment, and there is minor coverage of this through sourcing that is very weakly relevant in terms of general notability, at best.  Significant policy has been pointed out, for instance, that follower and viewer counts don't really add up to notability; viewership may play a part, but it's also minor.  I seldom do outright delete indications and rather do comments, but this case is rather clear.  In short: If this person does turn out to be generally popular in the long term, with solid references and sustained coverage of his work, then it will be time for an article.  We don't do crystalballing as to what might and what might not transpire.  That time has not yet come, and we do not guess, it's as simple as that.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing with your claim, but then suggest userfying it.  It doesn't make sense to delete unless you think it will NEVER merit an article.  Antny08 ( talk ) 11:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To quote Nikopol (played by Thomas Kretschmann ) from the movie Immortel.  Ad Vitam - I think so, I'm not sure, but above all - I don't know.  It would still need to be heavily amended with proper referencing to fit mainspace.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is why you draftify / userfy it, so it can be worked on by Wikipedia editors over time, adding references and making the article better.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer - Antny08 has created Draft:CaseOh (streamer) via a copy-and-paste move.  Depending on the result of this AfD, this article should have its history merged into the draft, or the draft should be deleted as well.  – Pbrks ( t · c ) 14:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it should be merged there if it is decided to draft.  If not, I can remove the draft.  Antny08 ( talk ) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Per Stwalkerster's table above, the sources listed do not seem to pass the notability test.  Perhaps in the future, but this is too soon .  Recommend moving to the userspace or draftify for incubation and re-publishing if/when reliable sources that support notability are found.  nf utvol ( talk ) 11:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  The article is written in a promotional tone.  MAL MALDIVE ( talk ) 12:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per reasoning in source analysis table.  I don't doubt subject will become notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines eventually (with emphasis on Wikipedia's notability), though CaseOh is undoubtedly notable in pop culture.  Unless reliable sources can be found, we don't need the article as-is.  I think a draft is absolutely fine, provided that the quality of sources is improved and the writing avoids a promotional tone.  Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Insufficient depth of coverages from reliable sources.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 12:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG, per analysis table.  🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mario Party (disambiguation): Loytra ( talk ) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom, basically all of them are partial disambiguations.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Looks more like a poorly put together game list, which isn't necessary since we already have a series article at Mario Party that lists them all out.  Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above JoshuaAuble ( talk ) ( edits ) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Redirect to Mario Party - I think a redirect could be useful since I don't see it would violate WP:G14 since it links to to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).  JuniperChill ( talk ) 19:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) (Changed to delete, per comment below) [ reply ] But it's not disambiguating anything though, that's the problem.  And why in the world would anyone use that as a search term?  Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah yes, I forgot that there are only two articles that could be refered to as 'Mario Party' and the rest, not so much.  Changed to Delete JuniperChill ( talk ) Delete .  Not a useful search term, plus not a dab page.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom; all the entries are listed in the main article for the franchise, and most are partial title matches.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , (oddly organized) partial title list with no practical use.  TappyTurtle [ talk | contribs ] 14:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  MK at your service.  10:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There's nothing here that isn't already at the primary topic article.  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 20:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Priya Selvaraj: I am not sure whether the sourcing establishes notability, nor her first in the field, however I am not certain.  Star Mississippi 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Medicine ,  and India .  Star Mississippi 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Having just redacted a copyright violation I was about to perform an IAR draftification.  Since it is now at AfD, I am suggesting deletion.  She works in a specialist field, but so do many people.  She is doubtless very capable, but such capability within the field is WP:ROTM .  I am not persuaded that she passes WP:BIO .  There appears to be some sort of claim to inherited notability from her parents!  WP:NOTINHERITED applies 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - it's fairly clear that there's an undeclared COI here.  I suggest protecting the page once it's been deleted.  Deb ( talk ) 15:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've filed an SPI which will hopefully assist in stopping the disruption as well if it's endorsed by a clerk and confirmed.  Star Mississippi 15:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy link Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Venkatesh Prasad 1122 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The two main protagonists in this article are blocked, and the SPI is currently awaiting clerk decisions on tagging and closure.   I imagine this AfD will run for the usual seven days.   While not suggesting WP:SNOW I will not object in a day or so if someone goes by that route assuming it is still eligible 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Selvaraj does not pass any relevant notability guidelines, and the only sources that cover them in any detail are self-published, some of which I have removed.  Neutral on salting the page, but I think that's up to the discretion of the closing administrator.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 15:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : An analysis of the references shows only passing mentions of or interviews with Selvaraj.  In one she might be the presiding ObGyn, or may be a hospital spokesman.  t is not made clear.  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Well, her photos went viral [17] and she's helped deliver babies in other articles.  I'm not seeing notability.  An astronaut gave her an award, which isn't terrible notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She seems to be used as a medical expert by local media, for what it's worth [18] Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom Worldiswide ( talk ) 10:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Neither her occupation nor her honors have yet provided sufficient notability.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Moäng Ratu Dona Ines Ximenes da Silva of Flores: External links do not seem reliable or verifiable.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 16:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia .  Kazamzam ( talk ) 16:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Royalty and nobility .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support : No results on Google Scholar and the only connections to Indonesia with ""Ximenes da Silva"" are with Thomas of Sikka, per Brill and Springerlink, and Alexius of Sikka, per De Gruyter and Springerlink.  XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 03:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Marianne Ugalde: I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG .  All that came up in my searches were transactional announcements , a story about the subject contracting COVID , and a story about the subject responding to fan insults .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Costa Rica .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 14:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Slight Delete , I feel like you might be able to claim that she passes GNG with the coronavirus and fan insults articles if you also count the sources already on the page.  However, I those look like databases and, in my opinion, should count to notability as much as a mention.  This one is really borderline though.  ✶Qux yz ✶ 01:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2026 Men's World Floorball Championships: Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 02:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If it's too soon, then why is there articles for other world championships in 2026.  You can't just pick and choose.  They either all get deleted or they all exist.  Also, DON'T DELETE IT!  If you get your own way, make it a draft.  Don't make my time making the article a waste.  ILoveSport2006 ( talk ) 11:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2026 FIFA World Cup , 2026 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup , 2026 Women's FIH Hockey World Cup and 2026 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup are some of the numerous tournaments that will be in 2026 that have articles (there are many more notables World and European championships in 2026 also).  As I have already mentioned, you can't just pick and choose.  ILoveSport2006 ( talk ) 11:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , you are comparing events of completely different notability levels.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Men's World Floorball Championship as an alternatives to deletion - This appears to be rather WP:TOOSOON , but I've no prejudice towards recreation once actual information begins to appear in reliable sources.  The existence of other stuff is not a persuasive argument.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 10:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • Keep That's enough information for an article.  ILoveSport2006 ( talk ) 11:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since Finnish is presumably not easily approachable for most contributors, here's a brief summary of the sourcing as of 15 January 2024: IFF and Suomen Salibandyliitto (Finnish Floorball Association) are rather obviously not independent.  Both STT references are press releases written by Suomen Salibandyliitto , and thus also not independent.  The Etelä-Suomen Sanomat story is attributed to STT (thus almost certainly based on a non-independent press release) and consists of next-to-no useful content: Two sentences about how multiple floorball events will be organized in the coming years, two non-independent quotes, and then three sentences of background about older events.  Not useful for notability purposes.  The tampere.fi reference is a press release from the city where several of the events will take place, I don't view this as useful for notability purposes.  The final reference, from Ilta-Sanomat , appears to also be a simple regurgitation of the Salibandyliitto press release, starting with Two floorball world caps will be played in Finland on consecutive years, Salibandyliitto announces.  .  It's a short story discussing multiple events, and there's no independent analysis or content beyond just the trivial basic facts they presumably lifted from the press release.  In total, we have a bunch of press releases from non-independent parties, and then two barebones news stories that simply regurgitate said press releases without any independent content.  Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • Delete WP:TOOSOON and the event is way less notable than event like 2026 FIFA World Cup , 2026 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup and 2026 Winter Olympics for example.  11:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB14:11E1:400:CD1A:F55A:AEB1:5C5 ( talk ) Delete WP:TOOSOON .  Way too far ahead.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 21:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Abrar University: Previously draftified but immediately moved back to the main space by the author, so next stop AfD.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education ,  and Somalia .  DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I find it difficult to understand the concept of a ""non-notable university"" (apart from a diploma mill, which this is not ).  I note that there is a university of the same name in Tehran .  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 07:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:NSCHOOL , ""All universities, colleges and schools [...] must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both."" .  Those guidelines ( WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT ) require significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.  This article cites no such sources, hence it fails GNG.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 08:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't demonstrate a GNG pass, and didn't find any evidence that was the case on a cursory search of online research databases.  They might exist in another language, but I don't think there's smoke in English options.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator and David Fuchs.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gemini (rapper): Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Created by seemingly one purpose stale account, about a non-notable rapper with inadequate coverage.  The listed sources are mostly product pages detailing their records.  Cursory google search didn't provide with any in-depth RS coverage.  Surprised how it lasted for 16 years.  X ( talk ) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete together with numerous albums - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The rapper also had three album articles and one more for a song, which were all dependent on just a single retail source each, and for each I could find no reliable reviews or other sources via Internet searches.  Those articles should have never fallen through the cracks in the first place, so I have redirected them all to the rapper's article as standard procedure for non-notable albums/songs.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Note that this guy has released records under various names, probably because his original zodiac name was already taken.  Under the name ""Big Geminii"" (note the extra ""i"") he has a basic AllMusic bio ( [6] ), but it doesn't provide very much detail beyond a list of releases.  Otherwise I can find nothing beyond the usual retail and streaming sites.  Not enough on which to build an encyclopedic article.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jay Jiang Yu: TLA (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This Wikipedia article is crucial because it provides key information for those interested in the subject EliteBrandRealm ( talk ) 02:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Kind regards.  @ I'm tla .  This topic is about one of the founders of one of the micro nuclear energy reactor company Nano Nuclear Energy in New York, I found sources that appear on the internet.  This topic is relevant to being on Wikipedia, I invest time and try to improve Wikipedia.  I invite you to carefully review the article.  Eugenio Montilla ( talk ) 02:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CptViraj ( talk ) 03:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ I'm tla .  References: https://www.eluniversaldigital.net/actualidad/jay-jiang-yu-trayectoria-profesional-y-reconocimientos-destacados/ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nano-nuclear-energy-joins-nuclear-130000904.html https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-micro-reactor-company-sets-up-HALEU-subsidiary https://www.niauk.org/nano-nuclear-energy-makes-key-submission-to-doe/ https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1923891/000153412222000011/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/03/in-conversation-with-entrepreneur-jay-jiang-yu/ https://fashionweekdaily.com/being-the-hardest-worker-in-the-room-has-contributed-heavily-to-my-success-says-jay-jiang-yu/ https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/11/29/2342547/0/en/Founder-Jay-Jiang-Yu-Named-as-One-of-the-Outstanding-50-Asian-Americans-in-Business-on-the-Award-s-20th-Anniversary-Issues-Comments-on-LunarNYC-Basketball-Program-s-Trifecta-of-Win.html https://elgraficodelsur.com/la-trayectoria-y-reconocimientos-profesional-de-jay-jiang-yu-con-una-innovacion-empresarial-y-compromiso-social/ Eugenio Montilla ( talk ) 03:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. is clearly not a WP:RELIABLE source  2. is a press release  3. is not a WP:RELIABLE source and reads like a press release  4. is a press release  5. is not WP:INDEPENDENT , it's an incorporation document  6. see WP:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources  7. ""DN News Desk""  8. is a press release  9. is clearly not a WP:RELIABLE source TLA (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ I'm tla .  These are the references that I find on the internet that deal with this relevant topic, not about me or my project, but about an article edited by my own words and hands.  I spent time doing this to help Wikipedia.  Eugenio Montilla ( talk ) 03:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Nano Nuclear Energy is also up for deletion.  Eugenio Montilla, regardless, this AfD will continue to be discussed.  TLA (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ I'm tla : Nano Nuclear Energy is an official member of the US Nuclear Industry Council (USNIC) and the Nuclear Institute organization based in the United Kingdom.  Was selected as a founding member of the U.S. Department of Energy's HALEU ( High Assay Low Enriched Uranium ).  Eugenio Montilla ( talk ) 04:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Nano Nuclear Energy (assuming that passes it's AfD, else delete) I can't find any reliable independant secondary sources that cover him in detail to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUSINESSPERSON .  A lot of the coverage is either interviews, press releases, or paid content Shaws username .  talk .  05:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not meet WP:GNG .  I don't have an opinion on NNE (yet).  Polygnotus ( talk ) 15:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete outright.  This is a paid-editing sock drivel.  I've removed the obvious paid placement sources, the others, as noted above, are incredibly sketchy.  Sam Kuru (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ghost (operating system): QuietCicada - Talk 14:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  QuietCicada - Talk 14:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Unable to find coverage that isn't the project website or github page, doesn't meet WP:GNG .  If every hobby OS needed a page we'd be here all week with random articles.  Author of the article is the person who made the program, making it a WP:COI issue as well.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   I was unable to find any secondary sources referencing the Ghost kernel.  Holzklöppel ( talk ) 21:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"India's Most Attractive Brands: I only found this page after looking to add an image book cover in the infobox, but then I looked into it further and discovered that the page itself really qualifies for a deletion AfD.  Iljhgtn ( talk ) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Products .  AllyD ( talk ) 08:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article on a non-notable research company's survey, published between 2013 and 2018.  These picked up the expected passing mentions of the named top brands but I am not seeing evidence that the published survey was in itself notable .  AllyD ( talk ) 09:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: The article appears to simply promote a paid survey by a market research company.  Further, no significant third-party media organizations are referencing the study, indicating that it has minimal to no value in and of itself.  Volcom95 ( talk ) 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom lacks sources.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Page is WP:SYNTH and is made for WP:PROMO .  Research is not notable and not backed by any secondary independent sources.  RangersRus ( talk ) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Truth Is (Brother Ali song): UtherSRG (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  Wikipedia should reflect notability, not be used to attempt to create it.  Kablammo ( talk ) 10:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Laroi: The page of the user who did so would suggest that they may not be entirely neutral about article deletion, especially when it comes to topics that have received little coverage in English media (they were recently blocked for their polemical comments about deletion discussions).  This village is only mentioned (that I can find) in a few user generated sources.  Its name in Punjabi is not given in any of them, which leaves me unable to attempt to find non-English sources (Wikipedia also does not have a non-English article on it).  As much as I dislike further lessening our coverage of the world outside of the Anglosphere, this article is too much of a mess to simply leave in the encyclopedia.  Deletion is, of course, not cleanup , but without any reliable sources whatsoever, there is no cleanup that can be done.  An anonymous username, not my real name 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Punjab .  An anonymous username, not my real name 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 17:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  – dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and pin down the exact location.  A Google satellite image clearly indicates a town.  Actually, 2 towns 850m apart.  Either town is big enough to be notable.  The bigger one is Laroi (ਲਾਰੋਈ), the other is Laroya (ਲਾਰੋਆ).  The coordinates (31°34′N 75°38′E) given in our article locate to Laroya, not Laroi.  Is Google Maps wrong or our article?  I'd say 50-50 either way.  This is especially true given transliteration issues between the English and Punjabi languages and between the Latin and Gurmukhi (ਗੁਰਮੁਖੀ) scripts.  This issue arises sometimes in Indian geography AfDs.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Indian Census handbook for Punjab lists two villages named Laroya on the huge village data spreadsheet. [8] The Laroya, Punjab we have an article for is in another part of Punjab. The one at our Laroi article's coordinates is in the town of Bhogpur in the Jalandhar district. The population was 996 in 2011. There's no Laroi listed in the Punjab census data. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete , and start looking for a merger target (right now I'm thinking Nadaun, Himachal Pradesh ).  Completely unreferenced in the article page itself, and if this isn't in Indian language Wikipedias, do we even include it?  That being said, this article could be improved, and it could fulfill GNG, but so far, based on it only existing in Maps apps and the Weather Channel outside of Wikipedia, it should be deleted and/or merged.  Based on the popularity of The Kid Laroi, it's best to create a disambiguation page for Laroi if the page is kept, with a second entry saying ""Laroi, a suburb of Nadaun, Himachal Pradesh "".  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 02:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion here is divided.  Is there some sentiment to Merge some content or at least Redirect this page to another target article?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be open to a merger of article contents, but with it being COMPLETELY unreferenced, and AB's comment from above showing that there is no Laroi which exists at all in Indian Census Data, I have doubts.  Since this hasn't met WP:HEY, I'm still going to lean towards Delete.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 16:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Shooting ranges in Norway: Looking at the linked articles on NO:WP, they seem to just consist of a table of shooting ranges with name, municipality and the lat/long (which links to GeoHack).  So what we have is a list of links to pages on another wiki, which would themselves fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY here.  This is fine on no.wp if it meets their GNG.  On en.wp it does not.  There's no encyclopaedic content there worth importing to en.wp which would help this page meet WP:GNG.  I don't see how this page meets (or could ever meet) notability unless it could be rewritten to cover some unique or special feature of Norwegian shooting ranges that marks them out from ranges anywhere else in the world (if such a feature exists, which it probably doesn't).  I don't think any argument can be made that the no.wp links are just placeholding until equivalent articles can be created on en.wp because I can't see how a page like this would past LISTCRITERIA on en.wp.  It's interesting and useful information... but for some sort of geo project.  It's not encyclopaedic content.  Hemmers ( talk ) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Lists ,  and Norway .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We don't have articles that do nothing but link to articles on other language wikis that would not be approved as an article here.  Reywas92 Talk 13:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  Suggest that List of shooting ranges in Akershus is nominated as well.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ajf773 Agree.  I have done so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shooting ranges in Akershus Hemmers ( talk ) 16:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Reywas92.  Orientls ( talk ) 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Inri Manzo: An AfD in 2017 resulted in no consensus despite GNG failure under a presumption that because he was a young player, he would play enough to satisfy the deprecated NFOOTBALL in the future.  Well, he's only played as a semi-pro since, and the coverage hasn't really improved ( Los Pleyers and e-Consulta are the best sources I could find, but they are not in-depth coverage).  Jogurney ( talk ) 02:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Lacks sources where the subject is covered in-depth instead of just mentioned as part of a name list.  Does not appear notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 02:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I can't find anything better than the sources that Jogurney has found Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bruce D. Jette: Independent sources are just not there.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I didn't bundle this guy with the three others nominated above because this is his second Afd.  I didn't find the 2018 keep verdict particularly convincing.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 15:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Massachusetts , New Jersey ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has coverage in reliable sources.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What independent sources are there about him rather than events in which he may have played a part?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 13:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [7] [8] [9] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Passing mention, and two routine non-independent announcements, one by the US Army (duh) and one by the government about his appointment.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 07:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sohom ( talk ) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG due to lack of independent sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 ( talk • contribs ) 2023-12-12T17:34:14 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last AFD discussion was convincing when one reads right to the bottom and then follows-up on what MelanieN pointed out five years ago.  As explained there, this started off as undeclared paid editing by Biografix ( talk · contribs ).   Then Dszarek1234 ( talk · contribs ) and 141.116.106.218",delete
"Pitar Ason: vote that gave a twofold rationale for keep.  1) ""The film is the first released film of Nipun Akter .""  WP:NFIC #2 could apply if the film was ""a major part of their career"", but there's no evidence that it was.  2) ""The film is also selected for preservation in Bangladesh Film Archive .""  WP:NFO #4 could apply if the archive were selective like the National Film Registry , but it isn't.  By law, a copy of every Bangladeshi film must be deposited with the Bangladesh Film Archive, it's indiscriminate.  There is no significant coverage in reliable sources.  The only mentions are in articles about Nipu Akter, each of which mentions in passing that Pitar Ason was her first released film.  It does not meet WP:NFILM .  Policy WP:NOTPLOT tells us that the encyclopedia should treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence.  No independent, in-depth sources exist on which we could base such an article.  Worldbruce ( talk ) 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh .  Worldbruce ( talk ) 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm convinced by the explanation given in the first Afd: as Nipun's first film it can reasonably be considered a major part of her career.  So Weak Keep ; if not, then redirect to her page ( Nipun Akter ). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is your thinking that the first film of every notable actor is inherently notable because every actor's first film can ""reasonably be considered"" a major part of their career""? (Or at least the first film in which they had a leading role?) Or is there a specific source that convinces you that someone thinks this film is a ""major part of her career"" - perhaps a source that describes it as her ""big break"", or one that attributes subsequent opportunities to her performance in this film, or evidence of a screening as part of a retrospective or tribute to her career, or ...? -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 16:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply -You said yourself: The only mentions are in articles about Nipu Akter, each of which mentions in passing that Pitar Ason was her first released film. , so it seems important enough in her career to be mentioned; hence weak keep or redirect to her page.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bangladeshi entertainment news is highly formulaic. It's extremely common for an article focused on a film actor to mention what their first film was. Because in my experience dealing with Bangladeshi sources they do it indiscriminately, I've never considered the ""first film"" mention to be an indication that every first film is ""a major part of their career"" in the sense that WP:NFIC means. Subsequent to your reply, Vinegarymass911 added a source that uses a different transliteration, Pitar Ashon . It is more than a passing mention: ""I started out in acting after I came back to Bangladesh with 'Pitar Ashon'.  Not only was the film a commercial success, but the audience received my debut very well as well and my name started to buzz all over the industry right after that.  I did not have to look back after that ... 'Pitar Ashon' gave me a solid footing in the industry. "" If a third party (a biographer or entertainment critic, for example) were saying this, I would withdraw per WP:HEYMANN , but I'm uncomfortable saying a film is notable just because a participant in it says it was important to their career.  I'll let more of the community weigh in.  -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 17:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is not a very old movie; there should be online sources.  I tried and failed to find significant coverage.  I am left to conclude that the movie is not notable.  Redirect would not make sense given that many others were involved with the film, some with a stronger claim than Nipun Akter , and she is not the ideal redirect target as her article barely mentions the film.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 22:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  This AFD seems to have fallen through the cracks of our AFD system and is being manually relisted.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kayden Kiewit: JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, when the guidelines were changing.  Lots of coverage on the subject, but none of it enough to warrant a WP:GNG pass, with no suitable redirect either.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Scott Anthony Starr: Simione001 ( talk ) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article is sourced only to a database and promo interview. Fails BLP, GNG, BIO. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 11:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Choe Ju-song: Simione001 ( talk ) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  My response to all these nominations is that redirection is better than deletion.  In this case, however, the Korean Wikipedia has an article about a different person born in 1910 with the same or a similar name at ko:최주성 .  The 1910 person's notability comes from a listing in a directory of pro-Japanese Koreans and from being a book author – or perhaps more than one person's biography has been smooshed together by VIAF.  Perhaps someone with better knowledge of Korea and Korean could build an English article from the corresponding Korean Wikipedia article.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] North Korean footballers won't have coverage in South Korea sources, no matter how much we look.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is the best I can find [1] , it's a match report.  One line mentions don't help notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT due to a lack of secondary coverage.  Trivial mentions in match reports don't contribute to notability.  User:Let'srun 03:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Waterford Premier Intermediate Hurling Championship: Fails WP:NEVENT .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ireland .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no WP:GNG coverage to be found.  Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 19:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Peeled Snacks: GraziePrego ( talk ) 03:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NCORP , references are below standard, appears only to be notable for going out of business, a common enough business happening to be treated as WP:ROTM 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and New York .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"AbanteCart Software: No real evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New Jersey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previously deleted through PROD so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No meaningful claim of notability and no evidence of significant coverage in the article or found in a Google / Google News search.  Alansohn ( talk ) 03:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Claire Harris (artist): LibStar ( talk ) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Visual arts ,  and New Zealand .  LibStar ( talk ) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable artist.  104.7.152.180 ( talk ) 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I do not think any of the sources establish notability per WP:ARTIST .  David Palmer // cloventt ( talk ) 08:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete only independent coverage is trivial.  Traumnovelle ( talk ) 04:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"William Dadiani II: The creator has linked it to various existing battle articles already in the encyclopedia.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany .  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : 100% a hoax.  I have read numerous books on the WW1 East Africa Campaign, and all of them agree that Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and Kurt Wahle were the only high-ranking German officers in East Africa.  Lettow-Vorbeck would have killed for another general; he had to put lieutenants in command of entire frontlines due to his extreme lack of officers.  Applodion ( talk ) 22:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Hoax, and neither a good nor an entertaining one.  Get it outta here.  Ted52 ( talk ) 20:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mansur Toshmatov: I tried to salvage it, but the amount of work this article needs is too great IMO.  As with WP:A2 deletions (or the old WP:X2 criterion), no real information is being lost with deletion, as it takes no real effort to put a foreign language article through Google translate, which is what this is.  Mach61 18:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uzbekistan .  Mach61 18:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nima Tamang: I can only find coverage like Sportskeeda and Times of India , both of which only mention him in passing as the scorer of a consolation goal in a 10-1 defeat.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , India ,  and Sikkim .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The squad template has not been updated in 10 years, and contains other deletion candidates such as Rahul Jaiswal .  Geschichte ( talk ) 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet GNG.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of stars larger than any closer star: SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 09:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per above.  killer bee 09:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As the first person to recommend AfD, I can attest to WP:NOTSTATS in addition to SYNTH.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars more luminous than any closer star is very similar, and could have been bundled with this one.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 13:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I have no idea what the criterion even means.  And how is the Sun larger than any closer star?  What star is closer?  Taylor Swift?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 23:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By principle of vacuous truth , this statement is automatically true.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to lack of coverage in reliable sources as well as WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSTATS .  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 07:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the above reasons, and because it is dependent on the current accuracy of measurements.  The more distant the component, the less likely the information is to be valid.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 17:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Richard L. Albert: No possible redirect as his company does not have an article.  He seems to have worked mostly on B movies.  —Kaliforniyka Hi!  01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  —Kaliforniyka Hi!  01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Advertising ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Design Projects Incorporated was formed on February 10, 1978 in California, (see https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business ) and was closed on June 1, 1994.  Design Projects first client was Universal Pictures, and also did advertising, design and packaging for 20th Century Fox, Warner Home Video, Columbia Pictures, as well as international distributors, starting with Best International Films and Producers Sales Organizations, and including Goldcrest and ad campaigns for Sanrio Films while they had a Los Angeles branch office.  It also created ad campaigns for many independent film distributors, such as Group One, New World, Film Ventures International.   We also Prior to 1978, I worked as a freelance designer for Universal Pictures, Filmways, as well as Universal Music.  Richard Albert RLA2024 ( talk ) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG with zero evidence of notability.  Promotional article created by a single-purpose/COI account with no viable coverage at all (search turned up mostly an architectural firm with a similar name).  Heck, the only source cited therein doesn't even mention the subject nor his company.  💥 Casualty • Hop along.  • 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete.  Article lacks solid sources, lacks evidence of notability.  Edit history suggests massive COI problem.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Choe Kum-chol: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dominika Polakowska: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Skating ,  and Poland .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – No other sources have been found to change my analysis from the previous discussion.  Article still fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG .  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already at AFD AND PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not a fan of bringing a non-consensus outcome back so quickly but I agree, the subject fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG ; news coverage is all WP:TRIVIALMENTION .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Huttonia (country): May be a hoax, not sure.I am taking this to AfD in good faith because the article creator has over 2000 edits and appear to have familiarity with functioning of Wikipedia.  Hitro talk 09:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Hitro talk 09:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment it's a direct translation of the Dutch page which has been around since 2006 and had a few different editors.  There's one Google result for the book that's used as a reference.  Need a Dutch speaker here.  Orange sticker ( talk ) 09:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There is only one reference, and it is not independent of the subject.  Ira Leviton ( talk ) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft , this topic is definitely interesting and probably notable, but it doesn't have enough sources.  If it never gets enough sources to meet notability guidelines, I suppose it just never leaves draft.  Love, Cassie.  ( Talk to me! ) 18:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose it just never leaves draft .  That is simply not true, since drafts can only be stored for six months and after that they are deleted.  See WP:Drafts#Deleting a draft .  CycloneYoris talk!  20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete right now, it's got one source, and it's primary, as does the Dutch version, and a before search brings up plants.  Happy to draftify if someone wants to work on it, but it's not good enough for mainspace at the moment.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't know if this is a hoax or a WP:MADEUP , but it clearly doesn't belong here.  Owen× ☎ 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are quite a few sources on Delpher yet these are not independent of the subject.  The book is written by the person who lived in the huts so not independent either.  The book or the author/builder may be notable yet that isn't the subject of this AfD.  gidonb ( talk ) 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge/Move It says it's imaginary in the article.  It's a subject of the dudes life, and a book.  I'm sure it's well covered in an article about the book, or the article about the guy.  This just needs a redirect and done.  Somebody should have just done this.  James.folsom ( talk ) 02:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing to merge into.  A move would technically be possible, however, the book or person are insufficiently the focus of the brief entry.  So it is inherently wrong.  Any such articles should already be a new effort.  Moreover, the title is wrong as Huttonia was never a country.  As a ""micronation"" it ""is"" an imaginary state.  So this should not become a redirect of sorts.  Delete makes most sense.  gidonb ( talk ) 13:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] James.folsom , I came here with the intention of suggesting a Redirect.  Alas, neither the book nor its author appear notable enough for an article, leaving deletion as the only viable option.  Owen× ☎ 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I was a little brusque, I support delete if all other options don't exist.  James.folsom ( talk ) 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ashwajit Singh: Most statements in the Early life and Career sections are not supported by the corresponding references, so the page suffers from massive WP:OR , WP:V and WP:PROMO concerns.  There are similar issues with his company page which has also been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPE Global Limited .  Teemu.cod ( talk ) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India .  Teemu.cod ( talk ) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Delhi ,  and Florida .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - There are no reliable sources found which talks about the subject in details, these sources are just passing mentiones.  Totally fails general notablity .  Grabup ( talk ) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mathias Moldt Baskjær: The best sources that I can find in Danish are Sport Herning , which mentions him twice in the results summary, Badminton Bladet , a single passing mention, and Hojbjerg Badminton , another passing mention.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Badminton ,  and Denmark .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"TAPCO (mail order company): Articles of this vintage deserve discussion in my view.  I agree with the PROD reason: "" No evidence it meets N:ORG . Redirect to Remington Arms isn't helpful to the reader as it isn't mentioned, and a mention wouldn't be DUE "" given by Star Mississippi but not that mechanism.   I obviously invite them to comment here should they wish.  I have copied and pasted the PROD here.  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Firearms ,  and United States of America .  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PRODder comment/delete (since I'm not sure how best to format this input given the conversion of my PROD): thanks Timtrent for saving me the step of the nomination.  No issue with your contesting the PROD either, of course.  My research found lots of forums discussing TAPCO's parts and what had happened to the company, but nothing even approaching N:ORG as it was a small company that appeared to deal mostly in B2B sales.  It was active recently enough that coverage in trade publications should be accessible online, but a BEFORE found none.  Should the relaunch come to fruition, an article could be created.  I don't think draft space is viable as it hasn't launched and is therefore likely more than six months from notability.  Star Mississippi 17:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I cannot locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  Hardly any sources even mention the company.  HighKing ++ 16:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Maureen Sander-Staudt: No significant coverage, fails WP:NACADEMIC Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women ,  and Philosophy .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This Google Scholar search shows some widely-cited publications.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are three well-cited papers, after that not much.  Looks like a WP:Too soon for WP:Prof .  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 05:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] I'd hazard a guess that her field is a low-citation one overall, but even taking that into account, I'm not seeing any indications that she stands out, rather than being an academic doing an academic's job.  Philosophical Inquiries into Pregnancy has been reviewed [11] [12] [13] , but that was a co-edited anthology.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - I search and found a few possible sources, including this podcast , but to be honest, she does not appear to pass GNG.  I tried to fix the formatting and references, but I don't have a lot with to work.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Nothing to indicate that GNG has been met.  The podcast listed above is an interview with Sander-Staudt, so not completely independent.  And while she has some widely-cited work, this does not seem to me enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC .  WJ94 ( talk ) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Handgod Abraham: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE .  Possibly a WP:COI or WP:UPE .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 21:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople ,  and Haiti .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 21:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines; some sources are mentions, and the final appears to be a blog.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 21:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – The various articles from Le Nouvelliste (Haiti) is paywalled for me.  The rest don't appear to establish notability, so I'm leaning delete for now.  TLA tlak 04:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Leonel Pérez (footballer): The best source that I can find is Informador , which is simply a match report that mentions him scoring a goal in a cup match.  I can't find anything towards WP:SPORTBASIC #5.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTBASIC .  Open and shut.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Fails WP:GNG .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - at least as of now this article is not within WP:GNG.  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.",delete
"Srbija FF: Its home city, Stockholm, is not a viable merge target, but maybe Swedish Serbs .  Geschichte ( talk ) 11:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  No suitable location for a redirect.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , any coverage I can find when looking in the archives I have access to is routine minor events or match reports.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – The club doesn't even appear to exist today.  There is no encyclopedic content for this.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No significant coverage found in Mediearkivet, which collects most contemporary Swedish newspaper articles.  Can't find any other sources to base an article on.  / Julle ( talk ) 17:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Acting Crazy: As always, WP:TVSHOW does not confer automatic inclusion freebies on television shows just because they existed, but rather a television show has to have WP:GNG -worthy sourcing about it to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- but after searching both ProQuest and newspapers.com, literally all I can find is very short blurbs and glancing namechecks of its existence (and accidental text matches where the phrase ""acting crazy"" was used in other senses unrelated to this show), with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage about this show found at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 04:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 04:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Note the content is very similar to its fandom page .  IMDB links to no other sources, and the three sources added since nomination by A._B.  do not have significant coverage .  There is a moderate possibility of offline sources, however.  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 10:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've already checked two databases of pre-Google newspaper coverage, and found nothing much.  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Cray04 ( talk ) 05:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – The show fails in WP:GNG .  It lasted a few years and only had a regional scope.  In sources, the series only appears to be cited in some lists as a low-success program.  Svartner ( talk ) 20:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep It's in IMDB and has some coverage on the net.  Probably could be developed further with research (I added a cite for Wayne Cox hosting the show while doing a quick google for info).  -- Zippy ( talk ) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] nb. added a few more cites. still weak keep, but wanted to make it as good as I could from a quick search online. -- Zippy ( talk ) Zippy ( talk ) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As of right now, the article is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with the only thing that counts as a reliable or GNG-eligible source at all being the North Delta Reporter , which is an acceptable starter source but as a suburban community hyperlocal it's not in and of itself enough .  None of the other three footnotes in the article are notability builders at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No disagreement re the quality of the added citations, which is why I am still a weak keep.  But given the apparent popularity of the show during its multiyear run, I would not be surprised if there are newspaper or TV cites that would turn up with more digging.  -- Zippy ( talk ) 17:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, I already did WP:BEFORE searches in both ProQuest and Newspapers.com — which, between the two, cover off virtually every single GNG-worthy newspaper that exists in English Canada at all — and found nothing of value.  Bearcat ( talk ) 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Daniele Mattielig: Boleyn ( talk ) 08:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy .  Owen× ☎ 09:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 19:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails in every category.  No justification for the article or indication of even a modest notability.  Easy delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Duel at the Diamond: Let'srun ( talk ) 01:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Baseball ,  and Virginia .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are other instances of these games like the Apple Cup , Platypus Trophy , along with many, many others.  :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: With all due respect, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST applies here.  Those subjects are clearly notable, but this one has to stand on its own merits.  Sports rivalries aren't inherently notable.  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per user Let'srun.  killer bee 05:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the nom.  The only keep vote is just WP:OSE , and doesn't actually demonstrate that this article passes WP:GNG .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hoffman Crossing, Indiana: At any rate, there's precious little sign of anything else here.  Survey says this was just a freight station.  Mangoe ( talk ) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - The 1936 source refers to ""instrumental in building a loading station for grain"".  In our current era, this loading station is referred to as ""Grain elevators are facilities at which grains are received, stored, weighed, and then distributed for direct use, process manufacturing, or export.""  Grain Elevators .  Editor Sweet kate was merely using  modern terminology, but it's the same thing.  I  have added the clarification to the article, and sourced it.  — Maile ( talk ) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I seriously doubt that the terminology has evolved that much in the twenty-nine years since Baker's book was published, but at any rate, we have deleted a fair number of spurious ""communities"" which consisted of an elevator by the tracks and nothing else, even when one could see from GMaps that it really was an elevator and was still there.  Mangoe ( talk ) 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no such thing as a speedy keep, we discuss everything for however long it takes.  James.folsom ( talk ) 01:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not clear enough for a speedy keep.  The article currently says: ""Hoffman Crossing is an unincorporated community in ...""  Maile, is it a community?  Geschichte ( talk ) 16:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A grain elevator is not a community, it is an agricultural facility and thus subject to WP:GNG .   That standard is manifestly failed in this case, as no sources could be found other than the passing mention (cited above) showing that it exists.   The fact that it's named after a person ""instrumental"" in building it is neither here nor there.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - aside from a 1951 article about a fatal car crash at the railroad crossing, I'm not seeing any coverage of this site at all.  What I can find is coverage for Hoffmans, New Jersey and a location near West Milton, Pennsylvania .  The grain elevator doesn't make the site notable, and I'm not seeing anything that would indicate a WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND pass.  Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete First I don't think this is the correct location, the Monon rail should still be there, or at least evidence of it.  I don't see it in satellite view.  According to transportation.gov there are no crossings on that hwy now, and from past AFDs I know that the monon existed ""fairly"" recently and find it hard to believe there is no trace left.  This makes me question the only good source on this article.  There isn't a community there now.  I cannot find any further sources.  James.folsom ( talk ) 02:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot tell when the rails were taken up but the traces in the current GMaps aerial are very slight.  It's much more visible in older shots, and it doesn't help that, for some reason, they moved the label to the west so that the GNIS coords are significantly off the mark.  The actual location is not the hooked-shaped driveway/farm indicated now; it's the very broad, bright driveway patch on the NE side of the road further SE.  Going NNE the edge of the field with the trees to the right is where the old grade was; eventually it gets taken over by Boles Rd.  Going south the only sign is a few places where you can see a straight line break in the trees.  This branch of the Monon was constructed around 1906 to reach coal fields; it left the mainline at a nondescript spot called Wallace Jct.  and headed SSW to Victoria .  The railroad apparently called the spot ""Hoffman"", and I found pictures from 1979 showing that there was a siding here and nothing else.  By that time it was owned by the L&N and it's too much work to find out when exactly they abandoned the trackage.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your right, I mistook that ""dip"" in the trees for a stream.  But on closer inspection I can find places were you can see the track bed.  James.folsom ( talk ) 05:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not a community per above.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Oliver Brand: Provided references are mere directory entries mentioning him and his songs with no biographical information.   I found nothing better online to satisfy notability, though it’s entirely possible there may be better sources in print.  -- Finngall talk 13:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Music , Theatre ,  and England . -- Finngall talk 13:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  None of these songs is notable, and his output, for a lyricist, was not impressive.  Compare Adrian Ross .  I've deleted the material from the bio that attempted to assert notability by saying that he wrote for a theatre company that W. S. Gilbert had also written for.  The bio was written by User:FairlyPuzzled , the only article edited by that user, who appears to be a descendant of Brand's.  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 18:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vusal Abdullazade: It is possible to see this from the list of winners of the mentioned competitions.  Even the years and countries where the competitions were held are incorrect, in some indicated years no competition was held at all, and in some cases, it was not held in the mentioned country.  Generally, there are almost no sources to proof any of the facts in the article and topic doesn't pass GNG.  The article has been deleted on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, this is the discussion .  Surə 🗯 13:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's no significant independent coverage and no evidence he won a major world championship.   I checked several of the article's external links that go to ""world"" championships he supposedly won and could not find his name.   The dates and locations of his championships don't match those of major organizations.   Finally, the fact that his article was deleted on the Azerbaijani WP for lack of supporting evidence seems pretty convincing.  Papaursa ( talk ) 04:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not very familiar with Azerbaijani media, but is this considered unreliable?  The news story appears to confirm that he has won the championship seven times.  TheJoyfulTentmaker ( talk ) 06:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Apparent COI vanity page.  Subject does not meet WP:NKICK or WP:NMMA criteria, as well as does not have independent significant coverage.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Suleiman Ahmed Gulaid: Fails WP:GNG .  The only SIGCOV I could find of the subject is in local Somalilander outlet Horn Diplomat [29] .  He received routine coverage due to his involvement in Amoud University , but not enough to establish sufficient notability.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 06:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Somalia .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 06:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More sources: an award he received , and a speech he made , both reported on by national press.  Still not sure about notability.  BhamBoi ( talk ) 07:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wesley Grammar School: Since the previous AfD closed as draftify the article creator has moved it to mainspace twice without addressing or discussing the notability issue.  Triptothecottage ( talk ) 05:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ping @ Rich Smith , @ FatCat96 , @ Aydoh8 , @ Indefensible and @ GraziePrego who participated previously, and @ Liz who draftified for the second time.  Triptothecottage ( talk ) 05:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana .  Triptothecottage ( talk ) 05:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Delete: I Have added some sources but they are mostly either unreliable, or don't have significant coverage.  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some sources are interviews and not online sources.  Thus, references were not attached.  Samuel Ola ( talk ) 20:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Interwiews are a primary source, in order for the article to be kept we need ""significant coverage from reliable secondary sources"".  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There is a distinct lack of sourcing on the page, but we are told it was established in 1956 so this is a well established school, and this is born out by having an active old students association (WESGOSA) which helps verify several notable alumni already listed, including the first lady of Ghana [16] .  So this is a school with significant notable alumni.  It is also the case study school in this Ph.D. thesis [17] on learning styles and academic performance in Biology.  This study [18] also uses the school as the experimental group in their study on teaching trigonometry.  Although the secondary information about the schools in these studies is limited, they do add to the case that the school is significant, well established and of note within the community.  There is also a lot of news paper coverage, as noted above.  Those are primary sources.  What remains lacking at this point is a good secondary source that verifies the information already on the page.  If we had that, this would be a clear keep.  I have not found that yet, but I think there is a suitable case, based on the notable alumni, the active old student association, and the academic references, to argue this crosses the line.  (ETA: We do have this history, from a newspaper, written on the occasion of the school being 50 years old. [19] )  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - for me there just are not enough suitable sources for ! keep.  I agree one might think there are sources for a school of this age, however I do not think we can move from draft without suitable sourcing.  Given that it has moved back and forth from draft to main, it seems like the best option is ! delete until such time someone can rewrite with sufficient sources to satisfy the AfC process.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually yes, I had not spotted that draft back-and-forth.  Perhaps the performer of the move can comment.  On the basis of the lack of in page sourcing yet repeat moving to mainspace (making draftify unavailable as an ATD) I would be inclined to move to delete pending some explanation on that.  Is there a redirect ATD available?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Samuel Ola : Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Given the history, I would like a stronger consensus.  Should that end up in delete/draftify, a promise to respect consensus would also be ideal.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Firming up my earlier comments.  I note that we do not have the secondary sources, and the lack of comment from the nom.  and my own failure to turn any up lead me to believe that we cannot write an encyclopaedic article here.  Considering the history and the IAR aspect of my original argument, I believe delete is appropriate.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Semi Jaupaj: Other sources range from press releases (lack of a byline) / WP:ROUTINE to highly likely non- WP:RELIABLE .  Aside from that, there's a lot of WP:ORIGINAL .  TLA (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television ,  and Albania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with fire, at that.  Got soft deleted last time due to minimal RfD participation and here it is with precisely the same problems as my last nomination for deletion in 2022: ""Albanian singer of little notability. Been watching this for a while to see if any sign of improvement or abiding importance emerges. It hasn't. Hasn't won any music competition, no evidence of any music charting, no evidence of any enduring influence or impact. Coverage is skimpy social pages stuff, no in-depth coverage. Borderline, yes, but ultimately not a WP:GNG pass and not WP:MUSICBIO either.""  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I tried limiting Gsearch to Albanian websites with . al, they all are celebrity gossip items [18] and all in English.  Most of the article now has no citations so could be OR or simply a hoax for all we know.  I'm not seeing notability.  Could be too early, TOOSOON.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Equinox (Amiga demogroup): Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [ hu ] .  I am also bundling the disk magazine European Top 20 published by Equinox in this nomination.  toweli ( talk ) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , Organizations , Computing , Norway , Sweden , Switzerland ,  and United Kingdom .  toweli ( talk ) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Iosefa Maposua: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 11:56, 5 May 2023 (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 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Found no significant coverage of the subject.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 04:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"James Bowie (lawyer): This article was created on 22 December 2022 [55] , after the subject began to receive Ottawa-based coverage related to a variety of serious misconduct allegations, including allegations described in an article source headline in terms that can be commonly understood as allegations of criminal conduct.  An Ontario-based legal industry publication also reported on allegations in December 2022.  Coverage of allegations appears to have begun in November 2022.  This article was brought to AfD on 18 February 2023, and NAC -closed as keep on 4 March 2023 by a now-blocked sock.  Since then, the article subject has been criminally charged.  I have tried to find reliable sources to help establish this subject was well-known before and/or independent of 'lawyer is subject to bar disciplinary investigation and license suspension,' 'lawyer is accused of serious misconduct,' 'lawyer is facing criminal charges,' and 'lawyer is relatedly getting sued in a civil action.'  With an assist from the prior AfD and article, I have found: pre-November 2022 sources a passing mention in a 2019 Toronto Star source that quotes him for his opinion: ""James Bowie, an Ottawa criminal lawyer and past Liberal staffer, said..."" - the mention of being a past Liberal staffer is used in the article to develop the Career section.  a 9-sentence report in a 2020 Ottawa City News source based mostly on Bowie's statements announcing his belief that there would be no arrests at an upcoming anti-racism protest, but if there were, he would volunteer to provide free legal services to those arrested.  a mention of Bowie live-tweeting court in a Feb 2022 post about a bail hearing for Pat King, published by the questionable Daily Hive , which describes itself as ""hyperlocal"" and delivering ""information to its local audience and advertisers"".   Instead of editorial standards, this website appears to disclaim them: ""The articles disseminated are believed to be reliable; however the publisher disclaims any and all liability as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in any article and for any omissions of material facts from such article."" a 7-minute 2022 CBC interview (a year ago) with Bowie - ""Criminal lawyer James Bowie watched the bail hearing for convoy protest organizer Tamara Lich. He talks about the hearing, and where the process is at"" a nearly 7-minute 2022 CBC interview (a year ago) with Bowie - ""Criminal defence lawyer James Bowie takes us through how a mass-arrest situation - such as we are seeing in Ottawa this weekend - is handled. He also reviews the bail hearing for one of the convoy organizers"" Based on available sources, compliance with WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE does not appear possible at this time - specifically writing a biography that is not primarily based on recent coverage related to allegations, investigations, and criminal charges.  Since coverage of the allegations began, there are some brief mentions in Ottawa news about his past Freedom Convoy-related social media activity, e.g. post-November 2022 sources 29 Nov 2022 CTV News Ottawa - includes a graphic content warning and briefly mentions ""Bowie, who became known on Twitter this year for chronicling the court appearances of various 'Freedom Convoy' organizers"" 30 Nov 2022 Ottawa Citizen - ""Ottawa lawyer James Bowie, known for garnering Twitter followers during the “Freedom Convoy” movement,"" 2 Feb 2023 Ottawa Citizen - describes Bowie's alleged belief in his own fame related to his tweeting about the Freedom Convoy 24 April 2023 CTV News Ottawa - ""Bowie rose to prominence on social media by chronicling the court appearances of various 'Freedom Convoy' organizers last year.""  Basic biographical and career information also appears to be limited, with the Ottawa Citizen mentioning on 2 Feb 2023 ""Born in 1983, Bowie was licensed in 2015 and has worked as a sole practitioner since 2020 in Ottawa"" and the general location of his residence.  If his own representations about his media activity are included, he seems to have made some appearances in news media to offer comment on Freedom Convoy court proceedings in 2022, but there do not appear to be sources describing him as a well-known news commentator or pundit.  According to more recent sources, he ""became known on Twitter""/""known for garnering Twitter followers""/""rose to prominence on social media by chronicling the court appearances of various 'Freedom Convoy' organizers"" in 2022, but does not appear to have received contemporary, independent, reliable, in-depth coverage of this.  I think WP:BASIC / WP:GNG notability would not be supported based on what appears to otherwise be available about his career, commentary, and social media activity, and this limited available coverage does not offer a lot to help develop a balanced biography.  In advance of this AfD, I removed content from the article based on WP:BLP policy.  Sources remaining in the article are primarily coverage of allegations.  So I am bringing this article here for further discussion, because notability does not appear to be well-supported, and it appears BLP policy further supports deletion of this article at this time.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , Law ,  and Canada .  Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  (as article creator)  As per the reasons listed at the first AFD.  Since then the subject has only got more notable.  He inevitably will continue to get more notable.  Any BLP policy concerns can be (and a perhaps already have been; I see that over 4,000 bytes was removed from the article today) resolved (see the essay Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and WP:ATD : If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page .  The votes to keep at the first AFD were not plentiful, but they were unanimous, User:Loewstisch pointed out how WP:GNG was met and I made the same argument citing news from 2020, 2022 and 2023: https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-news/lawyer-offers-free-legal-service-to-anyone-who-is-arrested-at-ottawas-anti-racism-march-2414073 https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/ottawa-lawyer-james-bowie-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-suspended-by-lso-in-unrelated-proceedings/372287 https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-lawyer-in-legal-services-for-sex-scandal-probed-for-mishandling-money WP:NOTSCANDAL says that we should not promote things heard through the grapevine .  The article is cited.  We should not delete content just because the content is scandalous if it is reported in reliable sources.  See Category:Scandals for the many dozens of article specifically on scandals.  I don't think balance is missing from the article.  He's somewhat known for live tweeting court cases, a little bit known for other legal things and mostly known for legal challenges, which are properly documented in the article.  CT55555 ( talk ) 00:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. we don't need to rely on his assertions that he was a pundit: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2004927555865 https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2005007427891 CT55555 ( talk ) 01:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTSCANDAL also says, ""Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy . Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person .""  And in the previous AfD, there were two keep ! votes; the nominator did not change their support for deletion, so there was not unanimous support to keep.  I also think WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions of further coverage related to criminal proceedings and further sensationalized coverage of titillating claims about people's lives are particularly difficult to predict, especially given how limited and localized the prior coverage has been.  And I think the removal of content shows two things:  1) how non-notable this subject is if there is an attempt to comply with BLP policy, and  2) how BLP compliance is still not possible after such a removal because the sources (and headlines in the references section) still describe allegations that are problematic according to BLP and NOT policies.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 01:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To help avoid the possibility of inappropriate canvassing by a ping to only one participant in the previous AfD, courtesy pinging the other previous AfD participants: Bueller 007 and Elinruby , in addition to Loewstisch .  Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I was a little surprised to see the Daily Hive described as unreliable, although I have not evaluated it specifically with respect to Wikipedia policy.  My overall reaction to this AfD however is that this guy was a useful idiot who jumped on a toxic bandwagon that caused who knows how many deaths from covid, and we should not be straining to give him oxygen.  I am very preoccupied with a wildfire near me, but assuming that remains stable I may come back and do a detailed analysis.  I would have to see much more than passing mentions in the Toronto Star to change my vote however.  Et Elinruby ( talk ) 17:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Recent coverage is almost entirely about allegations that he sexually harassed ""pro-bono"" clients.  It looks like this was substantiated to the extent that he lost his law license,  but I don't know that this makes him notable outside Ottawa (as Ottawa, not as the capital of Canada).  Some additional stories cover similar new allegations that don't seem to have been adjudicated yet, so correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that mean we don't use them in a BLP?  Speaking of policy, I did find the disclaimer at the Daily Hive website, which does lead to the conclusion that it is not an RS.  The mentions of him as any kind of pundit have faded out with the trucker's convoy, and *that*... well .  It was a big deal for a while, mostly in traffic news outside of Ottawa, but American money apparently was behind it, so I am not convinced it was genuine news story, and supposing it was, notability is not inherited and being a sorta social media commentator on Twitter about the ensuing legal proceedings does not make him notable.  I don't think the article should have been kept last time.  Elinruby ( talk ) Delete as per my rationale on the original nomination for deletion.  Non-notable, BLP1E, potential violation of BLPCRIME, etc. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone truly thinks that this person is notable enough to deserve an entry in an encyclopedia.  Bueller 007 ( talk ) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dia Davina: Many tags been here for years.  Seaweed ( talk ) 18:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry , Sexuality and gender ,  and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – The article appears abandoned and the sources do not appear to establish WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 09:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR .  No significant coverage is demonstrated.  ⁂CountHacker ( talk ) 23:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Nothing else to add MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tekin Salimi: Rationale is as follows: Article fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV .  If you look at the sources you can see there's barely any actual coverage on the person himself.  There seems to be more on promoting dao5 which isn't even notable enough to have it own article.  And that's assuming you can even use such sources which I don't think is possible since they seem to not be independent.  A few are flat out interviews which cannot be considered independent.  I'm also getting some WP:PROMO vibes from the article.  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople ,  and Canada .  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 17:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Turkey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Quick review of sources confirms lack of reliability, independence and sigcov, and feels like backdoor advertising for subject's fund.  I'd be willing to review WP:THREE if someone presents it.  — siro χ o 04:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Clearly not notable.  Aintabli ( talk ) 06:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dubai International Food Safety Conference: It was started in 2006 and a likely COI account immediately created a Wikipedia article for it.  It appears purely promotional in nature.  There is no substantive coverage by independent, reliable sources of this conference.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 12:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Events ,  and United Arab Emirates .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete coverage confirms it existed but nothing to meet GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Romani people in Morocco: The field does not appear to be David J. Phillips' specialty, and all that is stated in the cited passage of his book  is: ""Some Kali or Gitan are probably in Morocco.""  The information currently available is inadequate to confirm the presence of Romani communities in Morocco, and there appears to be practically no substantial academic discourse on the matter.  The subject simply does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Mooonswimmer 22:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Morocco .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The subject might warrant a sentence in Romani people , but otherwise the table row in Romani diaspora is an appropriate weight for the topic.  There is just not enough meat here for an article to meet GNG.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , agree with the above.  No significant coverage from RS.  Cinadon 36 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2024 New York City stabbing spree: This particular series of crimes are not particularly high-profile outside of NYC, and it's run-of-the-mill coverage.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Police , United States of America ,  and New York .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG as it has only routine, contemporary coverage.  No secondary sources to demonstrate long term historical significance.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my original PROD and the nomination.  A crime was committed and a person of interest was arrested.  Many crimes like this happen.  This was not notable to the point where there was an active crime for days, weeks, or months.  Not inherently notable and certainly a violation of Not News.  -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk ) 00:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  A fairly routine crime with little possibility of any repercussions to society at large.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 07:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL .  Unfortunately (at least in my view), such crimes are quite common in NYC, and I don't think there is a WP:LASTING component to these crimes.  – Epicgenius ( talk ) 17:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, WP:LASTING also says that [i]t may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect.  This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.  Let's wait and see if notability persists for a while.  Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 02:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have seen the sources you have posted below.  From what I can tell, all of these are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources (specifically, breaking news or eyewitness news sources describing each of the stabbings and the arrest); they are certainly reliable and independent, but secondary sources would also be needed to prove the lasting notability of an event.  WP:PERSISTENCE states that a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable.  Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.  I am not seeing any such further analyses in any of the sources you posted below, so I remain unconvinced that this is a topic that merits its own article.  Epicgenius ( talk ) 16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is not a ""routine"" crime in New York.  A search on ABC7 indicates that stabbings are largely one-time events that happened within a single setting.  This occurred over the span of days, which would refute the argument WikiCleanerMan has made.  Also, there are plenty of independent sources that could be seen by a Google search of the article title .  This includes, but not limiting to: [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] .  There is even coverage on CNN about this incident.  I would say this would pass GNG , given the reliable sources that cover this.  Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 02:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition, most sources I have given contains in depth coverage.  For example, the CNN source that I have posted here provided context to what happened during the stabbings.  Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 02:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources presented above.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Response to the relisting comment: As an initial matter, a search of ABC7 to determine whether stabbings are generally singular events, and thus unique, is OR .  We need RSes to establish that claim to notability.  (In any event, WP:NCRIME does not create an exception for unique criminal acts. By contrast, WP:CRIME , which applies to perpetrators, does, but the example provided there is Seung-Hui Cho , and this stabbing spree is nothing like the Virginia Tech shooting .)  The additional sources provided also do not establish notability .  First, having national coverage is not enough under WP:GEOSCOPE , which states that such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article.  The sources cited are also all recent news reports, and WP:PERSISTENCE states that Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A recent google search 10 days after these events finds no sustained coverage.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Please stop writing these fearmonger articles about everyday crime in New York.  Nobody died, suspect in custody.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Głusza, Wałcz County: The first reference is to Registr TERYT, whose English language front page describes its mission in terms that show it is exactly analogous to GNIS; the other reference appears to be a statistical/geographical database of a sort familiar to those who have checked this kind of article before.  I don't see how this is notable, and for those who might appeal to WP:GEOLAND , I don't see that ""legally recognized"" is satisfied; but if it be so, it's another example of how that has proven to be a bad standard.  There appear to be a number of these, newly created, so we're going to be busy here.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging expert @ Stok Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Best wait for the experts but here's my dwa groszy in the meantime - www.polskawliczbach.pl is apparently algorithmically-created content and anyway not a reliable source.  Using my poor Polish (I lived there for four years but am far from fluent) I tried searching on the Teryt database linked to in the article but couldn't find a place called Głusza, though this is probably just my own failing.  The location is, as Mangoe says, just someone's drive-way.  I spot checked three of the article-creator's articles over on the NGEO talk-page and all three were problematic (two were about locations with nothing at them and sourcing which did not show that they had ever really been populated; the other was about a random embassy in Warsaw with no GNG pass).  Leaning delete simply on this basis.  FOARP ( talk ) 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having looked into this in more detail, I'm going to upgrade my ! vote to strong delete .  The place in question is an osada leśna (or ""forest settlement"") according to this regulation on the names of cities and parts of cities , not a hamlet (which in the relevant Polish law is referred to as a przysiółek -see Art.2(10)).  A ""settlement"" in the relevent Polish law (Art.2(8) of the same act previously linked) is described as: ""osada - niewielką jednostkę osadniczą na terenie wiejskim o odmiennym (wyróżniającym się) charakterze zabudowy albo zamieszkaną przez ludność związaną z określonym miejscem lub rodzajem pracy, w szczególności: osadę młyńską, osadę leśną, osadę rybacką, osadę kolejową, osadę po byłym państwowym gospodarstwie rolnym; osada może być samodzielna lub może stanowić część innej jednostki osadniczej;"" Or in machine translation: ""settlement - a small settlement unit in a rural area with a different (distinct) character of development or inhabited by people associated with a specific place or type of work, in particular: a mill settlement, a forest settlement, a fishing settlement, a railway settlement, a settlement of a former state farm; the settlement may be independent or may constitute part of another settlement unit ;"" (emphasis added) From this you can see that the location need not actually be populated (emphasis on the ""or inhabited"" part of this) or independent, which is indeed what we see in multiple examples of these settlements for which there are now AFDs open - they can be forestry offices, farms, or even just empty locations, and can simply be parts of villages.  GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to legally-recognised populated places, but a place need only be ""a small settlement unit in a rural area with a different (distinct) character of development"" , and not necessarily inhabited, to receive the status of being a "" osada leśna "".  FOARP ( talk ) 12:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:GEOLAND Lightburst ( talk ) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Following pl:osada leśna interwiki leads me to hamlet (place) , but that particular article on pl wiki has a pipe leadning to ... a wilderness hut .  If it is a hamlet, it may meet GEOLAND, but if it is just a hut... ( TERYT confirms it is a hamlet).  I'll start an AFD on pl wiki and ask for more feedback.  PS.  Done: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:17:Głusza (powiat wałecki) - let's wait a week or so and see if any useful arguments emerge there?  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"European BEST Engineering Competition: created by User:EBEC2009 , obvious conflict of interest .  written like an ad.  ltb d l ( talk ) 04:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Europe .  ltb d l ( talk ) 04:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  CosmoBurst ( talk ) 05:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Catfurball ( talk ) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the style of the page may be arguable, the contents describe a relevant european-wide event that has involved hundreds of engineering students throughout Europe.  It deserves to stay, IMHO.  GioAlea88 ( talk ) 17:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This article is widely visible to new editors since it is featured in the 'Newcomer task: links' section of Special:Homepage , so any new editors wanting to comment should read WP:AFDDISCUSS and/or WP:GNG .  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 14:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ GoldRomean : left this message about deleting it on my talk page Lajmmoore ( talk ) 21:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : under G11 (which I previously nominated this for).  This article is promotional and there are no reliable sources cited or that I could find that indicate notability.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It is an Advertisement Tomlovesfar ( talk / contributions ) 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.",delete
"Arnold Henry Bergier: I've found a few magazine refs but  a) these do not support the current content on the page which can therefore be removed per WP:V and  b) a proportion appear to be adverts placed by the artist.  If there are sources that show the subject meets the inclusion criteria that would be great, but I'm not seeing them.  JMWt ( talk ) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , United States of America ,  and New York .  JMWt ( talk ) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"NWA New England X Division Championship: A regional title active for a few years.  Lack of third party reliable sources focusing on the title besides a few WP:ROUTINE results.  HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling , Maine ,  and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support - Agree with the points made by OP.  The holders of the title also lack Notability , which also counts against the article.  CeltBrowne ( talk ) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2022 CAFA U-14 Championship: Not enough secondary sources.  Not enough notability.  Wikipedia is not a site for listing statistics.  EpicAdventurer ( talk ) 17:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Tajikistan .  EpicAdventurer ( talk ) 17:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect – To Central Asian Football Association#Events timeline as WP:ATD .  Svartner ( talk ) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have included additional reliable sources to substantiate the article.  The tournament holds significant notability, similar to other CAFA tournaments that have their own pages.  Lunar Spectrum96 ( talk ) 19:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan , Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan ,  and Iran .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i added additional reliable sources since EpicAdventurer delete nomination ?  Lunar Spectrum96 ( talk ) 22:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. I don't think an under-14s tournament merits a redirect.  Giant Snowman 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete echoing what Giant Snowman wrote.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Yawa No Dey End: No source to establish notability here, for the charts, I am very skeptical about this one, also, the song ranked in TurnTable charts or any of the mentioned charts only indicates that the song may be notable, not that it is notable.  In this case, this song isn't notable.  Again, I am skeptical about the notability of the musician himself, and overall, the user who created this article and so many others which I am skeptical about.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music ,  and Nigeria .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : same as the other one, no coverage in WP:RS .  — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 17:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Harvey Whiteley: All I found was routine transfer news ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ).  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and England .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Undecided Young player who could have an extensive career, but currently not notable and I sufficient coverage.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , routine transactional announcements are not sufficient to meet NSPORT.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Little League World Series announcers: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Baseball ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN .  This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Road signs in Brunei: It's a WP:NOTGALLERY violation apparently by intention.  There are tons of these articles that don't appear to be attempts at creating an encyclopedia article at all, but are just making a space to put 100+ images.  There's already a place for that, and it's on Commons.  G M G talk 10:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Brunei .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment All seem to be on commons:Category:SVG road signs in Brunei , and the one source on the page doesn't seem to support the cited information.  CMD ( talk ) 07:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Part of a bundled AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this collection of images.  There are other places for it.  Try Wikimedia Commons.  The article itself lacks substance.  It is barely sourced, and what it does have is questionable.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Farron, Washington: Reference 4 is the only mention of Farron that could be found anywhere, and its statement ""the town never grew large enough for a post office"" is boilerplate text that the NPRRHS inserted in many entries on minor railroad stations.   Coordinates locate to empty farmland today.   Complete failure of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND .   PROD was declined on the basis of geographic nominations being controversial.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 23:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 23:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  All the sources I've seen indicate this was a rail station only.  Google Books turns up a number of atlases listing it as a rail station with a population of X, indicating a rail site only.  The 1959 Yakima County Plat Map shows Farron was a rail site without any street grid or even a subdivided area.  There are no population figures for Farron in the 1940, 1910, 1900, or 1920 census.  There's no mention of Farron in county histories.  There are a few mentions in books of how many bushels of crops were shipped from the Farron station.  No post office, school, church, or cemetery, that I can find.  A redirect to Harrah, Washington , one mile to the west, isn't even merited, IMO.  Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete What an embarrassing prod removal.  There is no basis whatsover that geographic places require AFD to be deleted, and this user should show up here with more legitimate reasoning or not do that again absent consensus for a blanket position.  There's so much junk geographic articles that more of these need to deleted by prod rather than clogging up AFD.  Blatantly false article made by the same person who brought us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington .  Reywas92 Talk 21:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a lot of editors taking advantage of the fact that you don't have to have a reason at all to remove a prod.  James.folsom ( talk ) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I could only find this https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-sun-news-beets-at-farron/140749787/ .  Implies train station.  James.folsom ( talk ) 22:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete It's obviously a rail point with so sign there there ever was a town there.  Note that the coordinates in the article were incorrect.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Brian Plummer (musician): The only properly verifiable claim of notability here is that he existed -- it asserts that he had hit singles, but fails to provide any verification of where they were ""hits"" (spoiler alert, not in RPM ). And for ""referencing"", it just contextlessly bulletpoints a list of mostly primary source websites that aren't support for notability, without footnoting anything in the article body to any of them. On a WP:BEFORE search, further, I didn't find enough coverage to salvage this -- apart from one concert review in The Globe and Mail on the occasion of him playing the El Mocambo in 1980, I otherwise only get local coverage in Saskatoon, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any sense, and tangential hits for other unrelated Brian Plummers (such as Bill Pullman's character in The Equalizer ).  Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than he has.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : it looks very much as though this was written as a WP:NOTMEMORIAL ... the only other edit the article creator has made to Wikipedia is to add some information about Jack Hazebroek to the article about the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, and Hazebroek's name also appears in this article, so I imagine it was written as a tribute to Mr. Plummer, having worked with him.  Richard3120 ( talk ) 20:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Zero coverage about this person found, other than the usual download/streaming sites.  Not meeting musical notability, tagged for a decade to be improved with sources, none added...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO .  The supplied ""references"" list is very questionable.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Oona Garthwaite: The only claim of notability being attempted here is television soundtrack placements, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a ""not enough if it's all they have"" override -- but there's nothing else of note being stated here at all, and the only footnotes are primary or unreliable verification of the soundtrack placements and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, none of which are support for notability in the absence of any WP:GNG -worthy third party coverage in real media.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Found two sources [15] and [16] , but more about the band then this person.  I'm not seeing GNG either for the band or this singer.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kapilakshi Malhotra: US-Verified ( talk ) 13:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and India .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions .  𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 16:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, Fails GNG and BIO.  Lots of promo refs but nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 08:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"KCIB-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 12:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Christianity ,  and Arkansas .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 12:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacking significant in-depth coverage to satisfy notability requirements.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Can't find significant references.  It won't pass WP:GNG Hkkingg ( talk ) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Portland and Western 1853: There are three unique references.  Two are simply lists that mention the locomotive without any SIGCOV.  The third source is a SELFPUB blog that also lacks SIGCOV (part of what the source is used to verify is actually referencing a reply to the linked blog post).  This is a non-notable train article by an IP who has used multiple GAMING and socking tactics across multiple drafts and AfDs.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 23:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Oregon .  Pbritti ( talk ) 23:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Not independently notable.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 00:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Much as I like trains, this engine is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.  TH1980 ( talk ) 01:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  SIGCOV is clearly lacking.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 01:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (a summary of)( the parts that can be verified to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet .  There is no evidence of independent notability, but equally there is no reason this cannot be included as part of the broader article per WP:PRESERVE .  Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete' Individual Locomotive that didn't really have a notable life.  This article isn't worth keeping around at all.  BigSneeze444 ( talk ) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gol Gazabad: From WP:GEOLAND : Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.  Hongsy ( talk ) 08:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran .  Hongsy ( talk ) 08:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nike Campbell: BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women ,  and Finance .  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria , Ukraine ,  and United States of America .  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Westfield, Edinburgh: As such, it does not fulfil the criteria outlined in WP:GNG.  1keyhole ( talk ) 21:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Sourced only to Google Maps, and my searches returned no evidence of SIGCOV.  In any case the current article is useless as a standalone stub.  – dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete its not an OS settlement, not on the Gazetteer for Scotland or VOB and I can't fine anything significant.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this does not appear to be an actual settlement and so does not fall under the criteria set out at WP:GEOLAND .  I see no benefit to redirect anywhere either.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 17:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Audel Laville: I found one good piece of coverage here , which I added, but unfortunately this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON .  Other sources like this and this are not independent.  It might be a good idea to Draftify .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: See if there is more support for draftification.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , there are also these sources [36] [37] [38] .  Perhaps not perfect, but with a healthy dose of WP:WORLDVIEW ?  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per SailingInABathTub.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 14:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - Article doesn't pass WP:GNG yet as the only thing approaching SIGCOV is the eMAGE DM article linked by the nominator.  This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON .  Jogurney ( talk ) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NYC Guru ( talk ) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per GiantSnowman no evidence of notability.  D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Reactions to the 2023 Turkish presidential election: We've never created entire pages of reactions for elections as far as I can tell, even for larger nations such as the USA , France , or Brazil , or similarly regional powers such as Argentina .  The only remotely similar article I can find deals with that of Belarus in 2020 , which was deemed notable due to the divided claims of victory and massive protests following.  With most of this article being simple congratulations, it can be far more appropriately addressed on the election page.  The Kip ( talk ) 05:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Entirely unnecessary article.  Alexcs114 ( talk ) 08:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unnecessary, no demonstration that the reaction are notable enough for their own article.  — Czello ( music ) 08:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - 2023 Turkish presidential election#Reactions covers the topic sufficiently enough.  A separate page is unnecessary and contains too much commonplace material.  Godtres ( talk ) 11:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems to have been draftified already?  -- GGT ( talk ) 14:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GGT , it was draftified by the creator and subsequently submitted again through AfC with just a minor change to a few sources. Since users here right now aren't in favour of draftification but rather deletion on the basis that this is outright not notable on its own, I've reverted the move to allow for this discussion to continue, as this may be an attempt to evade the AfD. ~Styyx Talk ? 14:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – utterly pointless article, made all the more pointless by not actually stating what most of the reactors actually said or how they reacted. Salient points, if there are any, can be included in the main article on the election. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 14:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all the points above.  Aintabli ( talk ) 19:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If a reaction is meaningful, it should be described in context.  This is not the place to catalogue without context entirely routine statements made after pretty much every election.  Reywas92 Talk 20:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this seems to not be anything of value, does not detail what reactions actually were.  Masohpotato ( talk ) 17:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing worth merging, and this article is just a pointless list of countries that posted about the election.  Would just be a WP:QUOTEFARM if the quotes were in the article, but it's even less useful than that.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nikos Loverdos: Only sources referenced in the article are databases and do not address the subject in-depth.  BEFORE search shows no American nor Greek-language sources found.  Tails Wx 00:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cycling , Olympics ,  and Greece .  Tails Wx 00:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Someone who just competed once in the Olympic Games; there is nothing more on him.  ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk ) 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No indication of notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 21:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Michael McLintock: Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"James Lafazanos: As always, the notability test for actors is not satisfied just because the article lists roles, and requires external validation of the significance of his roles through reliable source coverage about him and/or noteworthy acting awards.  But the only ""reference"" cited here at all is a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person on a non-notable blog, which is not a reliable source or a carrier of notability at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Johanna Bennett (producer): Lacking in-depth coverage and pretty much all of it is just because she's Tony Bennett 's daughter.  This People article is the best source I could find and it's an ""All About Tony Bennett's Kids"" article with a short section on her.  Notability is not inherited .  C F A 💬 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Entertainment .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Leaving aside ""Tony Bennett's daughter"" (because notability is not inherited ) what's left doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV . -- AntientNestor ( talk ) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as noted above.  Very little of what she has done amounts to being notable as we define it .  Her only claims to notability are her father and being on the board of an organization.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Shout! Studios releases: All lists of this nature have previously been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination) ; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases ; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases ; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases ; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases , the list goes on... -- wooden superman 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists . -- wooden superman 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator.  hinnk ( talk ) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Shout!  Studios . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) (Note: I DeproDed the page and mentioned then that a redirect should be considered) [ reply ] That would imply that there would be a list of releases at the target though, which there shouldn't be.  -- wooden superman 09:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"14 No Chingrakhali Government Primary School: None of the sources provide any independent significant coverage on this school.  McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh .  McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The Bengali source looks independent.  It appears to be a series featuring a number of schools.  What criteria was involved in leading to this school's inclusion isn't readily apparent, nonetheless, it hints the school has some degree of notability now or in the past.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples are you speaking of the first reference?  It doesn't really say much except some basic facts I wouldn't consider that significant.  McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 22:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the first ref.  And having had a break and come back to this it looks like I've misread; the ""No. 14"" is just part of the school's name.  The Bengali article is dated 8 December 2023 and has the same picture as was posted to Commons that same day and included here.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sourcing does not satisfy GNG/NORG and it's unlikely this primary school is notable.  Rupples ( talk ) 23:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Otherwise, this is now G5'able, for a speedier resolution.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 10:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . should not be deleted. Because the said school is Govt. WikiShakib ( talk ) 20:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Blocked sock.) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 06:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom, Fails GNG, nothing found with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 19:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"RevPro Uprising 2016: I can't find any significant journalistic news coverage about the event Sionk ( talk ) 22:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions .  Sionk ( talk ) 22:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2023 Cork Junior A Hurling Championship: Unreferenced.  Too Soon.  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ireland .  🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  Would ideally be restored to draft.  Or deleted.  Author/mover was premature in moving this from draft to main article space.  Given that the event hasn't yet occurred, there is zero indication of sufficient coverage to meet WP:NSEASONS , WP:NSPORTSEVENT or WP:SIGCOV .  Per nom, WP:TOOSOON also applies.  Nothing appears to have changed since was draftified in April .  Author/mover has been reminded of applicable guidelines (by multiple editors) more than a few times previously.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 16:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Unreferenced, and so fails verifiability .   The move back to article space after draftification without providing the needed references was disruptive.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tregynrig: Does not appear to meet notability criteria, other sources fail to confirm notability.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions .  Kazamzam ( talk ) 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing found except listings for a beach cottage and misleading WP-scraped content (a perfect illustration of why articles for such nonexistent locales should be deleted).   Only source is Google Maps, which is a red flag as they source data from WP, among other places, leading to a possibility of circular referencing.   Could just as easily be a copyright trap for all we know.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does exist but its not an OS settlement [18] (it only shows ""[other features]"" rather than ""[Other Settlement]"") so probably doesn't pass GEOLAND and could be merged with Llanbadrig .  The Welsh Wikipedia article doesn't contain anything substantial.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to Cemaes which a couple of real estate sites treat it as a synonym of.   It is called a ""family-run farm"" [19] and a ""620 acre holding"" [20] both of which indicate it is not a settlement covered by GEOLAND.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"XTiles: Sources are generally limited to short mentions or reviews (neither of which are reliable with significant coverage), without a unambiguous neutral claim to notability, and I can't find any potential sources not of the type ""list of best/new apps for note taking"", for example.  Complex / Rational 14:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but please don't delete the article, I'm still working on it and improving it.  Barabashenjatko ( talk ) 17:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I reverted the previous tag {{advert|date=May 2023}} as my research is not complete yet, can you check the article again when I'm done?  Barabashenjatko ( talk ) 17:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added more information with links to sources.  I wrote the article based on the example of Notion (productivity software).  https://www.g2.com is this rating popular or not enough?  Barabashenjatko ( talk ) 20:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Barabashenjatko I put an under construction template at the top of the article itself, to let editors know it is still a work in progress.   Hopefully, this will put the brakes on the AFD issue until you are finished with your work.  I was going to suggest you do the work in your sandbox, but I see you're way ahead of me on that.   Good luck.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 Thank you very much!  Barabashenjatko ( talk ) 08:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 Perhaps you can draw my attention to the mistakes I made while writing the article?  Barabashenjatko ( talk ) 08:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Barabashenjatko the subject matter is beyond my area of knowledge, so I can't be helpful there.   However, ComplexRational who nominated this for deletion is also an administrator on Wikipedia.   Perhaps they could guide you the right direction in finishing this article.  — Maile ( talk ) 11:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm also not an expert on the subject matter, but I can tell you that many of the sources currently present in the article do not demonstrate that this software is notable .  Namely, they only contain short mentions of the subject and are primarily lists and product reviews subject to the discretion of the publisher.  In contrast, the types of sources demonstrating notability typically include books or dedicated reviews from independent publishers; these then usually exclude short opinion pieces (not detailed), blogs (usually considered unreliable), or the company's webpage (not independent).  This essay on rough notability standards for software goes into greater detail.  Nonetheless, this source which you recently added might be usable for notability purposes, as PC world is a widely-known publication.  If you can find multiple similar sources, perhaps notability could be demonstrated; I couldn't find much outside of short customer reviews in a quick search, though again, perhaps someone more knowledgeable about publications in this field would know better, especially regarding foreign-language sources.  In addition, text such as On medium.com you can find 33 interesting articles about xTiles, published by various authors.  and In September 2022 Jessica Tan of ContentGrip publishes 19 awesome apps for freelance writers in 2022, xTiles in fourth place.  comes across as promotional.  Wikipedia articles should aim to describe a subject neutrally, i.e., without suggesting that the author is biased or trying to sell a product.  This means that language such as ""you"", ""interesting"", ""awesome"",  should be cut out, leaving behind a straightforward description of the facts.  I realize this is a lot to digest, and would be happy to answer more specific questions.  The main takeaway is that you need several reputable sources describing this app in detail to demonstrate that it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it.  Complex / Rational 13:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, I just tried to add as much as possible all possible articles published on I-net Barabashenjatko ( talk ) 14:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2 and who removes these messages?  Because I accidentally deleted it and more of them appeared) Barabashenjatko ( talk ) 14:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can remove the under construction template whenever you're no longer actively working on the article.  The advertisement tag is related to one of the issues in this deletion discussion, and I don't believe it's entirely fixed; the orphan template means that no articles link to XTiles and so ought to remain until such a link is created.  Finally, the article for deletion template must not be removed until this deletion discussion runs its course.  Complex / Rational 19:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Any editor can add or remove these 'tags' when it is appropriate.  They are there to warn readers of potential issues, and alerts other editors that there is a problem with the article they may need to fix.  Once the problem in the tags is addressed, as described by the text the tag generates, an editor can remove it.  There are a lot of tags and a lot of different issues tags address, but it's a working system developed over the past 15 years.  SWinxy ( talk ) 19:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this is a promo, xTiles is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  Hadal1337 ( talk ) 15:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A WP:BEFORE Google search did not return any in-depth, independent, third-party coverage (all the results were promotional articles).  Given the abysmal quality of the sources, no inclusion criterion at WP:NSOFT can be argued.  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 22:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"DIDWW Ireland: The sources in the article, and those found in my own WP:BEFORE , do not support a claim to notability under WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG .  Frankly, from what I can tell, there aren't even sufficiently reliable sources to support the text in the article.  And the level of FV issues and apparent REFBOMBing  is more than a little problematic.  As raised by Bastun , Spleodrach and Ww2censor in the previous AfD discussion , the majority of the references available (in the article and elsewhere) are press releases, directory-style listings, ROTM industry publications and other trivial passing mentions that do not support a claim to notability.  (In almost every case, they don't even support the text they are placed alongside.)  That multiple versions of this article continue to be created in Draft form(s) is also confusing and disquieting...  Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions .  Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Note that the separate Draft:DIDWW Ireland Limited was created shortly after the previous article was deleted and prior AfD was closed.  It was AfC declined before yet another draft ( Draft:DIDWW Ireland Ltd. ) was created and promptly moved to the main article namespace.  Draft:DIDWW Ireland was previously deleted as an abandoned draft .  There's a lot going on here.  And it's difficult to follow.  But it seems that this content keeps being recreated.  Without any of the issues raised (by multiple contributors) being addressed.  Likely need a definitive AfD outcome/consensus once and for all.... ) Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Traumnovelle ( talk ) 21:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - I agree with the need for a definitive AfD decision.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - not a notable company.  Spleodrach ( talk ) 11:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kenan Cronjé: The most I found were three sentences here .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"EBikeGo: All of the coverage of this company seems to consist of trivial announcements (for example, product releases , funding , hiring , and acquisitions ) in trade publications .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation , India ,  and Maharashtra .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] sbuject is notable accourding to WP:PSTS , other article are using same product section check Ather Energy , there might be some trivial articles but not all, there are my good sources attached to the article.  Starcruexz ( talk ) 09:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Starcruexz : First, notability is not determined by PSTS.  It is determined by WP:NCORP , the Wikipedia guideline for notability for corporations.  Second, it would be helpful if you could provide three sources that you believe prove that this corporation is notable.  Each of those sources should be (1) secondary, (2) independent of the company , and (3) reliable , and each source should (4) provide significant coverage of the corporation.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Voorts pls check [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Starcruexz ( talk ) 10:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] some more [30] [31] Starcruexz ( talk ) 10:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If any of these were cited in the article at the time of my nomination, I don't think they establish notability.  For other sources, it would be helpful if you could summarize what each source says.  You might try {{ ORGCRIT assess table }} .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Nominators concerns appear equally about the (bad) article quality, the sources exceed routine coverage.  IgelRM ( talk ) 18:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My concerns are about notability.  I noted the promotional tone because I think that is often relevant in deletion discussions.  For example, some users might ! vote to speedy delete an article for being unambiguous advertising or promotion .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Assessment of sources provided by Starcruexz below: Created with templates {{ ORGCRIT assess table }} and {{ ORGCRIT assess }} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Secondary?  Overall value toward ORGCRIT Financial Express Seems to be based on press release/interview of company partnering with the article subject.  Routine announcement of business partnership.  Brands Equity Interview published in a trade publication .  Routine announcement of brand partnership.  Economic Times Tech Product announcement based on press release.  Routine product announcement.  India Today Product announcement that appears to be based on a press release with no independent reporting or context.  Routine product announcement.  Economic Times Auto Product announcement based on press release and quotes from company officials.  Routine company acquisition announcement.  Mint The wrong source appears to be linked; this is a story about something completely unrelated.  If the intent was to link to this story about a routine acquisition, I already noted in my nom that that source does not provide significant coverage.  Business Standard Announcement of setting up manufacturing plant based on press release and quotes from company officials.  Routine announcement.  Mint Appears to be based on press release.  Routine funding announcement.  EnergyWorld Interview with company founder and COO.  Overview of what the company's plans are.  News18 Announcement of business partnership based on press release.  Routine business partnership.  Gadgets360 Announcement of manufacturing plant based on company press release.  Routine announcement.  To meet the notability guideline for corporations , there must be multiple sources, each of which must have significant coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources .  Coverage is not significant if it is based on routine announcements and coverage is not independent if it is based on reporting that substantially repeats press releases ( churnalism ).  None of the sources above meet those guidelines and I have not found any other sources that establish this company's notability.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that the article has a whopping 56 sources cited, and the above is just short of 20% of those sources (assuming that there are no repeat citations in the article).  It is unlikely that the remaining sources cited in the article establish notability; just skimming through the list of references and looking at their titles and publications show that they appear to be largely routine announcements about some of the same events provided in the above sources).  In any event, I note that the burden in a deletion discussion is on those arguing to keep an article.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this is a non-notable company and very likely the article is promotional: but whatever the case, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to assemble a large number of insignificant sources to make it look as if there's something worth noting here.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources would you deem not ""insignificant""?  There are similar articles on Ola Electric and Ather Energy .  IgelRM ( talk ) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about article X is not a good argument at AfD.  The existence of an article does not imply that a topic itself is notable.  Those pages might also fail NCORP; Ather Energy has been tagged as promotional for 6 months.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The page existence doesn't have in-depth, independent coverage about the ""company"" by the journalist.  Major sources are all about launches, funding, and expansion.  Lordofhunter ( talk ) 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and all delete-votes, not notable.  BoraVoro ( talk ) 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Looks like a good press campaign that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA .  A lot of churunalism but nothing in-depth.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 08:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CNMall41 @ BoraVoro @ Chiswick Chap @ Voorts i will try to solve the issue and find and add some reliable source, meanwhile i would like to know that what is the meaning of significant covrage and indepentent souce ?, please send me some links from Ola Electric or any silimer article to understand your prospctive on significant covrage and indepentent souce. significant covrage might be the issue but in my knowladge all the links that i have added is indepentent souce for exmple all the source in the above table is not directly related to eBikeGo. Starcruexz ( talk ) 08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Starcruexz : , you are the second editor to bring up Ola Electric so hopefully you  saw the previous response. Many of the links provided by those voting are what you will need to review. For instance, WP:NCOPR is the main guideline. You can review WP:ORGCRIT which will help you determine the proper sources to use and also WP:CORPDEPTH to understand the depth of coverage needed to show notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Starcruexz : I have an explanation of what I think significant coverage means in a user essay that I've written.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Voorts Thanks let m check Starcruexz ( talk ) 09:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Voorts i found some sources with mentions of EBikeGo on scholor, pls check [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Starcruexz ( talk ) 11:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Starcruexz : I am not your research assistant.  It is your responsibility to explain why you think these sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 12 and 13 are the same source, authored by an organization that "" collaborates with industry "" and EBikeGo is only mentioned once on page 8.  14 only mentions EBikeGo once on page 13.  15 is by the same people as sources 12 and 13, and EBikeGo is again only briefly mentioned once on page 100.  16 mentions EBikeGo twice on pages 65 and 67.  None of these contain significant coverage , which requires detailed discussion of the company.  In the future, please explain why the sources you are providing contain significant coverage.  Posting links and asking others to do the work for you is not how AfD discussions should go.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Imam Hassan Sharif: Coverage is almost solely about the death and the event itself doesn't appear to satisfy WP:LASTING .  Appears to be a simple murder and that's it.  Noah , AA Talk 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Islam ,  and New Jersey .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator.  JM ( talk ) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:VICTIM .   No assertion of other notability.   If coverage continues over a period of months, an article about the shooting might be appropriate, but it's too soon for that yet.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only brief coverage because of his murder.  Johndavies837 ( talk ) 11:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Appears to be a WP:BIO1E (and WP:NOTNEWS ) case.  If a few months from now there is still news coverage of the murder, it may be appropriate to create a page about the murder then.  Nsk92 ( talk ) 15:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VICTIM .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  DarkSide830 ( talk ) 06:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Masjid Muhammad , where he was Imam and where he was shot.  Certainly relevant to that article.  Djflem ( talk ) 16:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sameja (clan): Fails WP:GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan and they are a branch of a former ruling dynasty.  You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles.  Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors.  The references provided are more than sufficient and reliable.  Sir Calculus ( talk ) 05:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I know nothing about this although I am confused about the content of the page.  First Samma (tribe) is said to be a clan, then Sameja (clan) is said to be a clan and then on the page there are clans (or subclans?).  It is unclear to me how many of the sources on the page are actually substantially discussing the topic.  Second, there are wp pages in other languages for Samma (tribe) but none have one for Sameja (clan) .  It strikes me that unless someone can show a source which goes into depth then we should maybe follow the lead of the other WP language versions.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  00:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomin as clearly fails WP:GNG .  2404:3100:1817:350F:1:0:B411:827F ( talk ) Delete or merge back.  It's a fork .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:GNG and no significant and reliable coverage by secondary sources means it fails WP:SIGCOV too.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Roddy Lenga: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Oceania .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No indication of notability.  Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 May 9: His business, MHD ACERE, maybe notable but he can't inherit its notability.  Fails WP:GNG .  US-Verified ( talk ) 12:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oman .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The Forbes Middle East 30 Under 30 listing demonstrates that the subject is of high significance [16] .  However, there are only a very few additional reliable, independent sources that are useful, for example: [17] , [18] .  This story by Entrepreneur, although a contributor post, is still very credible since it was published by the managing editor of the publication [19] .  In summary, the subject nearly meets the notability guidelines.  More reliable sources would be useful.  I believe it may be insightful for readers if it were to remain in the encyclopedia, but any promotional and/or branded information must be removed.  Multi7001 ( talk ) 02:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Forbes publishes hundreds of lists such as Middle East 30 Under 30.  Being on such a list doesn't mean he is automatically qualified.  Wikipedia requires at least three in-depth articles in reliable sources to prove the notability.  US-Verified ( talk ) 02:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a few more reliable, independent sources covering the subject in great detail.  However, it seems like it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, which is why I refrained from being either in favor of or against this AfD process.  Multi7001 ( talk ) 01:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As it stands, article fails GNG and BIO, but I think there might be Arabic sources.  Ping me if multiple IS RS with SIGCOV are added to article.  // Timothy :: talk 08:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One last chance, in case Arabic sources are discovered.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 04:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Arabic references added from reference 16-21 as instructed.  There are a plethora of other Arabic sources as he belongs to the royal and political family of Oman( Khonsuhorus ( talk ) 03:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Routine coverage.  We need WP:SIGCOV .  US-Verified ( talk ) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, just to remind Liz , that you have asked them in June 2022 to dislose paid work and they haven't complied yet.  US-Verified ( talk ) 10:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but I already replied in June 2022 that I am not a paid editor.  ( Khonsuhorus ( talk ) 13:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist to evaluate sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Times of Oman meets general notability guidelines as a reliable, independent source.  109.169.34.46 ( talk ) 15:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No.  Press releases discussing routine coverage like MHD ACERE signs agreement with Chedi Muscat is not WP:SIGCOV .  This AfD is attracting some SPAs now which seems suspicious.  US-Verified ( talk ) 10:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV sources to meet NBIO.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ondrej Sobola: No credible independent sources.  Biruitorul Talk 07:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Austria , Hungary , Slovakia ,  and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no reputable independant sources with significant coverage and so not WP:GNG or WP:BIO .  While there's a case that the link to the Tree of Peace project merits a merge, the information is already there.  Shaws username ( talk ) 14:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing in terms of coverage that would support a WP:GNG pass.  Being the ""inspiration"" for an organization that might not even be notable itself falls well short of any notability standard.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Naina Sarwar: Charlie ( talk ) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India .  Charlie ( talk ) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  She is notable according to guidelines ; passing WP:NACTOR for at least 3 significant roles in notable films; and has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, which was not the case at the moment of the 1st Afd. .- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 18:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Might pass ACTOR with proper sourcing.  Most of what I find is the thinly veiled promotional articles [56] , [57] , common in India, that don't help with the RS.  If we can find better sourcing about her movie roles, I'd revisit.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This seems ok [58] as it's a review of the film, confirming the role.  But we need more than this.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : i think she passes the criteria WP:NACTOR but we need more reliable sources.  the new indian express look like notable Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  fails WP:GNG .  DJ InstaMalik ( talk ) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE .  Everything found , and thankfully it's not much, stinks badly of promotional purpose.  Oaktree b's olfactory powers are well directed.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO/CREATIVE.  Nothing in article or keep votes provides WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth , BEFORE showed promos and name listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV.  Source eval: Comments Source Promo interview  1.  ""Naina Sarwar makes a mark in all South Indian languages"".  New Indian Express.  8 April 2023.  Retrieved 11 November 2023.  Promo interview  2. ^ ""Naina is Destiny's Favourite Child"".  New Indian Express.  4 August 2015.  Retrieved 11 November 2023.  Name listed, nothing meeting SIGCOV  3. ^ ""Kolanji movie review: Father-son bonding, lacks strong story"".  Deccan Chronicle.  27 July 2019.  Retrieved 11 November 2023.  Name listed, nothing meeting SIGCOV  4. ^ ""Eeswar's second film 'Suryapet Junction' completes the shoot!"".  The Times of India.  22 September 2022.  Promo interview  5. ^ ""Naina Sarwar is set for her Telugu film debut"".  The Times of India.  23 August BLPs require strong sourcing, might be a case of TOOSOON.  // Timothy :: talk 14:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"24 (Turkish TV channel): Chidgk1 ( talk ) 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mba Vitus Onyekachi: Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 21:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Nigeria .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 21:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , Fails WP:GNG Alex-h ( talk ) 16:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG ; the only online coverage available are routine/trivial stuff like match reports and statistical databases.  Jogurney ( talk ) 13:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"OpenElement: Existing article contains one reference to the subject's website, Was PRODed, but the template was removed without addressing concerns.  Greenman ( talk ) 10:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Greenman ( talk ) 10:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Contested PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references.  A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.  Dialectric ( talk ) 15:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The PROD was opposed by an IP on an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basis, which is not sustainable here.  Searches for Element Technologie and openElement find a couple of product reviews ( BetaNews (2013) , Softpedia (2017) ) which praise the product's range of templates, but do not indicate attained notability .  AllyD ( talk ) 05:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gaurav Nanda: The sources available in the article only appear as simple mentions, which is not enough to demonstrate notability.  And the history of contributions to the article assumes a WP:COI .  Ciudatul ( talk ) 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers .  Ciudatul ( talk ) 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Computer mediated environment: On consideration I doubt merging is suitable, as this article is unsourced Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or incubate - The article fails nearly all of the WP:GNG .  And there are no WP:RS !  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Basically a WP:DICTDEF .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The minimum definition already exists on page CME .  It may make sense to redirect there when deleting it.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hasan Khan (actor): The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG.  No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc.  Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : He is a notable actor.  And how he started his career and everything can be found in his interviews with The News Internatioanl and daily times. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 07:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His notable roles in drama Dil-e-Veran , Amrit Aur Maya , Soteli Mamta , Juda Hue Kuch Iss Tarhan , Soya Mera Naseeb and Hina Ki Khushboo .  These sources have mentioned his acting career and education.  [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne ( talk • contribs ) References ^ Caligiuri, Vittorio (2024-05-02).  ""A new ring in the spiral: re-reading Marini's work at the end of the hegemony of US-led imperialismBook Review of Ruy Mauro Marini, The dialectics of dependency . New York, Monthly Review Press, 2022 (1st edition in English)"" .  Middle East Critique : 1–6.  doi : 10.1080/19436149.2024.2348306 .  ISSN 1943-6149 .  ^ Ford, Derek R. ; Svensson, Maria (2024-04-13).  ""Still-existing utopian pedagogy: Architecture, curriculum, and the revolutionary imaginary"" .  Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies : 1–17.  doi : 10.1080/10714413.2024.2336816 .  ISSN 1071-4413 .  ^ ""Hasan Khan"" .  The News International .  ^ ""Hasan Khan — the superstar of tomorrow"" .  The News International .  ^ ""Stunning and brilliant – Hasan Khan"" .  The News International .  These paid interviews =  primary sources.  Do you have any substantial evidence ?  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These aren't paid interviews.  These newspapers interviews many other actors and models as well and they write about everything.  The News International is owned by Jang News Group which is one of the oldest newspaper in Pakistan.  Daily Times was run by Politician Salman Taseer until his death.  The News International also Daily Times are both English major newspapers in Pakistan. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] I'm not questioning the credibility of the sources, but rather the interviews themselves.  While it's common for actors to be interviewed, these interviews alone may not sufficiently demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:N.  Additionally, these interviews (primary coverage) are not sufficient to verify claims of significant roles in TV dramas/films.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 12:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As noted in another AfD also regarding a sock insinuation involving the same users, also on the May 7 log, ""unless something is confirmed, best not to mention it.""  Calling someone a suspected sock without confirmation is inflammatory and biasing.  Furthermore, that linked sock investigation shows that checkuser did not establish connection between BeauSuzanne and the other names.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Doczilla , Sure - this one is old comment and I have retracted allegations of socking since then.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, but you didn't retract it here.  It would have been appropriate if you had struck that out yourself.  I would suggest doing so if you have any other lingering sock accusations that you have not directly clarified.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  15:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These sources (primary source) are used in other articels as well. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 12:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Delete : Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS.  Above sources are promo interviews, fail WP:IS, and do not demonstrate notability .  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 19:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Need further input on the sources presented to make a clear consensus either way - more voices will help.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The WP:THREE presented all are by the same publication (The News) and two by the same author (Asif Kha), published within a couple months of each other and all are interviews with one being a straight Q&A.   Per WP:GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability so at best they count as a single source.   As stated by TimothyBlue, the other sources are brief mentions, press releases, promo, or routine coverage and the CLF award is a non-notable award.  S0091 ( talk ) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sabiha Mehzabin Oishee: Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete - Fails WP:GNG .  Can be a speedy deletion.  - AlbeitPK ( talk ) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Businesspeople ,  and Women .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete References are not appropriate-profiles and self-published sources.  Did not established notability at all.  Ontor22 ( talk ) 11:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lali Chichinadze: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Georgia (country) .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] *Redirect – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She is not mentioned at Georgia women's national football team so a redirect may confuse the reader.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per @ Spiderone .  Svartner ( talk ) 19:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I can't find anything about her in Georgian Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NFOOTY .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dope Caesar: Subject failed WP:GNG Calyx2s ( talk ) 11:21, 23 March 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 March 23 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 11:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Nigeria .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable DJ that meets WP:GNG per the coverage received in multiple reliable secondary sources.  The sources discussed her and her acts in details.  She has huge social media following and on Instagram alone she has over 250 thousand followers and other social media platforms.  Yangopano ( talk ) 14:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources are blogs and not reliable, It can't establish notability and social media doesn't guarantee notability.  Calyx2s ( talk ) 19:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] COMMENT: refer to WP:NEWSBLOG , blogs of news organization are acceptable if the writers are professional.  Sibtehassanbutt ( talk ) 23:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am impressed by your learning curve.  Aintabli ( talk ) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aintabli me too Tehonk ( talk ) 01:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - For the above reason by the nominator , the subject Not notable.  Couldn't find a credible source on Google search mostly are blogs and this is purely an advertisement.  Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SIR refers to a opinion and is not an approved policy/guideline Sibtehassanbutt ( talk ) 21:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant Significant, independent and reliable (SIR), thank you for pointing out the wrong link shared.  The article source are not WP:RS and also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV .  Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If not for the content, the three sources are from reliable sources in Nigeria: The Native Mag , NotJustOk and Culture Custodian .  (Suggesting: this is just for WP:RS ) and doesn't mean opposing/challenging the state of their content for now.  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 21:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Tehonk ( talk ) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I am skeptical of the nominators statement of SIGCOV.  Based in Nigeria sourcing, NotJustOk is a reliable source, and Culture custodian though it was a lyric and few I yet interviews.  There are few coverage but fails WP: ANYBIO .  Closer to notability though I am seeing a possible case of WP: UPE .  All the Best!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 21:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : Found these additional sources: Vanguard reliable per WP:NGRS , bellanaija 1 and bellanaija 2 , which are generally unreliable per WP:NGRS .  Out of the remaining articles, culturecustodian is a reliable source per NGRS, Naija News is borderline and the remaining are not listed, so they could go either way.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the Vanguard publications which is the first source see [ [43] ] so can't be used and For the 2 and 3rd sources see Generally unreliable sources for Nigeria-related information Calyx2s ( talk ) 00:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I do not think this passes WP:NSINGER or WP:ANYBIO .  Aintabli ( talk ) 22:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Of all the arguments so far, I find that by Royal88888 to be the most convincing, because the musician has been covered with a certain degree of professionalism by sources that have been deemed reliable at WP:NGRS .  That coverage often lapses into typical promotional hype but there is some reliable info with which to build an encyclopedic article, though it would be a stub for the time being.  The current WP article is pretty high on hype itself, but that junk can be removed through the standard editing process.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Some of the sources cited are reliable and their coverage of the subject are fair enough to support the article.  Museveni1700 ( talk ) 20:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For some of the sources listed see [ [44] ] and Generally unreliable sources for Nigeria-related information by so doing the article can't meet WP:THREE .  Calyx2s ( talk ) 01:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the sources presented in the article and result of a before search performed point to their minimum notability and per the comment by Royal88888 .  Lagdo22 ( talk ) 06:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Sockpuppet of",delete
"C.W. Raines: The two references in the article are passing mentions of how soccer has helped him as a COO, strangely enough.  Regardless of this, there's no coverage outside of these two passing mentions, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT .  IncompA 00:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Football ,  and United States of America .  IncompA 00:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't find any evidence to say this article meets GNG.  MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 18:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Persiyali Yalimo: Local football club.  No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG.  North8000 ( talk ) 14:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Maybe @ Das osmnezz know something about this team.  Svartner ( talk ) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Olivia May: Clarityfiend ( talk ) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Women , Television ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Starring or being any film crew of any Asylum mockbuster does not make anybody notable, it's a sign where your career is heading to.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Absolutely nothing of notability in this article beyond a single film role in 2009 InDimensional ( talk ) 14:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There is no coverage of this subject in any major publication.  desmay ( talk ) 19:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wyprawa Robinson: Sending it here to see if anyone else can find something that would justify keeping this article, and if not, then it should be deleted.  Donald D23 talk to me 13:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Poland .  Donald D23 talk to me 13:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not seeing how this meets WP:GNG .  I've started an AfD on pl wiki for that article too, and will update my vote here in the unlikely chance someone finds good sources there or such.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 16:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Engineering Holding: Nothing in Russian article or language results indicates CORP level depth.  Star Mississippi 20:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Companies ,  and Russia .  Star Mississippi 20:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rafique Sayed: TheChronikler7 ( talk ) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Photography ,  and India .  TheChronikler7 ( talk ) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete most references are not-reliable sources.  Almost all titles have been doctored to sound like they are news articles about the subject when they are either about someone else (ie: the one titled ""Rafique Sayed captured actress Shefali Shah on Vogue India"" is actually ""Shefali Shah on whether playing real-life characters limits or frees an actor’s creativity"" and the only hit for Sayed is a credit for a single photo) or misrepresenting a non-rs source (ie:""Rafique Sayed article on Pixel Village"" is actually just his own self-published Pixel Village profile).  A draft of this article has already been rejected 3 times this month at Draft:Rafique Sayed .  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 14:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Updated the article with strong sources.  The person is already notable.  The sources are not ""strong""-that is why the draft was rejected 3 times already.  You are still misrepresenting references by changing the title names to make it sound like they are news articles about Sayed, when they are actually about different people with at best a quick passing mention of Sayed and sometimes just a photo credit.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 11:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The draft was not rejected three times.   It was declined three times, and has now been declined four times.   If this article is kept, the draft should be redirected to the article.   If the article is deleted, the draft should be kept.   Not commenting yet on whether to keep the article.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 20:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Daniil Rzhevsky: Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Article created by WP:SPA , sources are all PR/promo, social media, DBs, or subject's creations.  A cursory search suggests subject would not meet WP:SINGER or WP:GNG .  — siro χ o 08:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Paloma Aguirre: A draft has been created, Draft:Paloma Aguirre , which was declined twice, once for sourcing issues, once for tone issues.   The author then created this article, which is the same as the draft, in article space.   This bypassed AFC review, and bypassing AFC review is permitted except for paid editors.   Review of the sources shows that this article does not establish biographical notability .   Only the first reference is independent.   The first reference, a newspaper account of her election, is a good source.   The other four sources are associated with the subject or with organizations with which she is associated: Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 sandiegotribune.com Description of her election as Mayor Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 www.coastal.ca.gov States that she is a member of this commission No No Yes No 3 www.paloma-aguirre.com/ Her personal web site No Yes No No 4 www.imperialbeachca.gov The city's web site No Yes ?  No 5 caseagrant.ucsd.edu A long account, that appears to have been written by her No Yes Yes No So this article can be deleted, at least for now, rather than being reviewed and sanitized due to the conflict of interest , and the draft can be left for improvement.   This does not mean that she is not notable, or that she is notable, but that the article does not establish notability, and so the questions of tone and neutrality do not need to be addressed.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women ,  and California .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Notable.  Reference #1 and this make the threshold.  And that’s just from the first page of a google search.  If an editor has violated WP:PAID and/or WP:COI, that’s a behavioural problem, warn them, block them, but, as well debated at WT:DEL , PAID violations are not enforced by content deletion.  — SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 04:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment , Mexico ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete paid article, mayor of a small town who hasn't received any coverage outside her local area (or her university.) Strong delete here per our custom.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Some coverage in the San Diego papers, but it's strictly local [24] .  Might be notable in the future as the first Latino mayor, but we just don't have enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for now.  Paid editing shouldn't be taken into account when judging notability, but this could be WP:TOOSOON , there is a number of hits in G news but they really only cite quotes as mayor, etc.  TLA tlak 16:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Even ignoring the paid editing, her claim to notability is as mayor of a fairly small city (not even in the 100 largest cities in California).  Routine coverage of her election as mayor by local media does not contribute to establishing notability.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Coverage is ultra-local.  I don't the significant coverage typically needed to satisfy WP:BIO for a WP:BLP .  Not WP:NPOL .  scope_creep Talk 07:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Small-town mayors are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist as mayors — the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on minimally verifying that she exists, it hinges on writing a substantial article referenced to a significant volume and depth of media coverage that deeply analyzes her political impact: specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded as mayor, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.  But there's nothing like that here, and the article is based almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability but for one hit of ""Paloma Aguirre wins mayoral election"" in the local media, which is not enough by itself.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Trafalgar Releasing: Expressive101 ( talk ) 11:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Companies ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dominic Joshua Ngene (PhD): There are many parts of it that are uncited as well.  Also, article is an orphan, and nothing links to Dominic Joshua Ngene as well, which is what the article should be titled anyway.  ‍ Relativity 02:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  ‍ Relativity 02:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : From Google, his name pops up here [22] , which doesn't fill me with hope.  He does not appear to be notable, and the flowery language doesn't help.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PhD with zero hits in Gscholar, appears to be marketing/promo article.  I was expecting something based on the level of ""success"" the article portrays.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would not delve into that to avoid sounding like one promoting or advertising him for any reason, however, it might interest you to note that he got an honorary doctoral degree from The university of Ecotes University, Benin.  His focus may not be 100% on scholarly inputs, but majorly for his contribution to life in the field of philanthropy or just other contribution to his society.  Brandheadway ( talk ) 18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I dont agree with you to the extent that, He obviously wanted to make a difference, but his experience was not deep enough to handle the kind of business he ventured into, a lot of even older and very experienced investment Bankers run into problems, a quick search on google will show you the long list of business decisions that went bunkers.   they thought they were doing the right thing, but they were SINCERELY WRONG!  The culture of total knock down of mistakes in the quest to create business success is not good.  I think while it is expedient to bring to book any behavoiur that is against set business standards, we should also try to strike a balance between encouraging the youths to venture into the risky world of entrepreneurship/business.  Brandheadway ( talk ) 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If it wasn't nominated for AfD, I likely would've tagged it for WP:G11 .  When the sections of the article include ""Innovative Fintech Entrepreneurship"", ""Thought Leadership and Mentorship"", and ""Work-Life Balance and Values"", and when the sources read like a press release, I'm inclined to believe that the subject lacks any real notability.  It's also worth noting upon a quick Google search, the only coverage (minimal) that comes up revolve around the subject of the article allegedly committing fraud & the aforementioned press releases.  Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be in order you kindly read the article again.  its been reviewed and you may not find it advertorial in any way.  most comments there are sourced, and you can peruse the link.  thanks.  Brandheadway ( talk ) 18:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete : G11 should work Just i yaya 03:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found this story , is this the same fellow?  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that's him since various sources mentioned he was just 21 years.  Otuọcha ( talk ) 19:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nominator.  Obvious advertising.  Otuọcha ( talk ) 19:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face.  your age and background should not be a deterrence.  failure is a good opportunity to start all over again.  dont give up.  thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article Brandheadway ( talk ) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] so it is PROMO, thank you for clearing that up.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is blatantly promotional (with lines including Dr. Joshua’s entrepreneurial spirit ignited during his early career, where he gained invaluable experience within established financial institutions and With a storied career that has reshaped the investment landscape and enriched the lives of many, Dr. Joshua continues to chart new territories in fintech innovation and philanthropy ) for every single section, and should have been tagged for G11.  So I would vote Speedy Delete (it can still be tagged as G11, though I won't do it here since not all opinions in this AfD are for speedy deletion).  VickKiang (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Its been reviewed to address the misinterpretation of the purpose of the content.  kindly read again.  Brandheadway ( talk ) 19:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nominator.  Blatant advertising and non-neutral use of language.  The first two sentences (minus the ""opening paragraph"") alone show this blatantly.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 10:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The username of the person who created the article (Brandheadway) is also the name of a Nigerian marketing agency, which leads me to believe the user was created solely to advertise and promote certain people.  Possibly even a conflict of interest.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 10:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your insinuation is very very discouraging, it is misleading.  You are wrong.  If i understand correctly, the primary motive behind wikipedia concept, The idea behind Wikipedia is to create a freely accessible, collaboratively edited encyclopedia that contains information on a wide range of topics.  Wikipedia aims to be a comprehensive and neutral source of information that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection.  It does not BAR certain professionals from editing or creating contents, the content created should be viewed for what it stands for, every content created should be weighed on the scale of the information loaded and the sources of such info, lets not discourage editirs and prospective editors with our negative , discouraging insinuations.  Lets not discourage certain professionals from enjoying what gives them fulfilment in life, by way of value and motivation to the youths.  when you insinuate that a particular professional is assumed to be PROMOTING some certain individuals, you already shut down the motivation to write articles or add to what wikipedia represents.  you may please go back and read the article again, its been reviewed.  wikipedia is not gender bias, neither is it profession bias, please let's not discourage people from contributing.  contents should be appraised on the source.  I WILL NOT COLLECT A DIME TO PROMOTE ANYONE ON WIKIPEDIA.  Thank you.  Brandheadway ( talk ) 19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It can be promotional without exchange of financial instruments or anything of value.  Building a brand or even using this to game the SEO results is considered promotional.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : and the photo's been tagged as a likely copyvio, copied from Instagram.  Another red flag.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, kindly re-read the article again, thank you.  Brandheadway ( talk ) 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face.  your age and background should not be a deterrence.  failure is a good opportunity to start all over again.  dont give up.  thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article.  Brandheadway ( talk ) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not advertorial or promotional in anyway.  kindly go through the article again, a major part of it has been reviewed to remove that misdirection.  Again, I think a part of us should encourage youths who see the likes of Elon musk, Mark Zuckerberg etc and want to be like them, Yes, they may go about the dream a wrong way, but if they are remorseful and willing to be corrected, they should be encouraged.  NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT IS EXPECTED OR GIVEN FOR THIS ARTICLE.  Brandheadway ( talk ) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face.  your age and background should not be a deterrence.  failure is a good opportunity to start all over again.  dont give up.  thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article Brandheadway ( talk ) 18:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not helping with the flowery language, the allegations of fake diplomas and not really much of substance.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The problem here is that this is blatant promo puffery and would need to be G11ed and recreated possibly through AfC , so that our veteran reviewers would give an eye.  BEFORE suggests that this passes GNG , but can't be kept in this current state because it is blatant advertorial.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 16:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This almost reads as someone who defrauded people and is trying to hide that fact.  I have concerns with the ""spin"" being put on what is otherwise not very flattering coverage of the individual.  At the very least, TNT this and send to AfC, if not outright deleted.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Shakira tribute albums: Fails WP:LISTN : one album listed has a review in Allmusic, everything else is covered only by streaming services, catalog listings, and eBay listings.  Since the prose is mostly WP:OR , I don't see anything worth merging.  hinnk ( talk ) 20:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:LISTN as this is not a grouping discussed in reliable sources, none of these albums are particularly notable, and this comes off as WP:OR .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above: If more releases were notable then I would still recommend converting to Category:Shakira tribute albums , but there's nothing here worth keeping anyway.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The policy-based arguments by everyone above are correct.  Also note that upon inspecting some of the listings, most of these ""tribute"" albums are made up of cover versions recorded by unknown studio musicians and remixes by equally unknown DJs.  Just about all of them are attempts by shysters to sponge money off a famous person's success, and all failed to generate notice.  That same notice is required for an article here.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 12:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  >>> Extorc .  talk 18:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  List of non-notable albums.  OK for a fan site.  Needs sources comparing the albums to satisfy the notability criteria for lists.  Rupples ( talk ) 19:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"The Block Party Series: It’s all coming to me till the end of time 12:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Events ,  and Nigeria .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, non-notable event/party, no sourcing found since it's been shuttered, nothing turns up before either in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Redirect the music event is notable and should be redirected to Block Party (Nigeria) or Block Party (Music event) since it's a series of mostly Nigeria and Ghana music events.  Aside from that; I have updated the article, and done some clean up on the article. -- Afí-afeti ( talk ) 06:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT Nswix ( talk ) 00:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep .  Non-trivial coverage in 2 large national newspapers, The Guardian Nigeria News and the Daily Trust.  Clearly meets our rules.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral leaning to delete based on this comment by User:JoelleJay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji . It cites a journalism expert discussing rampant Nigerian journalism corruption. (That said, the Nigerian reporting style during my brief time there was florid even when reporting stuff like the weather.) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable event with plenty of reliable citations proving notability. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG. Avilich ( talk ) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:SIGCOV -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist since a lot of work has been done to this article since its nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT .  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kevin Bull: Had fleeting moments of fame for American Ninja Warrior, but overall non-notable.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 21:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople ,  and United States of America .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 21:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 22:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mr Puaz: XR98 ( talk ) 13:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very promo, I'm not seeing that the awards are notable either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - He was already deleted twice and temporarily salted once, and several participants in the previous AfDs recommended salting too.  Make it permanent this time.  The article is an obvious attempt at promotion , and is typical of hundreds of articles we've seen on beginners in the African music scene.  Managers send promo blurbs to promotional sites that merely reprint them, and then those are used as ""sources"" for a Wikipedia article.  Good luck to this chap in his next career move.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No WP:RS I could find and as stated by doomsdayer this happens all the time.  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 15:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Can someone tells me if this articles are not reliable sources?  1. https://www.bbc.com/swahili/habari-46748076  2. https://www.bbc.com/swahili/49464385  3. https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/tanzanian-singer-publish-music-business-book  4. https://hivisasa.com/posts/66874273-mr-puaz-wins-most-supportive-man-at-starqt-awards-in-south-africa  5. https://afromuziki.com/mr-puaz/  6. https://mpasho.co.ke/inpictures/2019-01-04-exclusive-harmonizes-manager-mr-puaz-exits-wcb/  7. https://www.pulselive.co.ke/entertainment/mr-puaz-khaligraph-jones-diamond-sautisol-and-other-stars-nominated-for-africa/wg9882t.amp I think you guys have mandate to fact checking things up with references as this article was also once reviewed by admins unless wikipedia has new rules that we dont know about.  Being deleted twice does not makes us not to  evaluate the subject to see if there is notability on other sources.  This is my view.  And when an admin  says "" we've seen on beginners in the African music scene. Managers send promo blurbs to promotional sites that merely reprint them"" to me it sound like you have specifics site that your looking instead of fact checking professionally.  This is my view.  Regards Delvant ( talk ) 15:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I made the ""beginners in the African music scene"" comment but I am not an admin.  Meanwhile, BBC is potentially reliable but the articles have to be about the person in question.  The two BBC articles listed here are about a different singer named Harmonize, and our subject here (Mr Puaz) is just quoted briefly as an associate of Harmonize.  If there was a BBC article that is really about Mr Puaz then that would be useful here.  Meanwhile, the other listed sources featuring Mr Puaz himself are still unreliable blogs and promo reprints.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] reply Yes, Mr Puaz is a notable person in Tanzania's entertainment industry, known for his work  botha as a musician and talent manager.  He has won several awards over the years, including the ""Most Supportive Man Of The Year"" at the Starqt Awards in South Africa and the ""Best African Talent/Artist Manager"" at the Africa Entertainment Awards USA.  He has also worked with some of the biggest names in East African music, including Diamond Platnumz, Harmonize, and Nedy Music.   Read this article on BBC again as it doesnt talk about someone else but Mr Puaz on how he ended his music relationship with his artist who he used to manage.This ( https://www.bbc.com/swahili/habari-46748076 ) I am a swahili native speaker as well and i understand what its written there even when you translate it to english it still say ""Top Tanzania manager"" plus the awards he won and being nominated like the one on AEAUSA ( AFRICA ENTERTAINMENT AWARDS USA) this is also a notable award.  Still am not conviced that this subject is not notable unless you tell me whats notability means on your aide and share examples as i uave seen lot of wikipedia articles with more blogs and still have been reviewed.  197.250.130.216 ( talk ) 18:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sorry i forgot to log in again and respond without logged in Delvant ( talk ) 18:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Native Swahili speaker here - negligible refrences to Mr Puaz on the BBC Swahili reports, the rest are personal blogs and all that -- XR98 ( talk ) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So all these are just personal blogs that writing different things and get paid ( Promotion) as you described?  Even for BBC and others?  1. https://bongo5.com/aliyewahi-kuwa-meneja-wa-harmonize-mr-puaz-azindua-chapa-yake-ya-mavazi-na-viatu-10-2021/  2. https://mpasho.co.ke/exclusives/2021-09-14-exclusive-five-things-you-need-to-know-about-harmonizes-ex-manager/  3. https://www.kahawatungu.com/harmonizes-manager-resigns-from-wasafi-records/amp/  4. https://barakafm.org/2019/01/04/harmonizes-manager-quits-accusing-the-singer-of-being-proud/  5. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/entertainment/african-news/article/2001308626/harmonizes-manager-quits-cites-singers-pride So all these seem to be personal blogs?  🤔🤔🤔 Delvant ( talk ) 16:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] nothing works in that list.  they're all promotional.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional Comment i realize he is also mentioned on this notable award ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_African_Entertainment_Awards_USA ) under the nomination category ( Best Male Artist – Central/West Africa ) also more sources mentioned his name Joel Vincent Joseph at ( https://mbu.ug/2019/08/23/africa-entertainment-awards-usa-full-list-of-nominees/ ) Delvant ( talk ) 22:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] correction (  Best Male Artist Manager ) not Best Male Artist Central Delvant ( talk ) 22:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : promo BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  Sources in article and above are promotional and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 10:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ansh Gupta: The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview, which has maybe four sentences of independent coverage.  Everything else is trivial mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and India .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 11:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 11:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Cleary fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 01:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"DJ Dominic: ~ Dictionary ( chat ) 01:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those information are not added yet at times goes by it will be added MICHAEL PEWEE ( talk ) 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete A7, G5 and G11: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flex Liberia , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ D. Pewee , etc.  Also utterly non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 01:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Recreation of a page deleted at least 3 times by a WP:SPA that is likely a sockpuppet of the banned user:Flex Liberia due to a similar name and recreating this page.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Liberia ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Under A7, A11, G5, and G11, all of which are valid.  Why two admins declined it under faulty reasoning, I'll never know.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 05:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy deletion criteria are intentionally limited and specific, particularly A7.  One admin declined to delete and I supported them when the same exact tags were reapplied to the article.  If the page creator is identified as a confirmed sockpuppet, then CSD G5 would apply.  This AFD looks like it will result in deletion, I don't see this situation as urgent.  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You cannot seriously tell me with a straight face that this article isn't straight up spam by a user whose name is the same as a sock whose accounts have been blocked over fifty times.  I respect you and all you do to ensure CSD is not carried out willy-nilly... but c'mon.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 06:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy/snow delete .  I mean, come on.  Clear WP:DUCK socking, the sources are AI garbage, the article is word salad.  An embarrassment to Wikipedia.  Jfire ( talk ) 05:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SNOW - has zero chance of surviving AfD and is blatant block evasion in any case.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all the above.  Not notable in any form.  Lynch44 ( talk ) 14:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"After Dark (Dick Morrissey album): I was able to locate two (period) sources that mentioned this album, which I have added to the article, but they are passing mentions at best and the only results in Newspapers.com or (reliable results in) Google.  This does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for NALBUMS or GNG.  The SandDoctor Talk 23:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  The SandDoctor Talk 23:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Conducted a search on TWL and verified those are the only two sources.  This probably could've been a PROD .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sudha Productions: AShiv1212 ( talk ) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  AShiv1212 ( talk ) 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Maharashtra .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : content is very restricted, and almost no any inline references.  Serdaray85 ( talk ) 09:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Heydi Reyes: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  The article List of Honduras women's international footballers does not yet exist, so it is not a possible redirect.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Honduras .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless significant coverage of this athlete can be found in independent, reliable sources.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 02:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No evidence of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG .  ––– Àvî Râm7 (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Stuart Goodman: He's held some sub-cabinet state government posts and been the Arizona lobbyist for some companies.  No notable accomplishments in those positions are listed.  List of military service, education, job history.  The references are all directory type listings confirming he held those positions but nothing more, except one ~100 word prose article saying his firm was hired to represent Apple.  This wouldn't seem to meet the ""significant coverage"" standard of WP:GNG .  Article was created 10 years ago by an account that never did anything else, and hasn't gotten any content edits or inbound links in a decade.  Those are not criteria for deletion, of course, but they do suggest that there's just nothing to add to take this beyond prose resume form into encyclopedia article.  Which is what is suggested by the apparent lack of sources with non-routine coverage which could be cited.  Here2rewrite ( talk ) 01:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, no indicia of encyclopedic notability here.  BD2412 T 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Most of what is claimed in the lead, was during his late 20s-early 30s.   He was 23 when he was ""Associate Director of Government Affairs for the Arizona Multihousing Association"" Most likely titles that were non-notable - and possible volunteer -  positions.   User:Arizonapolitical never wrote anything else for Wikipedia, but this article.  Possibly the same person as the article subject.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No significant coverage (but a bunch of quotes and cursory mentions) in the Arizona Republic .  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No SIGCOV, no independent, secondary, reliable sources.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Politics ,  and Arizona .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Just directories/lists as references.  Three of them don't even work anymore.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 21:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nominator; listed sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability.  Waqar 💬 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete nothing much in terms of notability-lending refs.  Reads like a promotional CV.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment: See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#List_of_spiral_tunnels_and_tunnels_on_a_curved_alignment , and pinging Trainsandotherthings who commented there.  Artem.G ( talk ) 12:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Artem.G ( talk ) 12:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Some of these individual tunnels are notable, but there's no evidence to support them being notable as a group .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I would think it's impossible to have a spiral tunnel that isn't curved, so the list doesn't make sense.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : I think that you're reading the title as a single group.  To me, ""List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment"" reads as containing two groups:  (i) spiral tunnels  (ii) tunnels on a curved alignment.  Whilst all spiral tunnels are curved, not all curved tunnels are spiral.  -- Red rose64 🌹 ( talk ) 22:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ok, that makes sense.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep dewiki seems to have articles and lists for both spiral loops (Kreiskehren) and curved tunnles (Kehrtunnel), with plenty of sources to establish the distinct notability of each.  small jars t c 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Some of the tunnels may be notable on their own, but I do not see anything discussing this topic as a set .  Appears to be WP:SYNTH .  -- Kinu t / c 17:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . According WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not important per se . -- ZH8000 ( talk ) 20:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What on earth are you even talking about?  That doesn't make any sense, you're implying this article gets a carve-out from SYNTH by grossly misinterpreting part of an explanatory essay that does not in any way support that position.  Regardless, this does not meet WP:NLIST .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 22:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Alex (footballer, born 2001): PROD was contested without making any effort to address the article's WP:SPORTCRIT failure.  Jogurney ( talk ) 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Brazil .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BrazilianDude70 : , I trust you most with Brazilian footballers, any chance you can confirm if there's any valid coverage for this athlete? -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ortizesp : No notable coverage, only a brief direct mention here due to his loan to Taquaritinga.  Other than that, nothing substancial, thus delete .  BRDude 70 ( talk ) 20:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I wasn't going to contest the original PROD, because Alex Honório does fail GNG.  It's an article I created a while ago relying on WP:FOOTY , and I did expect to find sources when searching, but was unable to.  Shame, but delete.  Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 22:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Didihat district: Wikipedia is not a repository for non-notable ""proposals.""  Aintabli ( talk ) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , India ,  and Uttarakhand .  Aintabli ( talk ) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following articles, because they all pertain to the same problem: Ranikhet district ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Kotdwar district ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Yamunotri district ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Aintabli ( talk ) 17:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we perhaps merge these into a List of proposed districts in India ?  BD2412 T 18:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are notable proposals.  — H e m a n t D a b r a l ( 📞 • ✒ ) 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all nominated entries.  Per WP:NGEO , Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG .  In this case, a mention in one article does not meet WP:GNG .  Moreover, we should avoid creating permastubs which will never be improved because the district never actually existed.  Broc ( talk ) 15:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more support when closing a bundled nomination and there is a Merge suggestion though to a nonexistent article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Do not meet WP:GNG .  Articles can be recreated if these districts are created someday.  Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 11:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"UWC Tag Team Championship: The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 18:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  Page of this title promotion is deleted due to not being notable enough thereof same is for title.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 20:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ideal English School: Ratnahastin ( talk ) 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra .  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Chowdhury Nafeez Sarafat: I want my privacy.  I don’t want to be in public.  My information doesn’t benefit public interest.  Azalia2006 ( talk ) 18:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh .  Shellwood ( talk ) 19:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] '''comment. '''  WP:COI.  Nom may have nominated this article for deletion because of the paragraph that reads: ''""The cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore was arrested under the Digital Security Act for drawing cartoons critical of the government including one where he portrayed Sarafat as a bank embezzler.""'' 🔥 22spears 🔥 18:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails BLP, BIO, GNG.  No sources show notability, just routine news stories.  There is no way to tell if nom is subject, but this fails based on sources.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 12:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"All-Knighters: Only worked on independent level.  According to Cagematch, they only had 32 matches .  HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 12:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Transparency (philosophy): Тай Лунг ( talk ) 06:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without prejudice .  (1) The article as-is does not contain any information with sources, and the latter (on a generic topic, see #3 below) are not easy to find.  (2) The current mathematically-looking text does not describe the subject at all.  (3) The topic is quite legit, the term ""transparency"" is actively used in philosophy (mostly epistemology ).  However, epistemic transparency already has an article.  (4) Generic topic of transparency in philosophy might be notable (there is, for example, doxastic transparency with common traits), but is tricky to write about while avoiding WP:SYNTH .  Therefore, quickly delete the current proto-stub, but do not preclude creation of a better version in the future.  -- Викидим ( talk ) 18:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : transparency is used in a number of different ways in philosophy depending on the context, not seeing any evidence a unified article is warranted.  I agree with Викидим that potentially a better article could be created in future if appropriate sources are found.  Shapeyness ( talk ) 17:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Walking on Eggshells: Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music .  Charsaddian ( talk ) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Calum Macdonald (presenter): I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources.  On top of that, all the sources currently listed in the article are not independent of the subject.  During a WP:BEFORE I saw some sources, but they turned out to be interviews.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Radio ,  and Scotland .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"CinErotic FilmFest: Searches only returned trivial mentions.  Seems to lack enough significant coverage to prove its notability.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events ,  and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Passing mention as ""the inevitable CinErotic FilmFest"" in The NYT; a brief description in Thrillist (actually twice ), brief descriptions in books and named/listed on Georgia-related websites.  So, I'd suggest a redirect to Festivals in Atlanta#Film , where I took the liberty to add it. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Promotional and not notable.  Drmies ( talk ) 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Mushy Yank's suggestion.  Like him, I only found glancing mentions, which means a line might be appropriate in a larger article but it doesn't have the depth of coverage needed to establish notability.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Festivals in Atlanta#Film as an ATD .  CycloneYoris talk!  20:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no evidence of notability.  As an apparent one-off event that happened 13 years ago, I would also not redirect, as inclusion of a defunct festival in a list is questionable.  Stifle ( talk ) 08:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Raquel Romano: , the article fails WP:N , WP:MINIMUM and another notability criteria.  It's a clear case of WP:SPAM , created by an editor with a long history of WP:PAID and WP:SOAPBOX .  None of the source are about the author, let alone being ""significant coverage"".  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 01:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors ,  and Brazil .  Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 01:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok: Likely CoI or promo and other edits adding uncited content seem to potentially have a close connection as well.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Judaism ,  and California .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 18:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Scattered mentions of the institution in six hits in Gnews, mostly name drops.  What's used for sourcing in the article isn't helpful.  This is the best in a RS I could find, but it's simply a rating [22] .  Gsearch goes straight to the school's website.  All totaled up, nothing we can use for reliability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Advance Steel: Hardly sourced.  Reads like product advertisement.  Kleuske ( talk ) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software .  Kleuske ( talk ) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Same deal as Advance Concrete : reads like an ad, only primary sources, searches bring up nothing significant.  Cortador ( talk ) 11:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Engineering .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NPRODUCT which requires ""sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources.""  My searches for this product did not produce anything meeting that requirement.  Spintendo 02:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : as per above, fails WP:NPRODUCT . -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"TrashCon: Nothing here that suggests any notability.  Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India .  Velella Velella Talk 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable and possibly written in a promotional tone.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 13:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Rusty4321 talk contribs 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: The page creator and primary contributor to the article have been CU-blocked as socks.  Rusty4321 talk contribs 23:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The organization is “notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”  This article does not meet any of these criteria.  Topjur01 ( talk ) 16:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ocean State Cup: Let'srun ( talk ) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Rhode Island .  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG .  This state-level inter-university competion does not have significant coverage in secondary sources.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Fritz Huser: No significant exhibitions, no notable museum collections, no reviews in art magazines or newpapers, nor book chapters/monographs on his work.  Article sourcing is primary, and all I could find online is primary sourcing.  Netherzone ( talk ) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Visual arts ,  and Switzerland .  Netherzone ( talk ) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I agree that it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable sources.  Of the four sources currently in the article, one is just a directory listing, one is the person's website, and two others just link back to the same wikipedia article.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 16:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Despite his somewhat reclusive lifestyle, which has little to do with the world of fashionable galleries and corporate art criticism, Fritz Huser is a very popular artist in Switzerland, enjoying at least national, if not international, renown.  Here are some of his solo exhibitions, which take place quite regularly: 1 , 2 , 3 .  Here’s a big article about him on the official website of the Swiss Radio and Television Company .  Here’s an ad for his Adventskalender in the Swiss cantonal press: Aargauer Zeitung , bz Basel , Luzerner Zeitung , St. Galler Tagblatt .  Here’s a popular fairy-tale book he co-authored, and here’s an example of a random book (not even about art!) with a reproduction of his work on the cover.  Last but not least, here’s his IMDb profile , according to which he has participated as a set designer in the filming of at least four Swiss and Swiss-German movies.  To summarize: albeit being somewhat outside the bounds of the strict Wikipedia conventions, Fritz Huser’s notability as an artist is still evident.  There are no rules without exceptions, and if there is one article that fits the rule about ignoring all rules , this is it.  — ɪ 19:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Popularity is not the same as notability.  Just because an artist creates and exhibits work or makes a set design does not confer inherent notability.  Those are simply things artists do.  Run-of-the-mill WP:MILL .  The first three links are simply announcement for shows by the gallery showing his work - primary sourcing that does not count towards notability.  The ""big article"" looks OK at first, however there is no by-line which usually is an indication something is a press release or native advertising rather than an in-depth article with editorial oversight.  The ""ad"" is exactly the same copy in each of these publications, and is advertorial sponsored content for an advent calendar he is selling...translated: In stores from Friday - The square calendar is appearing for the first time in two formats: in a smaller version of 40 x 40 centimeters for 30 francs and in the large version with an edge length of 68 centimeters for 50 francs.  From October 26th, the calendar will be available in the following old town shops: Otz bookstore, Ryser office, Hömlilade, Augentreff Schneider and Vitrine.  For everyone who doesn't want to tie the calendar to their bike, there is a home delivery service: Next Long Friday in the Old Town you can pre-order the calendars in the Old Office Building.  Serious reviews of an artist's work don't include such advertorial content.  Lastly, IMDb is not considered a reliable source by WP.  Netherzone ( talk ) 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete reference 2, 3 and 4 are user generated biographies.  Not finding anything better on the internet.  Unfortunately ""Fritz Huser"" is a common name, so a search brings up several living Fritz Husers.  ""Fritz Huser 1952"" brings up standard promotional items for a person trying to make a living.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Emile Benoit (writer): The book reviews at the bottom are from what appear to be pay-for-review sites, so this article also does not meet WP:AUTHOR .  - car chasm ( talk ) 07:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions .  - car chasm ( talk ) 07:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete after some investigation, no way to verify, notability guidelines not met.  — siro χ o 10:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Searches for the name mostly turn up other people with similar names.  Searches for the publications turn up enough to verify existence but not significant coverage by reliable sources.  Notability is not demonstrated.  Seems promotional.  Author is pretty much an SPA.   -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 12:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, Emile Benoit should be redirected back to Émile Benoît .  DanielRigal ( talk ) 12:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors ,  and California .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  I find his books in Gboks, some mentions of a professor in 1972 with the same name (but the subject here would be 9 yrs old).  Having other best-selling authors on the NYTimes book list like your work is fine, but ""famous people liking my work"" is notability-by-association.  I couldn't find critical reviews of his works, or much of anything really.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Matthew Villanueva: I found this and this , which is not enough.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Boxing ,  and California .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found in any sports site, this was all I could find and not in a RS [64] Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] '''Delete''' I agree, there is not much secondary coverage, [ https://www.proboxing-fans.com/rico-ramos-defeats-efrain-esquivias-full-results-photos_062412/ ].  It would be nice if there was something on a mainstream news site.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 01:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bashu nationalism: POV article based on a single source with little English language coverage findable apart from WP.
 Also, if the article survives AfD, it may need to be renamed.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 08:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and China .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 08:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found a relevant discussion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Asia/Archive 1 .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 08:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete POV and non-notable.  As a native Chinese speaker, checking the Mandarin Chinese WP page and online sources show that this is not a movement in any real sense, but one hypothetical nation out of many as part of one person's fringe concept of balkanizing China.  The single main source on the page (titled China’s intellectual dark web and its most active fanatic) makes that clear, but the WP article makes no mention of its marginal online-only presence and its position as politically ""extreme"" for its ""racial theory and shaky history"".  Even if these POV issues were fixed, it would just reveal how the topic is non-notable.  A page on Liu Zhongjing, the main proponent of the ideology, would make more sense, although an article was created on him and deleted for NN a while ago .  -- LatakiaHill ( talk ) 21:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bashu nationalism participants: Noob282 ( talk · contribs ), Abcmaxx ( talk · contribs ), AAAAA143222 ( talk · contribs ), Bearian ( talk · contribs ), and 4meter4 ( talk · contribs ).  Cunard ( talk ) 09:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This was what I was trying to say when originally nominating this article for deletion, because even the terms ""Bashu nationalism"" and ""Basuria"" usually have no results besides Twitter accounts with strange maps about balkanizing China most of the time if it is related to this topic.  Noob282 ( talk ) 10:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to Basuria Nothing has changed from the 1st AfD other than the article has been gutted by single-purpose or random user accounts.  The key is to improve the article and perhaps protect it, otherwise we set a precedent for other controversial topics; remove enough citations over time and it will get deleted.  However this seems to be more of a hypothetical and fringe theory rather than an established movement so Basuria would be a better title.  Abcmaxx ( talk ) 06:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It could be renamed to Auntology too (the nickname of the ideology according to this SupChina article [1] ) AAAAA143222 ( talk ) 10:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still lean delete because a hypothetical and fringe theory at this scale seems undue weight, but renaming it to either the broader ideology or to the founder works too I think.  LatakiaHill ( talk ) 01:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://supchina.com/2019/03/13/chinas-intellectual-dark-web-and-its-most-active-fanatic/ Delete , because there's almost nothing (reliable sources) about the topic.  If not, it can be renamed or merged with some page.  AAAAA143222 ( talk ) 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Delete or rename to broaden the scope?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as it does not seem to meet GNG.  The sources currently in the article consist of: A map with no indication of reliability or independence as far as I can see.  An article from The China Project about Liu Zhongjing , which mentions his ""Basuria"" proposal.  An article from the Hong Kong Free Press about Liao Yiwu which briefly mentions his hope for Sichuan independence in the context of his ""dream...that China splits up into 10 or so countries"".  A Yahoo News article about Yu Jie which briefly mentions Sichuan independence in a list of other independence movements, but does not say anything else about it.  A Radio Free Asia interview with Liu Zhongjing which has the hashtag ""Bashu independence"" but doesn't say anything else about it in the text (I haven't listened to the audio).  Essentially we have only one substantive source (The China Project), and even that one is really about Liu Zhongjing overall; it's not focused on his ""Basuria"" idea.  The sources that are not about Liu have brief allusions to Sichuan independence but not significant coverage.  Some other sources have been removed from the article in the past for being unrelated to the subject.  The best hope of finding a notable topic here seems to be Liu Zhongjing, who is covered a bit more in RSs – but even the article about him was deleted a few years ago.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 14:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Death of Madison Brooks: Joeykai ( talk ) 11:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep subject is notable and has sufficient sources, full disclosure, I am the creator of this article.  Eric Carpenter ( talk ) 22:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: A WP:BEFORE check comes up with multiple sources beyond those already in the article.  Certainly could be expanded but that is no reason to delete it.  [ [32] ][ [33] ] User:Let'srun 14:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS .  SportingFlyer T · C 16:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per SportingFlyer and WP:LASTING .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tamriko Kvaliashvili: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Georgia (country) .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 07:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gwalior Engineering College: Youth4work is a blog post, Free-apply is just copied and pasted from this Wikipedia article and Careers360 is just another database page.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Engineering ,  and Madhya Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless anyone is able to show adequate sourcing in Hindi.  Mccapra ( talk ) 16:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  Fails GNG and ORG/CORP.  Article is unsourced, BEFORE showed nothing but promo and primary.  // Timothy :: talk 03:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as the above two users mentioned, it needs adequate sources to be kept...  Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 20:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sandra Muente: The only notability claim stated here is that she came in third in an Idol series 15 years ago, which is not an instant notability freebie all by itself -- but there's virtually no claim that she's done anything else of note since then (""has appeared in various TV shows"", without sources, being the sum total of the rest of the article). This has, furthermore, been tagged for notability and sourcing issues since 2010 without improvement -- and given that the subject is from Peru, I checked es to see what was there, and found that an article was deleted in 2010 for advertorialism and notability issues and has never returned since.  So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more Spanish-language skills (and access to archived Peruvian media coverage from 15 years ago) than I've got can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru .  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Viktor Popovic: Searches in English and Czech do not turn up significant coverage Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Czech Republic .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 07:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this is a borderline WP:CSD#A7 and also WP:BLPPROD eligible, but I guess we can let this run to see if any refs do turn up.  Couldn't find anything on google news or books.  – filelakeshoe ( t / c ) 🐱 10:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Agree this is borderline speedy.  Clear delete at AFD based on lack of notability.  BEFORE check shows up nothing except LinkedIn and other social media.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 23:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Popcore Games: No sourcing found in RS, nothing for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Germany .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I overhauled some of the wording and wiped out the one-sentence Funding section per copyright violation concerns.  I'm not encouraged here.  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with regret.  I used to play Parking Jam 3D all the time, but the only sources for the company are weekly charts, sale announcements, and a bunch of Russian stuff I can't read.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sourcing is insufficient to illustrate significant coverage for notability, with existing sources providing a limited foundation to describe the company and its games.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 01:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Abu Iman: Draft:Abu Iman .  Does not pass GNG.  WP:Before has some hits for Abu Iman but not sure if they are the same person as the subject.  Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 05:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military ,  and Iraq .  Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 05:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete searched in English and Arabic and found nothing at all so this doesn’t seem borderline to me.  Anyone wanting to recreate this needs to source it properly.  Given the nature of the subjects name and multiple different similar permutations there is no prospect of an editor other than the creator doing the work to find sources in this.  Mccapra ( talk ) 08:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wilhelm Loock: JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ivan Kotora: The only decent website I found is Levice Online , but something tells me interview sources do not count as significant coverage.  My Google searches are limited to match reports and passing mentions.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Slovakia .  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lack of sources to meet WP:NSPORT -- Here2rewrite ( talk ) 16:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Aside from interviews, I found transactional announcements ( 1 ) and injury updates ( 2 ), but nothing GNG worthy.  Ping me if sources are found.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This is what I found: fairly long and significant.  Has quotes (is not a ""transactional announcement"").  Preamble followed by interview .  Injury , injury (short).  This and this article details how neither he or his team are professional at the current time, for those who still focus on that.  Geschichte ( talk ) 20:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My mistake.  There are indeed a few sentences of coverage interspersed throughout the series of quotes.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Duckstation (emulator): All of the current sources are primary, user generated , or otherwise unreliable.  I used the WP:VG/S Google searches and found only one reliable source , but at two sentences/paragraphs about the subject it's hardly significant.  A more general Google search turned up only the usual primary sources, databases, forums, social media posts, etc.  Woodroar ( talk ) 19:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Woodroar ( talk ) 19:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not seeing any reliable sources in my search that cover it to a significant degree, aside from the one mentioned.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 02:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  After a brief BEFORE I found there are reliables sources but SIGCOV isn’t fully evident.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 07:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What reliable sources did you find?  Woodroar ( talk ) 12:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not really enough to be considered a valid keep argument.  What sort of sources did you find?  Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete aside from the GamesRadar piece mentioned, all I found are stray mentions in other topics; it's clearly A Thing, but doesn't appear to meet the SIGCOV threshold.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zero seek: It is pretty much orphaned (just two mainspace articles link here) and outside the lead is underlnked  This is outside my field of expertise, so I cannot even comment whether what is written about here is related to the uses I see in GScholar.  If someone improves this, great, otherwise, a redirect somewhere could be considered as well.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to stepper motor .  One, the current state is completely unacceptable - not a single source, and has been so for more than a decade.  This cannot remain in mainspace in this form.  Two, a large part of the text is concerned with background already given at stepper motor and would be superfluous if the rest was embedded there; that would make a good subsection, not an article.  If anyone wishes to add sourced content, it can be added there.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 08:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article is WP:OR , combining the concept of a zero seek interface command with the discussion of obtaining zero position in an actuator that uses open-loop control .  I'm not convinced a redirect is a viable option, as I couldn't find any sources that would use the term to define the mechanism as described (it usually refers to relative motion rather than absolute position).  Even if it is, neither the stepper motor nor a number of other related articles I looked at contain any information on the subject.  PaulT2022 ( talk ) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Elmidae FYI as this addresses your proposal.  I have no opinion as I am not familiar with the topic beyond the basics.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither am I, really.  If someone who actually understands the topic states that no reliable sources at all can be found, then that does point to delete.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 06:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some expertise in coming days, to help decide whether this article should be Redirected or Deleted.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Note that on 17 March 2024 User:Лисан аль-Гаиб added three references to the article without commenting in this AfD.  However, only the first reference appears to use the term in a way that could be possibly relevant to the article, and doesn't mention anything such as ""hard end-stop"" and ""sensed end-stop"", to which three paragraphs are devoted.  I expect there to be sufficient sources somewhere for this subject overall, but probably under a different name, perhaps ""return-to-zero"".  If someone is interested in covering this topic, e probably should do that in a section of stepper motor .  But in the current form the article is better gone per WP:TNT .  NicolausPrime ( talk ) 21:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Eco Yosemite Park: Searching the ship's name gives me ship tracking websites and ecotourism in Yosemite Park.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Ship is not notable.  Presence on the internet is almost exclusive to ship tracking websites.  No coverage available in anything more than passing mentions relating to her builders/operators.  I would have suggested a merge to ECO Design if the article existed.  Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 09:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"London International Student Film Festival: Can't find anything that suffices WP:GNG online, either.  TLA (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events ,  and England .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Noam Shavit: Draftified, but moved back by creator without addressing the issues and with false claims of ""Perform requested move, see talk page"".  Fram ( talk ) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Israel .  Fram ( talk ) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not notable enough for a WP article at this time.  gidonb ( talk ) 13:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As this was so quickly moved back to the main space in total disregard to the pupose of draft, recommending a WP:SKYBLUELOCK .  gidonb ( talk ) 13:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dinis, Duke of Porto: WP:NOTINHERITED - relationships do not confer notability and as Portugal has been a republic for over 100 years any royal connection is just trivia D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 21:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely oppose the deletion, Portugal has been a republic for over 100 years, however, that doesn't stop Dinis from being noteworthy, his parents and sibilings have Wikipedia pages and he himself is referenced in multiple reliable sources, see the references of the article.  Diogo Costa ( talk ) 21:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His parents and siblings having Wikipedia pages does not make him notable - WP:BLPFAMILY .  I did not say that Dinis could not be noteworthy, I'm saying that he is currently not noteworthy as being in line for a throne that hasn't existed for a long time is not noteworthy.  You could write a similar article about almost anyone - they were born, they had family, they had a baptism, they read a sermon at a wedding, they did an internship.  What about any of that is noteworthy?  D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 23:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose: Wikipedia:BEFORE Topic C2 : This page was recently created.  Therefore, request to give more time to update page before even considering deletion.  Topic C3 : Request that any issues are firstly raised in the Talk page , so the community can contribute to any alterations and improvements.  The deletion request was made straight away bypassing the Talk page and members contributions.  Dinis of Braganza baptism was broadcasted by the Portuguese national broadcast channel RTP.  Reference added to the page.  Therefore, conferring notoriety to him as a public and historical figure.  Furthermore, as a male line descendant of the Miguelist branch and association to his father and brother, both senior members of this same branch of the Royal House of Braganza, Dinis becomes part of Portugal's history.  Dinis is godfather to Prince Alphonse of France, son of the current pretender to the french throne, via the Orleanist claim, thus solidifying his presence amongst international royals and other claimants.  This page is set as a Pretender, and if Portugal were to restore is monarchy at this moment in time, he would be second in line to the throne, following his brother and his father's possible ascension to King/Portugal's throne.  So, in conclusion, all the information's presented stand as of national relevance and not simple as mere ""trivia"".  GrandDukeMarcelo ( talk ) 22:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources in the article are 1 (Sabado): Dinis' parents answering questions about themselves (not independent) N .  2 (Miraheze): UGS, BLPVIO N .  3 (DGABC): trivial, churnalized press release announcing his baptism N .  4 (RTP): primary video coverage of his baptism N .  5 (Point de Vue): first-person interview/recounting of a meeting with the family at their home, with some limited background on Dinis, though I can't access the rest of this source.  6 (TVI): video interview of the children, primary and non-independent N .  7 (Caras): passing mention (not even named) in description of video of his sister's wedding N .  8 (Observador): two passing mentions in primary coverage of the wedding N .  9 (Selfie): passing mention in wedding coverage N .  10 (IdNP): name in list on family-founded website N .  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SÁBADO, independent?  Nearly all media is biased.  Its a popular weekly magazine in Portugal.  RTP is the Portuguese national state broadcaster, what more do you want?  TVI a very popular private Portuguese television channel Caras, another popular magazine in Portugal Observador a popular newspaper with millions of Portuguese readers Diogo Costa ( talk ) 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem not to know what independent sources are all about.   People talking about themselves are autobiographies , not independent sources.  You have failed to rebut the statements above that pretty much all of what this article is based upon is either raw video recording footage, mere passing mention and namechecking that is not in-depth, or autobiographical sources.  The arguments that this person would be royalty in a mdifferent alternative universe don't hold much water, either.   Wikipedia is about this universe.  Uncle G ( talk ) 05:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is why there was a mention to give time to improve the page with other sources.  I propose this conversation is moved to ""talk"" rather then being straight away in the ""deletion"" section, like it was done without a chance for improvement.  In this universe, Dinis is considered a pretender.  That is why the page was changed to pretender.  But someone keeps changing the infobox to ""royalty"", which Dinis isn't.  GrandDukeMarcelo ( talk ) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You had all of the time in the world to do that before you started a badly sourced biography of a living person.   Per the project:biographies of living persons policy you two should have got your ducks in a row with rock solid sourcing first .   In fact, that's a good idea for every subject.  Uncle G ( talk ) 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your argument is invalid and unstained, as there is relevant information's that the public can still read, even if the article is not ""complete"".  Also, due to the nature of community active participation, all articles are up to constant modification.  Like I said in one of my above's comments, this discussion should've been taken to the talk page before being considered to deletion.  So the community could discuss improvements.  All the suggestions opposing so far seem rooted in a republicanism sentiment.  Therefore, I continue to propose to take this to the talk page.  GrandDukeMarcelo ( talk ) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well if you don't stick to BLP policy, and don't come up with any satisfactory sources, which so far you have not, another policy, project:deletion policy says that this will be deleted.   It's your loss if you don't do things properly as policy says.   I've told you the correct thing to do.  Uncle G ( talk ) 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This discussion was not brought to the Talk page first, so the community could give their inputs.  I already provided policy examples in my comments above.  Re-read them.  GrandDukeMarcelo ( talk ) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  98.228.137.44 ( talk ) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose: as per comments above.  GrandDukeMarcelo ( talk ) 12:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate ""vote"".  L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Comment : You can only vote on deletion discussions once.  98.228.137.44 ( talk ) 00:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Notability is not inherited.  Apart from that, JoelleJay's analysis of the sources demonstrates the lack of notability.  Aintabli ( talk ) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"FCIV.NET Freeciv 3D version: Sources 1, 3, and 4 are routine coverage, and 2, 5, 6, 7, aren't about the 3D version.  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 19:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 19:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Attempted recreation FCIV.NET after it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCIV.NET .  Note that FCIV.NET is indeed ""FCIV.NET Freeciv 3D version"".  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Near identical content, created by the same editor as the last version, with no real improvement.  Almost, but maybe not quite, a WP:CSD G4 .  -- ferret ( talk ) 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not Delete I object to deleting this article.  There are now 7 sources about this topic.  If you study all 7 sources you will see that they are in fact about this fine game.  The statement from Sungodtemple here is false.  Nybygger ( talk ) 19:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sungodtemple's statements are not false.  Source #1 is a forum, invalid per WP:USERG .  Source #2 is unreliable self-published social media, also invalid for notability.  Source #3 is a routine announcement with precious little actual coverage.  Source #4 is neither reliable nor SIGCOV and just refers to the slashdot forum post.  Source #5 is an unreliable fan site, and isn't about the 3D version at all.  Source #6 and #7, same as #5.  There's no sigcov from reliable secondary sources here.  -- ferret ( talk ) 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this article!  They Nay-sayers are all wrong!!  Fciv.net is an open source, grass-roots Movement!  Just watch this YouTube video about it: https://youtube.com/shorts/f_wxzEf68SM? feature=share Nybygger ( talk ) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Youtube is not a valid source.  Why do we keep having the same article under different titles?  Something's afoot.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There was a discussion earlier this year that found the subject non-notable.  WP:AGF applies as well, with regards to claiming other editors are lying.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not delete.  This is an accurate article about the game.  There are plenty of links about this game, even though they are perhaps not of the highest quality.  As I understand, the previous version was deleted for not having enough references.  So you get a new page with more references.  There is no bad intent here.  I also do not think that saying a statement is false is the same thing as saying others are lying.  It's more a disagreement than an accusation.  Jove74 ( talk ) 21:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) — Jove74 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] None of this addresses the deletion nomination.  Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The previous version wasn't deleted for not having enough references in it.  We don't delete things just because the references are missing from the article at a given moment in time.  It was deleted because no one could find suitable sourcing about the topic that would demonstrate WP:GNG .  And that has not changed.  There's a difference between ""suitable sources aren't in the article"" and ""suitable sources don't exist"".  This is a case of the latter.  -- ferret ( talk ) 22:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jove74 ( talk · contribs )'s only edit is that comment. Smells socky. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am friendly to the game but I am nobody's sock puppet. Jove74 ( talk ) 17:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless, it's always seen as very suspicious when someone makes a new account and their first edit is to go comment at an AFD. That's not a natural first move on Wikipedia. It's almost always a WP:SOCKPUPPET , WP:MEATPUPPET , or WP:CANVASS issue. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per source analysis by ferret Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete In the previous AfD, I mentioned a possible redirect to the main FreeCiv article, which was not enough for the few ""keep votes"". Although I still think FCIV.NET could be covered by that article, the redirect (with FCIV.NET name or similar) may be created after this AfD. If the best source in the article is one short news on root.cz (here I don't share Ferret's assessment of reliability of that website), there is simply no coverage in reliable sources to write an article in encyclopedia. Pavlor ( talk ) 09:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, root.cz is a fine reliable news source. 2A02:2121:62B:CF74:0:0:5999:43A4 ( talk ) 12:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pavlor FCIV.NET from the prior AFD is currently a redirect. I think this new name was used because they didn't understand how to edit a redirect or avoid following it. -- ferret ( talk ) 13:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also seems to exist under Freeciv, [19] also for deletion.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd like to point out that Nybygger was previously blocked for two weeks by PhilKnight , after being disruptive in the previous deletion discussion.  It seems Nybygger is still hell-bent on keeping (some form) of the article and is still saying WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT .  soetermans .  ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I blocked Nybygger for 2 days, not 2 weeks.  PhilKnight ( talk ) 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My mistake.  But my point still stands: they haven't learned anything from the previous discussion by recreating the article.  I'd call that disruptive editing.  soetermans .  ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The new article name was in good faith.  This new article title is more descriptive and less ambiguous.  I honestly believe that I am on the good side of history in this case.  Thank you.  Nybygger ( talk ) 18:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe you, in good faith, wish to create an article, But you need to make a better effort to understand our notability and sourcing standards though if you're going to keep making articles on Wikipedia, or this is going to keep happening.  It's no coincidence that editors unanimously still believe that it doesn't meet our standards.  If you understood the standards better, you'd understand the problem better.  Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is the threshold for notability on Wikipedia?  Is a big American website noteable, while a French and Czech, Slashdot (!!), and game-fan sites, and multiple YouTube videos, are anti-noteable?  Why is Freeciv scheduled for deletion, while Civilization_(video_game) is not?  Does Wikipedia not have enough hard-drives to store everything any more?  Freeciv is available to every person on this planet for free, while Civilization is only available to a small fraction who can afford.  Nybygger ( talk ) 22:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you read Wikipedia:Notability ?  ArcAngel (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your response is exactly what I'm referring to.  A person who understands the notability standards would not think that's a valid argument.  This would be a lot less frustrating for you if you take the time to learn what we're all trying to tell you.  Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt for attempting to circumvent a previous deletion.  ArcAngel (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete This looks like an interesting project with a passionate community.  It sadly seems to be common for people who are enthusiastic about these sort of independent games to strongly agitate recognition through creating articles here that fall very short of the site's editorial standards and rules, here in terms of WP:GNG .  It's a shame that in this case it has been very difficult to convey an understanding of the standards to those involved.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 00:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2016 Regent Plaza hotel fire: The other source merely confirms the hotel exists.  No evidence of lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Travel and tourism ,  and Pakistan .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Being newsworthy does not make something notable.  This subject does not appear to have been analyzed retrospectively with significant coverage.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Druella Van Hengel: GalianoP3 ( talk ) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  GalianoP3 ( talk ) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and WP:ATHLETE .  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 14:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"PLADES: WP:BEFORE leads to no results (even in Spanish) except own website, a few reports authored by the organization, database entries.  Broc ( talk ) 07:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Peru .  Broc ( talk ) 07:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unreferenced and fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Monero Talk: Nothing found for sourcing beyond where I can stream it.  Very PROMO and sourcing is all primary.  And crypto related.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom.  Non-notable crypto Libertarian podcast, primary sources.  I'm not too sure the host, Douglas Tuman , meets GNG either.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  The author, @ Aesuithiel apparently regularly creates articles about non-notable subjects which are promptly deleted after the move to main space.  Douglas Tuman appears to fall into the same category as well.  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 21:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've nominated that article as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Was declined by AfC, no improvements here does not meet GNG — siro χ o 21:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  Non-notable crypto-podcast.  Can't find any real RS on it.  Dr. Swag Lord ( talk ) 00:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As always, podcasts are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, but the article is based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-building coverage shown at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not seeing enough RS referencing to establish notability for the podcast or Tuman.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete crypto stuff.  Declined twice to AfC for not being notable, and then was copied and pasted(?) here.  SWinxy ( talk ) 01:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to lack of sufficient coverage in independent sources, just like the page about Douglas Tuman .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Consulate General of the United States, Milan: This article is based on 1 lone primary source.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Italy ,  and United States of America .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This doesn't meet the GNG .  There is only once source cited, and that source isn't independent of the subject itself.  If the author believes the subject can meet the GNG, please find additional coverage in independent suitable sources as per policy and demonstrate why this particular consulate is notable enough.  Combustible Vulpex ( talk ) 10:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Cannot find any SIRS sources.  Ping if sources found.  Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 02:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete — GNG not satisfied.  — Biruitorul Talk 22:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG -- Artene50 ( talk ) 23:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of the United States .  No GNG, but a redirect may be warranted.  Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 04:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"S.G. Public School: Only a primary source provided.  No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - lacks references to support.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not meet NSCHOOL — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"KSEX-CD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 10:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 10:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Strongest hit that I got from my search is them selling their broadcast spectrum to the FCC.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sophie Ottaway: See for instance North and South , by the same author.  Not indicative of long term notability.  Eddie891 Talk Work 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Eddie891 Talk Work 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom and my search for sources; the limited coverage appears to be interview-based, and otherwise churned as tabloid/ sensationalism in low-quality sources and blogs.  WP:NOTNEWS seem to further support deletion at this time; enduring notability does not seem supported by independent, reliable, secondary sources.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The front page of the Telegraph Magazine is a reputable source which includes fact checking as part of the process.  86.22.29.36 ( talk ) 12:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Most coverage seems to be culture war stuff from GB News and the Telegraph, all around the time of the original story.  Fails WP:BLP1E : ""Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual....Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view.""  AusLondonder ( talk ) 22:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This case can be compared to that of David Reimer in the USA, which is still discussed 20 years after his death.  86.22.29.36 ( talk ) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - a BLP disaster of a marginally notable person , with scant coverage .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Saeed Hizam: The only mention of him that I can find from independent news sources is Arabian Gulf League , which is merely a passing mention.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and United Arab Emirates .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG.  A transactional announcement here and not much else.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 04:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Provinces in Great Kurdistan: This list has many references, and according to my own experience, the large number of sources often covers up dire problems in a recent article, because the article apparently avoids scrutiny this way.  Likewise, the references that really pertain to the purpose of the article (tables listing the provinces) are very questionable.  Problems as of this revision include but are not limited to: Rûdaw is affiliated with certain political parties in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and was not even trusted by other Kurdish parties.  Over 10 of the entries on the tables come from Rûdaw, which causes a serious issue regarding reliability.  The rest of the sources themselves come from similar news outlets with clear POVs.  This article has a lot of problems with verifiability, for example nowhere on page 344 (ref 13), does Altan Tan say Kurdistan has a Mardin Province.  This page and the next encompass the ethnic and religious diversity in Tur Abdin .  Encyclopædia Iranica (ref 43) doesn't mention Kurdistan has a Hamadan Province.  These constitute just the tip of the iceberg.  It is evident that a lot of content will be removed due to failed verification when this article is scrutinized.  This gets funny, absurd, even tragic when the Turkish ministry of internal affairs (ref 15), a web page titled ""Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution"" (ref 17), Turkish government's mouthpiece Anadolu Agency (ref 18) are used to support that Kurdistan has provinces called Tunceli, Siirt, and Kahramanmaraş, respectively.  We don't even need to access these sources, because there is 0.00 chance they would support the content.  Kurdistan is a roughly defined region with no set boundaries.  Having such a list is thus not really appropriate.  If this list is deemed necessary, there are some good sources on Kurdistan and various other pages, such as Encyclopaedia of Islam, that list provinces considered part of Kurdistan, but this list has so many problems a WP:TNT will save us a tremendous amount of time.  Aintabli ( talk ) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran , Iraq , Syria ,  and Turkey .  Aintabli ( talk ) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete .  It makes absolutely no sense to list provinces/governates from four different countries together, none of them Great ( sic ) Kurdistan.  Turkish apples, Iranian oranges, Iraqi grapes and Syrian kumquats?  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aintabli , @ Clarityfiend , @ Spiderone : Hello, you seem to want to delete this section of the list, so I would like to talk to you.   So I want to say that you don't seem to believe the sources used in the article, when you have used all the sources yourselves in other articles about Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran.  As for Rudaw's source, which you say we don't believe because it belongs to Kurdistan, why are Rudaw's sources used in so many places on the English Wikipedia? .  We also know that there are four Kurdistan territories in Asia, but you seem to say that they do not exist at all, Why are these things being said? .  Wikipedia has articles about Turkish Kurds, Iraqi Kurds, Syrian Kurds, and Iranian Kurds.  There is also a main article called Greater Kurdistan.  I want to help you if there is a mistake and fix it together, but I see that you have mentioned several conditions, one of which is that the sources are meaningless.  Therefore, I do not see these statements as justified and you have criticized me on several sources in particular, which is not possible.   Tessla ( talk ) 11:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read WP:RS , WP:VERIFY .  Aintabli ( talk ) 11:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I might need to explain more, since there's a lot going on in that comment.  I'm not sure who ""you"" is supposed to be directed at in the second sentence, because I have not used much of those sources neither did other experienced editors here put some random references, such as ""Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution"" (ref 17), to support their addition.  I am also not the one to answer why Rûdaw is frequently used in Wikipedia.  (No one is responsible for that.)  Inadequate sources may be found in some parts of Wikipedia, because they may have gone unnoticed.  Rûdaw is not directly unreliable for all subjects, though.  For such subjects as in this article, we should closely follow WP:NPOV and include a variety of objective and reliable sources.  Using the same news site over and over again is not only questionable regarding reliability (expert publications should have been used) but it also causes a Wikipedia article to be dominated by a specific point of view.  Moreover, this list WP:SYNTHesizes a lot of sources to come up with ""provinces"" in Kurdistan.  These administrative divisions are the creation of unrelated states, and they are not directly related to or congruent with Kurdish-inhabited areas.  So, this list doesn't just merit deletion because of sources but due to a chain of multiple problems.  I have not in any way denied Kurdistan.  I have also not regarded the sources as ""meaningless"" or criticized you personally.  Aintabli ( talk ) 11:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aintabli :Look, my dear friend, you may know that I am not an Englishman, I am a Kurd, so don't complain if I don't understand you well.  Instead of deleting the article, you can help me fix the problems in it.  This is inappropriate.  You want to throw all my effort into the dustbin.  And I also ask you that we can help each other solve the problems in this article.  The sources I have added have already been used on the English Wiki, and I have quoted them for the present article.  So here we were made aware that the sources are on the English Wiki, so we can’t help but rely on them.  (Note:This article cannot be deleted until you and I reach a conclusion), thank you.  Tessla ( talk ) 08:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry that an article you spent time on was nominated for deletion.  Most articles nominated for deletion were also the product of hours of work, although imperfect.  I tried to work on it a bit, but there is barely much difference with regards to the problems I pointed out above.  Aintabli ( talk ) 12:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aintabli : I have nothing to do with the other articles, sir.  I would like to say that the problems in this article must be solved, even if there are many.  I can solve it but I don't speak English very well because I am not an English person.  Can I briefly describe the problems, please? .  Tessla ( talk ) 09:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This seems like appropriate content for Kurdistan#Geography , it could be merged and/or reorganized there.  I don't think this is appropriate as a stand-alone article though.  Reywas92 Talk 17:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No it shouldn’t.  Inappropriate WP:SYNTH is unacceptable anywhere.  Merging into a better article doesn’t average it out with good content.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there is no country called “Great Kurdistan” anymore than there’s a Great Romani Nation .  Kurds are famously a stateless people, and this seems to be an attempt at WP:righting great wrongs by saying there’s actually a hidden official Kurdistan buried under several existing countries, or something.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 23:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject does not exist.  NavjotSR ( talk ) 16:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of battles in Afghanistan: Follow-up to List of battles in Albania List of battles in Algeria List of battles in Belgium List of battles in Croatia .  NLeeuw ( talk ) 19:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military ,  and Afghanistan .  NLeeuw ( talk ) 19:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Poorly written index and duplicates List of wars involving Afghanistan .  Accesscrawl ( talk ) 20:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - yet another WP:FORK , this one of List of wars involving Afghanistan , per comment by Accesscrawl .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Banjax: There is some coverage, but I am not sure it is significant enough.  It was found non-notable and deleted at AfD in 2006, when our standards for inclusion were considerably lower.  Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can get a consensus.  Last AfD closed due to lack of participation.  Boleyn ( talk ) 16:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as the band does not meet any of the notability guideline and Google Search was unsuccessful at finding any sources establishing notability (also sources I did find which were not reliable referenced a different band that is currently active) LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 16:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and England .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete while I got results for them on newspapers.com (also available though the Wikipedia library) all of it was WP:ROTM from local papers of band playing in the area soon and a few charity events, there's nothing to establish notability.  Shaws username .  talk .  01:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Antonis Vasiliou: Sports Up has an article about a much older footballer, who happens to be a goalkeeper not a midfielder, and 24 Sports has a transfer announcement about another Antonis Vasiliou, this one being a defender born in 1993.  To make matters worse, Barnet FC also have a footballer with the same name.  The only hits that may or may not be about this Antonis Vasiliou were Phile News and Kerkida (translated) , neither of which were even close to WP:SIGCOV .  I can't see anything to suggest that an article is required.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Cyprus .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dancing Stars (Austrian season 6): SWinxy ( talk ) 19:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: Dancing Stars (Austrian season  7) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Dancing Stars (Austrian season  8) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Dancing Stars (Austrian season  9) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Dancing Stars (Austrian season  10) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Dancing Stars (Austrian season  11) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance , Television ,  and Austria .  SWinxy ( talk ) 19:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Searching for the Austrian series alone is tricky, but this search , restricted to sites in the . at top level domain, gives some possible references.  I added a reference I found in the German Wikipedia to Dancing Stars (Austrian season  8) .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is the equivalent of Dancing with the Stars, but in Austria.  I have been working to overhaul these season articles to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia policy.  I am currently on the Australian seasons, but can address the Austrian seasons next.  Please allow me the chance to repair these, but it’s not something I can do immediately as I want to finish the Australian seasons first.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bgsu98 and Eastmain : is there anything that could bring these articles into compliance?  What's happened is that some parts have been removed, but nothing encyclopedic has been added yet (i.e. still NOTSTATS).  Can these seasons be standalone encyclopedic articles?  SWinxy ( talk ) 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did remove some of the most egregious nonsense on one or two of the articles, but I have not had a chance to do much more because I want to finish work on the Australian seasons first.  Not that this work is ever truly finished.  In fact, I’ve gotten sidetracked the last few days back to the American seasons in an attempt to bring a uniformity and consistency to all of the seasons in the franchise, regardless of nation.  If I work on the Austrian articles and find I can’t make them work, I’ll re-nominate them myself.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this once more.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE.  I have worked a little on a few of these articles and they are just not worth it.  I have moved a few relevant tables to the Dancing Stars main article, but these season-specific articles can go.  We don't even have articles for every season, both before and after.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"La Quiete: I see a few reviews in sources that do not seem to be RS (and/or may not be independent of the subject).  It seems quite difficult to search for the name in Italian media, so there may well be non-English sources that show notability.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy .  JMWt ( talk ) 10:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - They have some minor media coverage, but it tends to be brief release announcements or, in one case, a ""lost album"" retrospective by a genre expert ( [54] ).  Unfortunately, that does not add up to the significant coverage that is needed here, and otherwise the band is only visible in the usual streaming and directory services.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Paul Mente: JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bradfield Abbey: I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield.  Tim Landy ( talk ) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Christianity ,  and England .  Tim Landy ( talk ) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge with Bradfield, Berkshire .  I can't find anything on Heritage Gateway on this.  There is a mention here but otherwise I can't fine anything significant.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested to Bradfield, Berkshire , or delete outright per WP:V .  Bearian ( talk ) 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There is no such abbey in the uk, and on that basis a redirect is inappropriate.  Desertarun ( talk ) 20:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Agogo Florence Awhobiwom: The sources cited in this article at best just mention her or the foundation she has set up, or are just downright non-reliable.  I can't see any reliable sources offering in-depth coverage on a search either.  Java Hurricane 13:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While there are reliable sources, they don't actually relate to the subject.  Fails WP:BIO and notability isn't proven.  ~ Eejit43 ( talk ) 15:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are, read the whole sources.  I just changed the page name to a name it is mostly known with.  If you still feel it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form let me know.  I am trying to add impactful women in my society because wikipedia makes more women biographies.  Ahola . O ( talk ) 16:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why it is a stub, so it can be grown with time.  she's notable.  WikiProject Women Ahola . O ( talk ) 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP Ahola . O ( talk ) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:JUSTVOTE .  While your cause is noble, you still have to provide adequate sources to prove that she meets notability.  Industrial Insect (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notably, She is known to be the youngest individual to own a band at the Calabar Carnival , her band is The Florence Agogo Foundation (FAF Band).  I just included this line and referenced it.  Ahola . O ( talk ) 19:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Amongst other things.  i could sent some sources here that were not allowed to be cited on wikipedia Ahola . O ( talk ) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and Nigeria .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There are no sources that has significant coverage on this individual as they are about her foundation and press releases.  Best, Reading Beans 03:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Reading Beans OK.  So is she notable to be on Wikipedia or she is not at this time?  If she is and you feel the citations are the problem let me know.  Ahola . O ( talk ) 15:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Problem of SIGCOV.  An article about a humanitarian that meets no notability.  The sources I found were either on another subject or a line mentioning her.  Purely out like this, ""may be notable in the future"".  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , coverage seems moderately significant as per refs and a quick search. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 12:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  Ahola . O ( talk ) 14:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unfortunately the BLP of almost every woman in West Africa opens with the claim that they are an entrepreneur and philanthropist, followed up by the claim that they are some form of ambassador for something.  All of this is supported by churnalism and client media.  This formula is followed again in this article.  Being the youngest person to own a band at a carnival, in contrast, is a unique and novel claim, but unless her ownership of this band is the subject of sustained in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources it doesn’t help demonstrate notability.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP hello @ Mccapra churnalism?  i do not agree.Also it is not just any carnival, it is Calabar carnival , the biggest carnival in Africa.  You can also google search her.  I don't know why you had to make the statement about west African women but i feel as a young woman coming up she should be considered.  You know what?  delete it already, i am tired.  Ahola . O ( talk ) 14:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ahola . O , stop bludgeoning the deletion discussion process.  — Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The subject is not notable.  Notability is not inherited.  Ibjaja055 ( talk ) 14:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks like a promotional piece and fails WP:BIO .  Her achievements do not add to notability.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"The Way to Life: Searching newspapers.com and the Newspaper Archive gives a couple results on Hoff's *next* book, the Tao of Pooh, but nothing on this one.  Rusalkii ( talk ) 07:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Rusalkii ( talk ) 07:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no coverage outside book stores and user-generated reviews.  Jamedeus ( talk ) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Beyond a brief listing in Pulishers Weekly (not a review), I cannot find two or more non-trivial published works of which the book is the subject.  By definition, it fails WP:NBOOK .  Οἶδα ( talk ) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I think I've actually read this many years ago, but based on the evidence , it fails WP:GNG .  Bearian ( talk ) 19:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"OpenSym: That does not change the fact that this is still almost entirely primary sourced navel gazing, and tagged as such since 2015 without improvement [with] no real evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Computing ,  and Internet .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator fails GNG.  Tame Rhino ( talk ) 18:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No secondary sources by either current or previous name.  ~ A412 talk!  15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lara Uebersax: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  NYC Guru ( talk ) 08:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Europe .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - agreed.  Couldn't find any either.  Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 06:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Agreed.  Other than existence, there is no verification from a third party source thus no evidence of notability.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 01:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Abdulla Hassan Kamal: The best that I could find in Arabic sources was Stad Doha and QSL , both trivial mentions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Qatar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mark Burdett Motorsport: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete echoing the nomination.  Can’t find any indication of WP:SIGCOV and no record of notable results.  DRYT.Motorsport ( talk ) 10:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - complete NCORP fail.  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jaime Nack: There appears to be very little RS coverage of the subject, if any.  The article appears to be intended to promote a non-notable consultant, which is not what WP is for.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 11:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Environment ,  and Maryland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems like a resume/promo.  Not seeing a pass of WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independant sources.  I've not looked much into if Three Squares Inc itself is notable.  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (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 11:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NBIO .  I could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Masha Danilova: ( ? )  It had no meaningful hits in Google search.  The sources listed in the article are blogs and YouTube video with one source being irrelevant (added for an OR sentece) FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 10:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , Internet ,  and Ukraine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Plenty of sources from Ukrainian news sites, I'm assuming most are RS.  Unless someone can explain otherwise, it looks to be at notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are couple unreliable YouTube sources, like ref 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 29 , 31 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 There is instgram at Ref 39 muzvar website is unreliable as it is a music portal about show business ] and it was used in 1 , 5 , 17 , 19 , 25 , 38 that is more than 50% of sources and from initial checks.  It is not quantities of refs but the quality FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How could you name YouTube an unreliable source?  It is there to suppport the information provided on the song and it's release date.  What could be a better sourse of date of release than the platform on which it was released itself?  I can't think of any.  Also, in Ukrainian Wiki the Muzvar media website is considered a reliable source, as it's a popular music news website among Ukrainians.  -- Oleh325 ( talk ) 18:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that is called a primary source, see WP:BLPPRIMARY , and see WP:VIDEOREF about citing videos as for Muzar, different wikis will have different policies but please share the link where the Ukrainian Wiki considers Muzvar as a reliable source. See if there is something like this Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 19:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know that the usage of primary sources is discouraged, but when there's no alternative I think it might be appropriate to still add it? I will try to remove as much of the video sources as possible tho, thanks. About Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources — the Ukrainian page on it is just a draft for now, and according to WP:RS this one passes. But if others think it's not a reliable one, I can add [ unreliable source? ] to those citations. -- Oleh325 ( talk ) 11:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oleh325 I think what you can do is to remove all of the information that are not supported with reliable reference or original research.  Having a small article that is well-referenced is better than long that have problems.  Once you addressed the problems that is outlined here in this discussion, then come back and let people know so they can re-assess their vote.  Nothing here is set in stone and people are welling to change their minds if presented with a better argument.  good luck FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 11:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are a lot of articles in Ukrainian language about her on popular Ukrainian news and music websites ( TSN , Lux FM , Unian , Muzvar ) and more.  YouTube video sources are there only to verify the dates provided for her released songs.  Also, her songs appeared in Ukrainian music charts, and this info is also presented on the page.  -- Oleh325 ( talk ) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The TSN reference is original research that I mentioned in the nom. You used when you said (out of context) "" This is not the only case when the singer faced hate or problems due to the popularity of her own name, such situations have happened before. "". Lux FM is radio station, how is this reliable? FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean by ""The TSN reference is original research""? -- Oleh325 ( talk ) 18:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Original research implies that you have made a synthetic sentence as the source does not make the analysis of ""This is not the only case when the singer faced hate or problems due to the popularity of her own name"" .  To be honest from all of the other problems with this article this is the least you need to worry about.  You have included 14 videos of her songs as references violating primary sources for biographies of living people FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 19:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, I can rephrase that so it won't appear as original research, but that's the problem of the page, not a problem of notability.  And which exact sentence of WP:BLPPRIMARY has been violated?  -- Oleh325 ( talk ) 11:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FuzzyMagma I'm still waiting for the reply to my question here. YouTube is the best source to provide the release information there, beause it's literally the platform it has been published on. I've already removed those references and changed release dates to only showing release month, but I'm still curious about what was the problem with these sources. I need EXACT statements from wiki rules which were violated, not some ""oh well it doesn't look alright"". If there's a rule you imply I'm breaking, please provide it so I can gain better understanding of the problem. Thanks. -- Oleh325 ( talk ) 11:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I have listed 50% of the sources that I know does not meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources in my reply to",delete
"Dihydroxyamine: The only ""references"" are database entries that do not show the substance has any publications or is notable.  I am nominating this after User:DMacks 's prod was removed by the page creator.  Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 03:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only dihydroxyamines that I can find in chemistry textbooks are Ar N(OH) 2 compounds, which aren't this.  Uncle G ( talk ) 16:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  The species is super obscure (because of the absence of good secondary/tertiary sources), non-notable, and even deceptive.   Looking forward to comments by other chemists. -- Smokefoot ( talk ) 18:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable, per my comments on article-talkpage and my PROD of it.  Creator objected to PROD, as is their right, but their only activity on WP seems to be rigorously applying uncited terminology rules in contexts where they don't apply or are not even correct.  DMacks ( talk ) 18:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nonexistent compound and not particularly notable as a hypothetical compound; all information provided is trivially derived from its chemical formula.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per nom, can also confirm original creator seems to just add ""other names"" to various compounds, a lot of which are not names in use.  EvilxFish ( talk ) 08:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Likely delete, possible merge.  Can someone run a structure/CAS No.  search against the CAS database [No. 99711-79-2], to be sure that this has not, as a hypothetical substance, been the subject of theoretical/computational study?  The late Jeremy Burdett devoted a fair bit of effort (and book and journal pages) to hypothetical structures, to very effective ends that advanced the materials field (and AO/MO theory generally, e.g., ISBN 978-0471078609 ).  Perhaps also, the material that was removed from this article, early, as plagiarized—see doi : 10.1063/1.2723120 and article history—should be examined for its relevance.  (It's removal may have been proper, but the material may still have been relevant, only improperly used.)  While the article should indeed probably go, if such a structure has been studied, the only place a layperson will find it is in Wikipedia.  So if verifiable, perhaps the lines should appear in (be merged into) the article of the most closely related real compound.   Regards.  98.206.31.187 ( talk ) 19:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well you can look up http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2723120 to see what it was about and it was hydrated nitrite ion clusters.  Another reference removed was about HNO 2 -• which was given a very similar name ""Dihydroxylamine"" but different enough to not be on this topic.  One of the issues with this page is that there is no content worth merging anywhere else.  Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 05:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Taylor Swift (disambiguation): There's no point in keeping this page per WP:TWODABS when only the topics with the ""Taylor Swift"" name are the singer and her self-titled album.  Nothing else could be more than a partial title match, and WP:PTM says those wouldn't belong on DAB pages.  SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits ) 02:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete per G14.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Bluesatellite ( talk ) 03:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete: Due to WP:G14 .  User:Let'srun 03:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: The page creator tagged this as a G14 some time back which I declined as not applicable.  Jay 💬 05:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The page creator tagged it as G14??? Wouldn't that mean it qualifies under G7 then?  Or are you referring to the AfD creator?  Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am referring to RapMonstaXY the page creator.  Yeah, it may be treated as a G7 if the user confirms.  Jay 💬 07:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Swiftly delete .  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (Taylor's Version) .  per G14.  mediafanatic17 talk 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has no one read G14 ?  This page disambiguates two articles, so it is not eligible, and Jay was correct to decline speedy.  That said, yes, this is unnecessary and handled by the existing hatnote at Taylor Swift , so delete unswiftly .  -- Tamzin [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 06:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"TV Tonight Awards 2021: Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Websites , Lists ,  and Australia .  Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No independent reliable sources have been provided to establish that these awards are notable outside the website that organizes them.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-R .  Happily888 ( talk ) 21:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not significant enough to keep here.  Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Merge/Redirect, I assume, to TV Tonight .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years should not have articles either.  I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables, which is undue .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the same reasons I set out in the 2022 list afd , WP:UNDUE per above and unnecessary as a redirect.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above JM ( talk ) 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of automotive artists: Of the 18 people here, just four have articles to link to, and virtually all of the others are singletons where the link in this list is the only redlink that exists anywhere in Wikipedia mainspace to their name, meaning that nobody else has ever previously assessed them as potentially notable enough for an article at all.  And the only one of those redlinks that does have other redlinks in other articles, the redlinks are expecting a different person, because they're sports team rosters from 20+ years after this article says the artist died.  And while automobiles are obviously a topic that an artist can depict in art, the article cites absolutely no evidence that ""automotive art"" is an established genre of art that people can specialize in to the exclusion of other genres.  Putting a cat in an artwork does not automatically render the creator into a ""cat artist"" per se, and on and so forth: in order to justify a list of automotive artists, we would also have to be able to write a head article that establishes and sources that ""automotive art"" is even a standard and recognized and defined and analyzed thing in the first place.  If somebody who works on artist biographies wants to keep a worklist of potential future article topics, they can do that in sandbox or project space, but this would need to meet much higher and stricter standards of notability and sourceability to become mainspace-worthy.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Lists of people .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NLIST and even if it didn't, the small number of entries notable enough for a WP page makes the need for a list questionable.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I had seen this on NPP, and tagged it for notability and unsourced.  The reason why I did not nominate it for deletion is that there actually is a subculture of American artists that might fit with the list, although none of them are currently included on the list.  I am thinking of the Custom Car Culture peeps and ace pinstripers like Von Dutch (a.k.a. Kenneth Howard) , Ed ""Big Daddy"" Roth , Robert Williams and other Southern California artists.  I am also thinking about what writers like Tom Wolfe author of The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby , art critic Ralph Rugoff among others have written, and the Kustom Kulture show that was presented at the Laguna Art Museum years ago.  I am also thinking of photographers who documented low-rider culture, people like Meridel Rubenstein , Danny Lyon as well as earlier photographers who documented hot rod culture, as evidenced in the book: The Birth of Hot Rodding: The Story of the Dry Lakes Era .  Also there is Jean Tinguely 's Le Safari de la Mort Moscovite , Chris Burden 's Big Job and Billy Al Bengston 's Dento series. More recent examples of contemporary artists who used actual cars or addressed car culture, include Richard Prince , Rose Bean Simpson , Andrea Polli , Maurizio Cattelan , Erwin Wurm , Gabriel Orozco , Damián Ortega , and many others. There is also the artist Kane Kwei from Ghana known for his carved wood automobile coffins. So I think there is potential here for a notable list but at this time this should either be blown up via WP:TNT and deleted or saved and written in an encyclopedic and historical manner that includes independent reliable sources that specifically address these artist's car-related works. I do believe enough sources exist to improve it, but I'm not sure I have the time to make those improvements before this AfD ends. Netherzone ( talk ) 19:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment 2 - in the event that this gets Draftified, here are some more suggestions for notable automotive artists: Pete Millar , John Chamberlain , also there is CARtoons Magazine , Tom Medley , Shawn Kerri (a.k.a. Shawn Maureen Fitzgerald). There is also Chris Burden's B-Car, and the notorious volkswagon piece. [28] Also Edward Kienholz ' Back Seat Dodge '38 (1964). Most of these are Americans but would imagine there are also global additions that could be made. I'm surprised (!) by my own interest in this niche genre...guess it must trigger something from my childhood ;-) If the original article creator is not interested in making improvements, I'm willing to host it in my userspace as a draft for development to see if it can be brought up to meet notable-list criteria, or to start an article on Automotive art (or whatever it might be called) and I can work on it when I find time to do so (now is the busiest time of year at my job.) So I guess my !vote is delete-or-draftify. Netherzone ( talk ) 17:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *Delete - As stated in my comment above I think there is potential here, however the list as written does not meet our criteria for notable lists, nor do the artists. The links in the See Also section do not show that any of these artists, with the exception of one non-notable one, Klaus Wagger, make work that depicts or uses automobiles. Therefore, it should be deleted per WP:TNT , and failing to meet WP:NLIST . Netherzone ( talk ) 17:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The source for the list of is now 1 commercial site (Artland). That site generates some curiously inaccurate artist biographies. Check out Don Breckon who was, evidently ""influenced by the artistic atmosphere of the time. Abstract Expressionism prevailed in the 1950s as a primary method of painting, and explored ideas about the sublime and spirituality"". Also I don't think Harry Anderson (artist) is an automotive illustrator. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His article does say he did some advertising illustration work for Ford, but you're right, that's clearly not his primary notability claim for the purposes of warranting listing or categorization as such. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Surya Group of Institutions: Relatively new, so no historical notability and no N:ORG level sourcing found.  Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Quick overlook, one source on the page and is not independent or secondary.  Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Education Facilitators: Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG .  Unreferenced for 14 years.  Boleyn ( talk ) 16:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education ,  and South Africa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article on a long-defunct distance learning company, with extremely detailed but unreferenced text predominantly contributed by WP:SPA Edufacalumni .  The lack of verifiable information would suggest WP:TNT .  The generic name makes searching awkward, but I am not seeing evidence that this firm attained notability .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Relational meeting: - Mebigrouxboy ( talk ) 23:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : It's a phrase, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non-notable dictionary entry.  Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 17:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Security Shield: PROD previously contested by the now-banned Neelix with ""try Google News search"" - I did, and I found either nothing or unrelated topics * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Info - Note to closer for soft deletion : While this discussion appears to have no quorum , it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd .  Logs : 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2012-02 ✗ G10 ← 2011-01 ✗ A7 -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as it's been PROD'd.  Not eligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only information found was user-generated content; other hits were irrelevant (e.g. Spectrum's security service, which goes by the same name).  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There seem to be some newer software packages that use this name, but there is nothing about this particular incarnation.  I can't see anything we'd use, even what's now used for sourcing are mentions only.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Attack on Stavropol: Lacks sources, needs a good copy edit to make sense.  I suspect this is a machine translation from somewhere else but not sure where.  Annwfwn ( talk ) 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  Annwfwn ( talk ) 23:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nevermind, I see that this page was created by @ Great Circassian , a user banned for sockpuppetry.  I nominated it for speedy deletion instead.  I apologize for wasting folks' time.  Annwfwn ( talk ) Annwfwn ( talk ) 23:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I untagged the article.  This was not block evasion so CSD G5 is not suitable.  L iz Read!  Talk!  00:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah ok so I did it right the first time.  Annwfwn ( talk ) 00:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article looks completely messy and text is not properly sourced.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 23:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is how all of User:Great Circassian 's articles look like. So few sources that it's impossible to tell whether they were real events or hoax articles. L iz Read! Talk! 05:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is some kind of historical fantasy. There is not a single word in the Russian Wikipedia about this ""attack"". A Google search didn't yield anything either. -- Khinkali ( talk ) 22:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Such a mess that even if this was notable, the only reasonable move is to blow it up and start over . - Ljleppan ( talk ) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The source given is too badly formatted to check.  I can't tell if this is a hoax, a non-notable historical raid, or a potentially notable battle badly presented. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 23:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per the arguments above. I searched for sources but couldn't find anything of value. (As mentioned, the single reference in the article is too poorly formatted to locate.) Even if this topic is found to be notable, the article is such a mess with nothing great in the edit history to fall back on that we should start over. Bsoyka ( t • c • g ) 04:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this poorly source mess that may at least partly include hoax material/sources. Do not draftify. If there is anything here worth including in Wikipedia, it needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2017 Panjgur landmine blast: No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT .  LibStar ( talk ) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism ,  and Pakistan .  LibStar ( talk ) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No long standing coverage, seems unlikely to have future press attention even in Pakistan.  No group claimed responsibility for it so its status as terrorism is uncertain so I am uncertain of a merge to the general terror by year lists, though some the sources do call it terrorism - despite saying no group claimed it.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kamales Lardi: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are more than 50 sources in the article which satisfies the significant coverage criteria of Wikipedia.  The article should therefore be kept.  Dlarrpi ( talk ) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They aren't about this person though.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only contributions by Dlarrpi have been to this article.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sources 3 and 31 are the only ones in RS and they aren't about this person.  Rest are fluff pieces or PR items...  I find nothing beyond Forbes Council member pieces, which don't contribute to notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:ADMASQ, sourced to PR/puff pieces. - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Wikipedia:Citation overkill with spammy SEO sources has left it impossible to discern whether there is actually any reliable significant coverage of the subject that might pass WP:GNG .  I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but her lecturer/visiting/advisory positions at universities definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Oaktree b and DE above.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A (P)romotional WP:MILL .  Refbomb also incorporated.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The photo portrait of Lardi submitted by single-purpose account Dlarrpi is formidable but cannot compensate for the astonishing lack of independent notability .  Our subject is certainly determined, so the future may hold differently .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Cayla McFarlane: The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was four sentences of coverage here .  Everything else that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2017 , 2020 , 2022 , 2023 , etc.) Additionally, this article from the Daily Express says that she is ""essentially retired from international football at the ripe old age of 21.""  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Trinidad and Tobago .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Fails in WP:V .  Svartner ( talk ) 02:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is an unfortunate football, that didn't get the coverage she ought to.  My search found only statistics and nothing concrete.  Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 07:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Melilla Corridor: There is nothing particular or specially notable about this air corridor.  Instructions regarding this air corridor (speed limitation, class of airspace, etc.) are not information that should be on Wikipedia as well.  Thank you.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as I can't find anything talking about this that isn't air travel documents.  Most mentions of the ""Melilla Corridor"" are about trade and immigration.  Swordman97 talk to me 05:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"John Derian: The sourcing has not improved since then.  I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added an interview in external links, but cannot find any independent, reliable coverage to add.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 12:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Businesspeople , Visual arts , United States of America ,  and New York .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 12:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No reliable sources, fails WP:ARTIST .  Derian appears to be a home goods manufacturer. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ali Kahramanlı: I am having a difficult time finding reliable secondary sources for his notability.  Current references are either from the website of the sports club he once led or his family website, let alone none of the links are functioning.  The article was basically forgotten after 2015.  According to Turkish Wikipedia, he appears to have resigned from Mersin İdmanyurdu SK 8 years ago.  Aintabli ( talk ) 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  Aintabli ( talk ) 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and no significant coverage.  ContributorMix ( talk ) 10:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Peta Hughes: Could not find any sources, 2 primary sources provided.  If she had won a major squash championship that might be a claim for notability.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hellenized Middle East: The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period .  Furius ( talk ) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Egypt , Pakistan , Middle East , India ,  and Greece .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:SYNTH .  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions.  Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere.   The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do.   There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title.   Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion.   So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.  It sounds as though most of this is covered under ""Hellenistic Period"", in which case a ""technical merge"" might be in order.   By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles.   If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation.   There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done.   But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:CFORK .  Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source.  The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic.  Page is WP:SYNTH .  RangersRus ( talk ) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions.  Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.  As for the fork, I am working add more content into the Hellenistic regions section; the list came from Partition of Babylon , because it gave all of the regions that persisted throughout the cultural area's lifetime.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have removed the ""Fork"" information borrowed from the Partition of Babylon page, which pertained to the first rulers of the regions, and now the Hellenistic regions list section only includes the region names and important cultural tidbits from those regions.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK .  Scholarship on ancient history uses ""Near East"" rather than ""Middle East""; both terms are of course eurocentric, with ""Middle East"" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire.  Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as ""hellenised"" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.  The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south).  Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.  The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that.  Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period , including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East , for the regions.  NebY ( talk ) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions.  Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  Further, you make an argument about ""eurocentricity"", but you forget that this is English wikipedia and Middle East is the English term for these areas.  Aversion to the word ""Middle East"" is simply your opinion, and not a serious point.  You also say that the map is bizarre because it includes South Asia and Greece; I argue the map is a good illustration of the area that generated cultural syncretism, especially for the allied and interinfluential nature of the region.  For the last point, I circle you back to the first sentence of this response.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : someone seems to be working hard to improve the article currently, and the title has been changed, perhaps in response to what has been said so far here.   Perhaps these edits will make a difference to whether this article should be kept or merged (I still don't think deletion is the correct means of dealing with a content fork, if it still is one after the current revision process is done).   It may be a good idea to get Aearthrise's take on the content fork issue, and whether he or she has a plan to resolve that, or any of the other remaining issues mentioned in this discussion.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Said editor has been adding material about citizenship in the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate .  It's bizarre synth.  Furius ( talk ) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aearthrise was notified about this discussion; I'm not sure why they've not engaged directly...  Furius ( talk ) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You only notified me 7 days after you created this thread.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting this once to get editors' assessment of article changes.  But if there are editors who are opposed to Deletion, please suggest a simple alternative outcome that a closer can carry out.  AFD discussions are not resolved by complicated rewriting scenarios.  The options are limited with AFD closures and they are decided by consensus so if you are arguing for something complicated, you need to win over your fellow editors to your point-of-view which usually requires simplification.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The topic is not entirely off (the argument that the Hellenistic period extends to the Arab conquests for the Roman East is certainly not new), but currently it reads like a hodgepodge of factoids without a clear plan in evidence, and there are a lot of red flags of bizarre factual inaccuracies (the map, Alexander's conquests 'in the 2nd century BC', the 'state of Judaea', to name a few glaring ones) that lead me to question whether the authors have the expertise required to do this correctly.  I am thus also for delete ; this should first be properly developed in someone's sandbox, beginning with gathering the relevant literature, before a move to mainspace.  Constantine ✍ 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your gripe here is that you believe that this article doesn't have a plan, and claim three ""red flags"" one being the map showing the region of cultural syncretism.  Why is the map a red flag?  It easily shows the area of the original regions in the Hellenistic Middle East, and the two cultural influences that made the most impact in the early days of the area, this is the area described by Ashoka of culturally allied lands.  For your other two ""flags"", it's a simple typo of 2nd century with ""3rd"" century BC, and writing the word ""state of Judea"" instead of ""province of Judea"".  I implore you to give a real example of ""factual inaccuracies"" instead of claiming them from superficial semantics.  You also say that this article is a hodgepodge of factoids, but the evidence follows the theme of the Hellenistic cultural area and its unique cultural aspects; the section with the partition of Partition of Babylon region list can be refined, as right now it deals with the people who began ruling these regions and has some added information on the kingdoms, and Greco Buddhism.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with the map is that it comes from a source for territories mentioned by Asoka as having been conquered by the dharma, but is being used to illustrate ""the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC"".  These are two very different things and there are no sources to support using the image for the latter.  The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream.  Furius ( talk ) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're making two different points in this paragraph about the map: One that Ashoka's declaration of whom he considers allies and peers in dharma, naming rulers of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, is not the same as a declaration of ""cultural syncretism"".  I argue Ashoka's declaration is exactly evidence of the intercultural relation of Greeks and Indians of the time: Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 34: The Edicts of Ashoka, which talk of friendly relations, give names of both Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemy III of Egypt.  But the fame of the Mauryan Empire was widespread from the time that Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya met Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, and engineered their celebrated peace.  Hinduism: Challenges | Interaction with Buddhism, Jainism and The Greeks (2024), Ashok Mishra, page 221: A mission was sent to the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the West, including Syria, Egypt, Greece.  According to ancient sources, Ashoka sent a delegation of Buddhist monks to these regions, where they engaged in dialogues with the local people and established Buddhist communities.  And Man Created God: A History of the World at the Time of Jesus (2013), Selina O'Grady, page 416: According to many scholars, it was the coming together of Indian and Greek culture that created the very conditions that would give birth to Mahayana Buddhism.  It was here that Indian abstraction met Greek individualism to create a more personal, emotional religion that in its turn would profoundly influence the mergence of Christianity.  This Indo-Greek syncretism was reflected in the great statues of Guatama Buddha that the Kushan rulers erected throughout their growing Empire.  Your second point, ""The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream"", is not claimed by the map at all; the map simply describes the area of cultural syncretism.  There clearly had been a long intercultural influence of the Mauryans with Hellenistic States since Chandragupta married Princess Helena of the Seleucid dynasty .  Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination (2023), Rajendra Prasad, page 46: Seleucus married his daughter Helena to Chandragupta Maurya.  After Chandragupta, his son Bindusura became the ruler of the Mauryan Empire.  During the reign of Bindusura, Antiochus, the ruler of Syria, sent dry figs, wine to Bindusura.  Deimachus, an ambassador of Antiochus I was at the court of Bindusara.  Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an ambassador named Dynosis to he court of Bindusara.  Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 36: A ""marital alliance"" had been concluded between Seleucus Nicator and Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya in 303 BC...  This was a common practice for formalizing alliances in the Hellenistic world.  There is thus a possibility that Ashoka was partly of Hellenic descent, if Chandragupta's son, Bindusura, was the object of the marriage.  This remains a hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance, although this is quite symptomatic of the generally good relationship between the Hellenistic world and Ashoka.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The leap you make from ""allies and peers in the dharma"" to cultural syncretism is WP:SYNTH .  None of your cited sources link the two things.  O'Grady does talk about Indo-Greek syncretism, but she's talking about the Kushans.  The caption does not mention what the map was actually drawn to depict at all .  On your second point, depicting all these places in a single colour, together, without any borders presents them as a united region.  Furius ( talk ) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your repeated claim of ""synth"" is totally unfounded, not only from earlier comments, but this one too.  It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other.  That is the literal definition of "" syncretism "", and to deny so is to play a game of ignorance.  Beyond that, to say O'Grady is referring to the Kushans is a total misreading of the quote; she mentions the Kushans only as an example of the presence of the aforementioned syncretism in the great statues of Gautama Buddha they erected.  Furthermore, you say the map's caption does not mention what the map was drawn to depict; So what?  You act like repurposing content for use in another topic is something wrong.  Regardless of its origins, it's a clean map that helps illustrate the idea of the culturally allied region, which is the point of Ashoka's declaration of who he considers Dharmic peers.  You say ""On your second point"".  No, this was your second point Furius, and I responded to it by showing that your previous claim about the nature of the map was incorrect and your own invention: neither the map nor the caption claimed anything you said.  Now, because you don't want to admit your error, you're changing the argument to that because the map represents the three named regions as one unit, it makes the map wrong.  If I showed a map of World War II depicting the European allies as one unit  (being the cleanest map found for use) to illustrate the early British contribution to the war, and wrote ""map of Britain, France, and Poland in alliance, 1939"" would you also say it is wrong and ""Synth"" because it includes a single color, borderless map of the allied countries?  I wouldn't.  As a closing comment: just today, I have encountered another map that has colors and borders.  I've changed the map; so now, you don't even have this point to dispute.  All of your points, the ones that led you to make this article deletion request, have been defeated.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, good that you've changed the map.  You say ""It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other.""  That's true. * That is why we have articles on Greco-Buddhism and Indo-Greek art (and Buddhist influences on Christianity on the limits of that syncretism).  It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period .  It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does).  It remains the case that ""Hellenistic Middle East"" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another) Furius ( talk ) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are reaching for straws and now making arguments from ignorance.  You repeat the same silly phrasing ""it remains"" three times: "" It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period .""  You are saying that because the Hellenistic period article exists, we should delete this article.  Following your logic, we should also delete "" Roman Africans "" because the article shares points with Africa (Roman province) and Romanization (cultural) .  That's stupid.  "" It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does) .""  You are saying this article should be deleted because it covers the specific Hellenistic Middle East area rather than including Europe or the Mediterranean.  That's also stupid.  "" It remains the case that ""Hellenistic Middle East"" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another). "" You have not proven this point at all, and are just claiming it without providing any evidence.  Clearly from the work on this article, this region is definable and has certain traits: it's an area of syncretism between Greek and Middle Eastern cultures .  The area changed over time, in traits and even religion, and this article reflects that.  If you want to disprove it, show what citations you're referring to that aren't consistent with the definition.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 09:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * It's moot, since the map has been changed, but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole, which is what a map captioned ""Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC"" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record).  Furius ( talk ) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If it's moot, then why are you arguing?  Are you full of hot air and want to let it out?  "" ...but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole,Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC"" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record) "" This is another stupid comment, and not based in reality. There is nowhere in the phrasing ""Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC"" that says Indo-Greek culture was a characteristic of the Middle East as a whole. All it says, is that these regions are in syncretism , i.e. they influence each other . You're extrapolation that the caption implies everywhere in the Middle East had Indo-Greek culture is incorrect, and just another one of your misreadings. Aearthrise ( talk ) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment a  lot of these delete comments come from people *BEFORE* this page received so much content, namely Mccapra , RangersRus , and NebY ; I was only notified 7 whole days after the creation of this deletion request. Furius originally claimed that Hellenized Middle East is a ""made-up term not used in scholarship"", although his search clearly showed more than 15 different citations of the term; nevertheless I changed the title to the more common ""Hellenistic Middle East"", with a plethora of citations. Furius also claims a lot of the material comes from Hellenistic period article, which is completely false. The majority of the content comes from books; the section with information from another article is the region list from the Partition of Babylon page and includes its citations. The map doesn't collapse the Hellenistic world into Ashoka's India, rather it illustrates the region of allied cultural syncretism that helped generate the Hellenistic Middle East. Aearthrise ( talk ) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and copy to a sandbox, per Constantine. -- Kansas Bear ( talk ) 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Give a reason why instead of just saying ""per Constantine"", as his argument hinges on three ""red flags"": the map, and then two gripes about a typo and a word choice. Aearthrise ( talk ) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How about you read WP:BLUDGEON . -- Kansas Bear ( talk ) 12:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I read it, are you claiming that my request for you to give an elaborated reason is ""bludgeoning"" you? Aearthrise ( talk ) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have commented on every delete mentioned here. That is WP:BLUDGEON . Kurt Behrendt; Pia Brancaccio (2011). Gandharan Buddhism Archaeology, Art, and Texts. UBC Press. p. 10. Doesn't mention Mithraism, Greco-Buddhism, etc. WP:OR Paul Cartledge (2006). Thermopylae The Battle That Changed the World. ABRAMS, Incorporated. p. 5. Doesn't support, "" Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Persepolis in Persia, Bactra in Bactria (Afghanistan), and Sirkap in India became important cultural centers of Hellenistic culture "". WP:OR Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, James Talboys Wheeler are not WP:RS . ""Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination"" and travel guides are not considered WP:RS . -- Kansas Bear ( talk ) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your claims of ""WP:OR"" are nothing more than nitpicks on the lede of the article; you are saying that simply mentioning the examples of the Hellenistic religions Greco-Buddhism or Mithraism can't be done because the specific citation is not in the lede (despite the fact that these citations are already present further into the article). Furthermore, in regards to the citations for the cities, all the quotes together at the end sentence of the lede establish the importance of those named Hellenistic cities Alexandria, Antioch, Persepolis, Bactra, Sirkap. The single quote you mentioned only references Persepolis. You claim Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, and James Talboys Wheeler are not reliable sources. What makes you say that they're not reliable sources of information? Be specific. This is the section using the sources you claim are ""not reliable"": The Hellenistic Middle East was an area that facilitated the exchange of ideas between the cultures of Greece, Persia, Egypt, India, and Africa. [12] Hellenistic culture was defined by its secular aspect, and facility to absorb elements from non-Greek sources such as local ideas and religion.  Hellenists formed this diverse world culture. [13] [14] Further you claim that ""Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination"" and ""travel guides"" are WP:RS , but don't give a reason why; disqualification of travel guides is not mentioned anywhere in the list of reliable source, so show that too.  It seems like you want to make an opinion, but not willing to provide good evidence to support it.  Aearthrise ( talk ) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep under current name (or possibly another).   The conquest of Alexander the Great led to a significant Hellenic influence on the Middle East.   This is worthy of an article on the spread of Greek culture in the Middle East.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Claude Bédard: The strongest notability claim here, that he won a private internal award from a trade association, is not an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG -worthy sourcing -- but the only attempt at ""referencing"" here is one of his books metaverifying its own existence, which is not the kind of sourcing we need to see.  Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this.  And we're much stricter on referencing articles properly than we were 20 years ago, so the fact that this was kept in an AFD discussion in 2005 is not definitive, especially since even some of the keep arguments at the time called for improvement that the article never saw .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is a common name in Quebec and Canada, so I find hits on all types of individuals with this name.  Nothing about this person in particular...  The one source in the article is primary.  I don't see notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  After a perfunctory search, I, too, found no sources on this fellow.  Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Munawar Ahmad: Other than in relation to his children, there is no indication of why this individual is notable.  Zero sources that I can find.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  In addition to the above comment, there isn't even an attempt to claim some sort of notability in the article.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per the reason above.  Noneate ( talk ) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"WSKC-CD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 09:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Shelby County Republican Party (Alabama): Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking ""significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"".  Much of the article consists of lists of very minor elected officials, such as members of a probate office.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism , Organizations , Politics , United States of America ,  and Alabama .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - NN political party organization of not an especially big county in Alabama .  This verges on spam.  19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC) 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.",delete
"Alexandr Levintsov: Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases.  Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability.  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Skating , Poland ,  and Ukraine .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , found zero sources through online searches.  Toadspike [Talk] 22:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , an AfD on this topic was closed as no consensus due to lack of participation recently, and this one was veering towards the same fate (potentially).  I find the nomination persuasive and, while I am no subject matter expert, I was also unable to find significant coverage in third party sources as required by GNG.  Daniel ( talk ) 23:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Frank Mann (artist): When checking the sources, I found that every single museum collection and every award and honor failed verification; those have been removed but are in article history.  The current sources consist of: his own website, PR and press releases such as ""PRdistribution"" and ""24-7 Press Release Newswire"", other sources are user-submitted content such as Saatchi Art (which is not the same as Saatchi Gallery), an Artsy bio, Artavita, or are churnalism or native advertising .  It seems like WP:PROMO and possibly WP:UPE .  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Visual arts ,  and New York .  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I've removed a few sources that are deceptive seo/""guest posting"" blogs.  The rest range from primary sources to simple labeled press releases.  Sam Kuru (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I've just watched this YouTube video , ""Frank Mann honored member of IAOTP"" (International Association of Top Professionals) and many of the sentences are word-for-word the exactly the same as those in the article.  The thing is, the video was uploaded three months ago, but the article was just created yesterday.  Wierd!  Could this be an AI generated article?  Netherzone ( talk ) 02:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From what I can gather, the IATP seems very much like an organization where, for a fee, you can get awards, go to galas, etc. e.g. Please state below if you are interested in having a customized professional video, need a website built, customize press release, exposure on NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS etc.  SEO for websites to have a higher rank on Google and other search engines.  They don't seem to exist outside of the world of PR.  Think I'll go see how many articles mention this fluff... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The only thing in the article that looked like a claim to artistic notability was a statement that his works were included as part of an exhibit at the 2019 Venice Biennale.  After some confusion with years, I found the web site for the exhibit [19] which does list him among many many other artists.  I don't think a small and otherwise unremarked part of a single high-profile large group exhibit is enough.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 04:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Art Newspaper has a 2022 article on ""‘Pay-to-play’ galleries"" which features a photo captioned ""The European Cultural Centre charges artists between €12,000 and €15,000 to exhibit—shown here is its 2019 show in Venice Personal Structures: Identities 2019 at the Palazzo Bembo."" .  AllyD ( talk ) 08:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, then that definitely does not count towards WP:ARTIST .  Thanks for finding this.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST .  Not in any notable museums or collections.  Agree with nominator that this is Churnalism .  WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 17:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST .  Nothing in terms of coverage or exhibits that he didn't pay for.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 20:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I tried various searches seeking a fresh angle but did not find the substantial, independent coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- not close to WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF criteria.  Pay-to-play (except for reasonable competition fees, etc.) doesn't count.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sonwabo Majola: It is likely he goes by a nickname.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Back Alley Blitz (Friday Night Funkin' OST album): The notability claim here is that it exists, which is not automatically enough all by itself, but the article is referenced entirely to primary source online music download platforms that are not support for notability, with not a shred of WP:GNG -building coverage about it shown at all.  Nothing stated here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt this from having to be the subject of coverage and analysis in real media independent of itself.  Bearcat ( talk ) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Video games .  Bearcat ( talk ) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No reliable sources TarkusAB talk / contrib 23:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There doesn't seem to be a grasp of reliable sourcing here - fails WP:GNG .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ic this is somehow kept it should be moved to Back Alley Blitz . -- 65.93.194.183 ( talk ) 15:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No reliable sources in the article, and I cannot turn up any myself.  Fails GNG and NALBUM.  WJ94 ( talk ) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Suneeta Gupta: Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 05:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Politics , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 05:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Chairperson of municipal council from a local area is not a role that confers notability.  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 08:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and the supplied sources don't help the subject to meet WP:GNG .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 12:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As a politician, fails WP:NPOL .  Gothamk ( talk ) 05:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Raj Barman: Gsearch goes straight to his website, then social media.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - All of the sources are song-related updates.  no WP:SIGCOV .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 09:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Existing sources are not SIGCOV, nothing else helpful turns up on a quick search.  — siro χ o 06:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nation Chakma: Press falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and looks like a recent press campaign given that most are dated around the same timeframe.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a recently created article with linkspam references and no clear claim of notability.   Unless the article creator can demonstrate better sourcing (per WP:THREE ), this should be deleted.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration .  117.209.102.31 ( talk ) 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Page quality or poor edits are irrelevant in the discussion.  The subject is a Indian Actor who had represented his country and state ito the national stage.  Keep per 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 6 , and 7 .  Andarredot ( talk ) 04:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Andarredot ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Yes I agree, I made few or no other edits outside this topic, doesn't mean this page reference is false.  it's my opinion only.  Andarredot ( talk ) 08:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Ven.kalyandutbhante ( talk ) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Ven.kalyandutbhante ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Delete .   The only sources are either WP:UGC or pretty clearly paid promotion (all in very broken English), one of which that even had a date on it was dated after this AFD started; what a coinkydink!  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 01:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - clearly a promotional piece.  The nominator hits the nail on the head.  Onel 5969 TT me 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  I found 1 among many many other English and Bengali sources .  Clearly significant figure in Indian actor and Enterpreneur with ongoing career.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks.  27.56.30.252 ( talk ) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Amazing.  Another reference published since this AfD was started.  This fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That source was already added to the article three days ago.  And it certainly wasn't written by a professional reporter.  What professional reporter begins half the paragraphs in an article with the subject's full name?  It's a PR piece.  Largoplazo ( talk ) 10:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Of the seven numbered sources given above by a Keep ! voter, 1 is clearly advertising.  2 is an IMDb page, user-generated, database-driven content.  3 reads as a PR piece channeling what Chakma wants it to say, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.  4 is database-driven content that says almost nothing.  5 reads as a PR piece, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.  6 is so badly written, clearly not a third-party reporting piece.  ""Nation Chakma is an Indian Actor conceived on March 09, 1996""?  ""He is the primary tyke from his family who acquired Chakma Actor, Entertainer as his profession.""?  ""He is a skilled and influenced person. He fathoms he needs to put in exceptional exhibits multi-day in day out, and that is what he surpasses desires at.""?  This is all public relations.  6 (#2) links to another Wikipedia article.  7 is a database-generated listing that gives his name followed by links to some film trailers but no information.  Largoplazo ( talk ) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources 106.221.118.125 ( talk ) 15:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rievaldo Doorson: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and South America .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I found a passing mention in The Sun , which is not WP:RS , and that's about it.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"WALTR: Sources are routine news coverage.  Developer also has no article, so no reasonable redirect term.  Jdcooper ( talk ) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Entertainment ,  and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:NSOFT .  Owen× ☎ 14:42, 16 November 2023 (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 12:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I looked for sources, and all that comes up is Mac World, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors, and similar sources.  I'd say merge with the article about Softorino, but that doesn't exist, and Softorino also doesn't seem to be notable.  Cortador ( talk ) 13:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ultimate Knight Windom XP: Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROD .  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan .  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Google gave me a bunch of results for unrelated games on ModDB, and WP:LIBRARY isn't really helping.  Fails GNG .  🌙 E cl i ps e ( talk ) ( contribs ) 14:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Checked archive.org magazine scans & google, found no coverage.  Seems completely non-notable.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Henrybuilt: No obvious ways of linking to other Wikipedia pages Newhaven lad ( talk ) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Companies , California , New York ,  and Washington .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I expected to be voting delete, but this, weirdly, has coverage.  Looks like much more than some small manufacturer; nationally-scoped company with both mainstream and design-industry coverage.  Besides the decent references already in the article ( The New York Times (though its a bit short), Dezeen , Dwell , Surface ), [1] (some interior design industry publication), [2] ( Sunset ).  And to the nom, while taggable, an article being WP:ORPHANed isn't a deletion rationale.  ~ A412 talk!  21:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand being an orphan isn't a reason to delete - but when I couldn't find anywhere it might link to that made it feel less notable Newhaven lad ( talk ) 11:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Also some coverage in Architectural Digest [3] , I think we have just enough.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others.  I commend the nominating editor for their effort to ascertain the article's notability, and encourage them to read WP:CANTDEORPHAN , if they are unaware of it, for possible fixes in this situation.  IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 23:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (!vote change) per subsequent discussion.  IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 22:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  ALL of the sources rely entirely on interviews with the CEO or info from the company.  There are no sources I can locate that meet GNG/NCORP criteria, including all of the ones listed above in this AfD (some of which are a mere 5 sentences).  The key isn't ""coverage"", but depth of Independent Content.  HighKing ++ 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per User:HighKing .  DJ Cane (he/him) ( Talk ) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt : twice recreated by a SPA (COI declared).  No significant independent coverage; it lacks both notability and importance (I know, imp is not among WP criteria, but having importance one may expect coverage, hence an incentive for a wikipedian to dig deeper).  - Altenmann >talk 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jacob Borden: JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Caribbean ,  and United States of America .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Searches online and in the Virgin Islands Daily News turned up nothing more than passing mentions.  I also searched for coverage about his time at Indiana Wesleyan but found nothing significant.  -- MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 13:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Couldn't find any GNG passing sources in article, search, etc.  Borden is not mentioned at United States Virgin Islands national soccer team , so wouldn't be a good redirect target.  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 05:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG .  Maliner ( talk ) 09:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the reasons cited above.  Noneate ( talk ) 10:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mert Göksu: MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Neither source independent, written by an SPA, and probably PROMO.  small jars t c 13:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Mccapra ( talk ) 22:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete typical PROMO.  Aintabli ( talk ) 21:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as the editor who saw this page through new page review and put the notability tag on.  I'd like to comment that the author kept adding promotional content and unnecessary external links, to the point where I almost triggered 3RR removing them.  Due to this, this seems like a strong COI to me.  Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not enough or reliable sources exist.  Pershkoviski ( talk ) 23:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Lacks indepth coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hue people: At best, this is original research by the article's original creator.  At worse, this is an intentional attempt to mislead, as an IP editor alleged early on in the page's life.  — C.Fred ( talk ) 02:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions .  — C.Fred ( talk ) 02:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - C.Fred put a lot of work into researching this and I looked into this also.  When the article was proposed for deletion, I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Proposed for deletion: Hue people.  asking for input.  The article says there were 1,153,795 Hue people in 2021 and that they live in Thừa Thiên-Huế province .  2 years later our article for the province said its population was 1,272,621 people.  It seems like this article is conflating the inhabitants of the province with this supposed ethnic group.  The photo's file history says it was taken from a provincial government website: https://sdl.https://sdl.thuathienhue.gov.vn/? gd=4&cn=220&tc=85594/? gd=4&cn=220&tc=85594 A machine translation of the page shows it's about the ""Hue people"" but reading it in context, I think it really means ""the people of Hue"".  I went through all 31 cited references; they contain interesting about local food architecture, etc.  None of them support the idea of a separate ethnic group called ""Hue people"".  None support the idea that all these people speak the Cham language or the Khmer language and not the Vietnamese language .  Our article, List of ethnic groups in Vietnam , does not mention a ""Hue people"".  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , a muddle created by WP:OR and confusion between province and people.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Thừa Thiên Huế province ; a lot of this material could be used to improve coverage of its demographics and culture.  I agree this article basically seems to be about the people of the province.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Indefensible .  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 12:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is a hoax.  DHN ( talk ) 22:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Frank Morse (California attorney): Possible WP:BLP1E .   I removed some scandalous content which was unsourced, but presumably mentioned in Larry J. Kolb 's book.   No other sources.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I'm unsure if this is the same individual mentioned here in connection with the 1992 riots in LA [13] ; regardless, it's a name drop.  What's used in the article now is simply a biography of a working lawyer.  I don't see notability and the lack of sourcing doesn't help.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Businesspeople , Law , Massachusetts ,  and Mississippi .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've added two cites, one of which seems to be significant coverage, but limited to the beating in Mississippi (no kidnapping mentioned).   There's also this which I can't find online.  Associated Press (A.P.), “Beating Charged,” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson MS), October 22, 1964, p. 16.  Oblivy ( talk ) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It is barely verifiable (but not through sources contributing to notability) that the 1960s Stanford Frank Morse had the middle name Patrick [14] , that the civil rights activist and beating victim was named Frank Morse and was from California, that Frank Patrick Morse is an attorney based in Beverly Hills [15] and was connected to some of the named companies.  I could not verify any connection to UC Irvine (COI: my employer).  None of the legal work removed from the article nor any of its material after the 1960s looks to make any case at all for notability.  All we have left to base an article on is the civil rights story and a long ""where are they now"" WP:SYNfest .  And I don't think we have enough detail on the civil rights story to rise above WP:BIO1E .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for inability to meet WP:BASIC , and probably WP:BLP1E as well.   I was holding off to see if anyone found more sources, but I agree with @ David Eppstein this is really a where-are-they-now article for somebody who even at the time was pretty obscure.  Happy to reconsider if more sources are found.  Oblivy ( talk ) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dinesh Sabnis: The coverage is all promotional in low-quality sources, and notability is not inherited from membership in organizations.  — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs ) 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  — Lights and freedom ( talk ~ contribs ) 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Sportspeople .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 01:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Claiming to be notable, but the article reads like a resume with point form/bullet points.  Can't find anything about this individual in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As per the nomination.  BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 07:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Donna Ryu: .  ""not inherently notable"" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions .  Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Found some passing mentions about this person, but nothing more than that.  Subject does not pass WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG .  User:Let'srun 01:36, 24 November 2023 (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 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - — Maile ( talk ) 03:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 why?  JM ( talk ) 21:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JM2023 are you asking because I didn't specify a reason?  I did that deliberately, because I just didn't want to get into a round-robin discussion about ""not inherently notable"".   Be that as it may, I think her overall body of work is impressive - at least, as far as the info given in this article.  In particular, her work on behalf of ""Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco"".  — Maile ( talk ) 23:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, perhaps that case should have the article, not the living person, per WP:BLP1E .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] indeed JM ( talk ) 19:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep the coverage in the Coalition on Homelessness case rises to the level of GNG.  -- Nouspleut ( talk ) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) —",delete
"FirstVIEW: Doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG .  I can't find any RS online nor on article.  𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites .  𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Other than its own web site I found nothing.  It seems to still be active, and its main product appears to be licensing photos of fashion shows.  That's all I can glean.  Lamona ( talk ) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg: While it is backed by reliable sources I believe it can be argued quite easily that this article isn't suitable for inclusion on grounds of lacking encyclopaedic merit.  Boiled down to its core I believe this article is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM in its worst form, namely something that was created and extended as events unfolded but an article where If we apply the 10 year test it's extremely hard to think anyone will be looking back on this after any serious period of time as a notable event of history given it's an article about a non-event that never happened.  As a result I believe this should be deleted .  Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople .  Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this seems to be a tongue in cheek idea that never happened.  It's subjects are certainly notable but the non-fight isn't— Iadmc ♫ talk 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , this seems to be mostly celebrity nonsense.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 22:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I might rename this article, but this is pop history at this point.  The fight never happened, but the ""celebrity feud"" was a thing for almost two years.  This is about as important as the White Bronco chase a generation ago, but it's a thing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not only do I think it's rather perverse to compare a non-event media spat to events surrounding a double-murder, your argument is actively in favour of delete given that the White Bronco chase isn't noteworthy enough to have its own article.  Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 08:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, there was no murder conviction, only a car chase, was my point.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Martial arts ,  and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Too soon to delete as Musk recently revived discussion about it.  Weakipedist ( talk ) 17:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL : ""Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place .""  Right now, it's worthy of a brief mention on the subjects' pages, nothing more.  Astaire ( talk ) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL .  I think it may be worthy of brief mention on the subjects' pages.  Lekkha Moun ( talk ) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect back to List of Epic Rap Battles of History episodes#ep71 .  RECENTISM, CRYSTALBALL, all those apply, and clearly this is better suited as a redirect to ERB.  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 04:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable.  With respect to the revived discussion, it may be notable in the future (see WP:DEGRADE ) but as for right now, WP:CRYSTAL says we can't keep just for the sake of potential notability.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – This ""rivalry"" is much more fueled by imagination and virtual culture than something real.  Nothing that supports encyclopedic content.  Svartner ( talk ) 12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Stefan Savić (Serbian footballer): Using his name in Cyrillic (Стефан Савић), my Google search exclusively came up with that Montenegrin footballer; nothing about the Serb with the same birth name.  The only reliable source regarding AfD target seems to be Sportski Žurnal when he played for FK Sloga Petrovac na Mlavi in 2015.  However, after translation , it's only a passing mention in squad list which definitely doesn't count as significant coverage.  Article fails WP:GNG overall.  Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 11:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Serbia .  Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 11:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 19:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vicki Howard: Park3r ( talk ) 04:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  05:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Strong delete none of the sources are indepth to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NPOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : SIGCOV arguably met.  Again, please, do some searches before these noms.  Even if not met, still a councillor at a major Australian metropolitan city.  Strongly arguable that this qualifies for WP:POLITICIAN; and failing that, still notable under GNG for the same reason.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPOL grants automatic notability for national and state/provincial level, not local government.  LibStar ( talk ) 12:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not invoking WP:NPOL for automatic notability.  I am invoking SIGCOV on GNG for a presumption of notability; with alternative GNG argument based on the facts unique to this particular case.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Town or city councillors are not ""inherently"" notable just because they exist, and just having a handful of purely run of the mill local coverage in the local media is not sufficient to claim that they pass WP:GNG and are therefore exempted from NPOL — every councillor in every town or city always gets some local hits in the local media, so if that were how it worked then every councillor would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because no councillor would ever be subject to it at all anymore.  So the bar for inclusion of local councillors is not ""local media coverage exists"", it's ""they have an unusually large volume and depth and range of coverage, above and beyond what most other councillors could just as easily show, thus providing a credible reason why this person could legitimately be deemed a special case of much greater individual notability than the norm"", which isn't what the sourcing on the table here is showing.  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Brisbane city council is the most powerful council in Australia.  Comparisons to 'every town' are nonsensical.  This council is exceptional in Australian politics.  There's your special case.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 16:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Bearcat.  The article fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL is pretty clear in that local councillors aren't presumed notable.  It is true that Brisbane City Council is very large and powerful, but it is still a local council, similar to most others except size.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 05:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one is arguing that the article should be retained on the basis that councillors are inherently notable, or presumed notable What you are doing by saying ""but it is still a local council"" is arguing that councils are inherently not-notable.  This is a problem If you acknowledge that Brisbane City Council is very large and powerful, it follows that if SIGCOV has been met; this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You still don't give up on Brisbane councillors being inherently notable do you?  Now with the new line the Council is ""powerful"".  LibStar ( talk ) 09:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless of the “power” of the council there are 26 wards, which dilutes the “power” of each councillor.  In any case notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Park3r ( talk ) 05:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one has argued for inherent notability Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then what’s the point of discussing the “power” of the council?  Park3r ( talk ) 21:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL .  Toddst1 ( talk ) 00:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete many passing mentions but no dedicated coverage.  Weakly sourced BLPs (especially politicians) are defamation targets.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Bearcat.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Poppy Morgan: The sourcing is well below GNG for a BLP.  Spartaz Humbug!  12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :  a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.).  OK.  But this actress might meet GNG: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/hull-porn-star-poppy-morgan-2877489 ; https://www.anorak.co.uk/377943/celebrities/hull-mps-want-page-3-banned-but-the-official-brochure-says-poppy-morgan-is-part-of-the-city-culture.html ; https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2006/11/23/porn-star-to-teach-dancers/ as these sources mention that her notability as porn star exists outside WP and outside the industry.  At least, that's how I see things.  And I consider her notable enough to have a page.  If any ATD exists, feel free to redirect.  Thanks.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for proving my point with non reliable sources Spartaz Humbug!  04:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're welcome.  Thank you for providing a link showing these sources are non-reliable according to a clear consensus.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seriously?  Ha ha ha so a tabloid.  A short article with no byline on an online news source with no indication of fact checking and a very short piece on a local news sources that allows user submitted content that has no byline.  Spartaz Humbug!  20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's what I thought.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So you agree they are not RSs!  Spartaz Humbug!  03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That was not what I meant.  ""ha ha ha"" - so a tabloid is not exactly what I would call a thoughtful reply containing a link nor referring to a clear consensus.  But here's a link and a consensus.  Wp:Tabloid states that well-established tabloids should be used with care.  The Mirror is a well-established tabloid.  I wouldn't call it plainly unreliable (and if the other 2 aren't bylined, this one is).  These are not great sources, especially the other 2, but read my ! vote and you might understand what I mean.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tabloids are not reliable sources for the gng but may be used with caution to flesh out an article.  Spartaz Humbug!  16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Going through those sources, really was reading them for the articles!  Still, for mind, she doesn't satisfy WP:GNG .  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft delete/Draftify - Mushy Yank provides enough sources to suggest that the subject potentially could be notable, but they aren't enough to meet GNG or warrant keeping this article.    ~ Politicdude ( About me , talk , contribs ) 18:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There really isn't much of any kind of coverage, outside of [22] .  AVN wins are fine, but we don't count them towards notability, so there is no sourcing we can use.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Other example of coverage: The Yorkshire Post (bylined article in a very respectable newspaper) also states she's a notable pornographic actress .  And that's exactly my point.  I don't wish to challenge the decision on this Wikipedia to have an insanely high bar for notability of personalities from the pornographic industry, but, then, GNG requirements should apply to them in all fairness.  Not to mention the fact that the city of Hull has found her notable enough to have her figuring in one of their official brochures!  (Not that they would have had a hard time finding notable people associated with Hull ) (read presented articles).  I'll leave it at that. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"James Thomas Fishback: No new developments as far as I can tell, still likely to fail WP:NBIO KH-1 ( talk ) 05:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  KH-1 ( talk ) 05:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Still not seeing notability, sourcing is PR items or non-RS.  I don't find any other sources we can use, SALT so this doesn't come back in a month.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:RUNOFTHEMILL business person.  No indication of notability.  He's done one interview with Fox News but there is no independent, significant coverage at all.  C F A 💬 16:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I find articles that he has written, and he has been on Fox News.  The main source about him regards a lawsuit he filed against a former employer.  That would not be sufficient for notability.  I tried shortening his name to ""James Fishback"" which is what I mostly found in the sources in the article but that brought up mainly false hits.  The article is ref-bombed and if the excess were removed it would be a very thin article indeed.  Lamona ( talk ) 05:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jones!: After some searching, I couldn't find any reliable sources that would support its notability, not to mention the article itself has no sources.  It's just not a notable TV channel, end of story.  Kuchi Kopi ( talk ) 11:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  It's just a channel of acquired programming.  Not even sure if it worth a redirect.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Corwin, Henry County, Indiana: The GNIS entry lists its source as ""Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Indiana. Chicago: Baskin, Forster and Company, 1876. An extensively illustrated atlas which includes several U.S. and Indiana thematic and political maps, and maps of counties, towns and cities. The atlas also has many illustrations and portraits, patrons' and business directories, county histories and a U.S. Post Office list.""  As far as I can tell this was never anything more than a named point on the railroad.  – dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana .  – dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable railroad waypoint, nothing more.   The name ""Corwin"" does appear on USGS topo maps starting in 2010, which makes me think someone as USGS just blindly entered the term from GNIS, much like the creator of this article certainly did.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Henry county Indiana, has a few good sources that discuss it's place names EG [41] that don't mention this place, so why should it be mentioned here?  James.folsom ( talk ) 21:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Indian colonisation of Khotan: Wouldn't be surprised if Jonharojjashi had misused some of the WP:RS in this article as well, wouldn't be the first time [9] .  Heck, Jonharojjashi is even citing William Bayne Fisher here, though has purposefully omitted the part where he states the Kingdom of Khotan was founded by Sakas, [1] which is mentioned in the Kingdom of Khotan article.  Instead of obsessing over uncorroborated legends and create a whole article out of it, Jonharojjashi should perhaps look into the consensus in WP:RS instead of ignoring it (such as they did to the WP:RS in Kingdom of Khotan ), such as this pretty relevant excerpt; ""In the version of the Travels, it is the ministers of the son of King Aśoka (ca. 272-31 BCE) who fled India and founded Khotan, where the earth rose in the form of a breast. In the Life (Beal, 1888, p. 203) and in the Tibetan Prophecy of the Li (that is, Khotan) Country (Thomas, pt. 1, pp. 100 f.; Emmerick, 1967, pp. 19-21), it is the banished prince himself who, having been fed by the breast from the earth, later founded the kingdom. Although found in two independent sources, which shows that the story was widespread, it is a legend devised to claim a noble origin of the lineage and should not be confused with historical data (against this see Emmerick, 1979, p. 167; Idem, 1983, p. 263). No colonialization of Khotan by India in the 3rd century BCE is to be considered seriously. "" This is written by Hiroshi Kumamoto [10] , an expert in Khotanese history (eg [11] ).  I think this excerpt from Jonharojjashi's report [12] sums it up pretty well; ""It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional.""  HistoryofIran ( talk ) 02:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : At best, parts of the contents of the article could be added to an ""alternative theories"" section on the Kingdom of Khotan article.  But as it contradicts reliable sources, it does not merit its own article.  ^ Fisher, William Bayne; Yarshater, Ehsan (1968).  The Cambridge History of Iran .  Cambridge University Press.  p. 614.  ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9 .  One branch of the Sakas who founded a kingdom in Khotan (in the Tarim Basin) were zealous Buddhist....  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , China ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note .  The reference above should be attributed to its author rather than the series editors: Gabain, A. von (1983).  ""Irano-Turkish Relations in the Late Sasanian Period"" .  In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.).  The Cambridge History of Iran, vol 3: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 1 .  Cambridge University Press.  p. 614.  doi : 10.1017/CHOL9780521200929.021 .  ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9 .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 04:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rosewater Limited Liability Company: Also, created by one of the co-founders.  Graywalls ( talk ) 01:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies .  Graywalls ( talk ) 01:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Doesn't meet any GNG, and even if it did meet WP:NCORP this would require a TNT due to the POV of the creator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let'srun ( talk • contribs ) 02:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ohio .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only mentions of rose water found, nothing about this company (?).  Even what's given for sourcing in the article is minimal, not sure what the scan of the official document adds for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"I Live Here Projects: First 4 refs are not WP:IS .  Next 4 are about a book produced by the topic, so not WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Africa ,  and United States of America .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jack Salvatore: Both sources are not independent, failing WP:IS .  One is just social media, and the other are clearly PR Newswire.  I didn't think being in Marquis Who’s Who is an automatic sign that he is notable, more references are required to establish notability.  Thank you.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Businesspeople , United States of America ,  and Arizona .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Can't find SIGCOV.  And yes, Marquis Who's Who is unreliable and can't be used to establish notability , much less solitary articles about getting into Marquis Who's Who .  〜 Festucalex • talk 07:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing in the article is adequately sourced.  Nothing in the article confers automatic notability.  For accomplishments of this nature, we need GNG-level in-depth reliable independent sourcing and we do not have it.  Certainly Marquis doesn't count as reliable.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Both sources in the articles are bad (LinkdIn and a press release) and I didn't find any good.  Deckkohl ( talk ) 13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Comparison of IDE choices for Haxe programmers: HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 04:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per WP:NLIST , the grouping itself has to be shown to be notable by reliable sources, which it does not appear to have been.  popo dameron ⁠ talk 04:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't meet WP:NLIST I'm afraid.  Something like C++ might, but this is an obscure language and this comparison is not made in any reliable sources.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Eagle Eye Home Care: Sourced to advertorials.  KH-1 ( talk ) 01:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  KH-1 ( talk ) 01:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Health and fitness ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NCORP GuyBanks ( talk ) 02:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't have enough independent, reliable sources to prove its importance Yakov-kobi ( talk ) 11:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : appears to be lifted directly from their LinkedIn profile.  Pure PROMO with no coverage outside of PR items.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Portuguese in Vatican City: The vast majority of the article is off-topic, being about Vatican-Portuguese relations rather than Portuguese people in Vatican City.  Cordless Larry ( talk ) 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Religion ,  and Portugal .  Cordless Larry ( talk ) 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources already referenced and linked in the article readily demonstrate GNG, including [11] [12] and to a lesser extent [13] [14] [15] .  It probably makes sense to handle the topic differently, perhaps with a lead rewrite.  It does indeed cover history of relations, language, etc.  But such a change is an editorial choice, and needn't be enforced at AfD.  — siro χ o 22:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd suggest that the material on relations might be better covered in an article on Holy See - Portugal relations (which would need to be created, but Spain and France already have such articles, so it would fit well with those).  Hmee2 ( talk ) 18:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete 16 people?  Nonono.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  the existence of this article did cause me to laugh very hard, but that is not any reason to keep it.  a national community of 16 people do not need their own article.  DrowssapSMM ( talk ) 23:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not enough here or sufficiently notable to warrant an article or satisfy GNG.  I note there is an article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people#Portuguese_diaspora in need of work that could reasonable incorporate a sentence or a line in a table on the Vatican.  Also scope for creating an article on Holy-See Portugal Relations.  Hmee2 ( talk ) 18:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would support some sort of split/merge like this.  — siro χ o 18:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Valiyaveettil Movie International: No inherent notability.  Passing mentions and routine coverage won't count.  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 20:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  No significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet GNG.  116.68.98.76 ( talk ) 12:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ORG is not meeting here.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 06:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom  -- Devoke water 09:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gonzalo Lira: Minor mentions in publications, non-notable films.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Chile .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete no evidence he’s somehow become more notable since the last time. —- Ermenrich ( talk ) 20:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not Delete Gonzalo Lira is a notable person because he was imprisoned by the Ukrainian police, for only using his freedom of speech.  Imprisonment of political opponents by the Ukrainian government and the Western world, is notable, and therefore this article should not be deleted.  It's a First amendment right: ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."" *: Nybygger ( talk ) 04:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We aren't Congress, we can't pass laws.  He isn't American.  Please re-read the article on the first amendment, it's not applicable here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTABILITY is established by coverage in WP:reliable sources , not by the fact that something is in the first amendment or you think it's important.  There is no evidence that mainstream reliable sources outside the pro-Russian information bubble care about this man.-- Ermenrich ( talk ) 12:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is the 4th time in AfD, I'd salt liberally if this goes towards deletion, again.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ben Aissa (Benji): As an entrepreneur, coverage is limited to passing mentions for business awards and press releases.  As a swimmer, you'd think there'd be coverage for winning gold in the 1987 African Games ( List of African Games medalists in swimming (men)#200m Breaststroke ), but I can't actually find any coverage stemming from that victory that's not a database.  A412 ( Talk • C ) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Sportspeople ,  and Tunisia .  A412 ( Talk • C ) 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Coverage found is about another individual involved in the SNC Lavalin affair, nothing about this person.  Having a patent or two doesn't make you notable.  Rest reads like fluff.  And crypto.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Seems like a WP:SPA -created WP:NOTCV -failing promo to me.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Panthers–Seahawks rivalry: Nothing has changed since this article was deleted in 2020 (though I do not think WP:G4 applies, this article was created by a different user who was not on Wikipedia in 2020).   The references fail WP:GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry.  All are WP:ROUTINE coverage except this Rolling Stone article which explains the teams ""could become"" a great rivalry (with no follow-up that such a rivalry was established).  Frank Anchor 13:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football , North Carolina , and Washington .  Frank Anchor 13:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not an actual rivalry.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not an actual rivalry.  The Rolling Stone article is from 2016, evidently nothing emerged.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The only sources are from 2016 and merely suggest that a rivalry could hypothetically develop, but there is no substantive evidence that it actually exists or ever existed.  This agrees with the deleted 2020 version of the article: In 2016, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll claimed the Panthers were not a rival.  USA Today claimed in 2019 that a rivalry no longer existed between the two teams and a Seahawks USA Today blog in 2019 gave the Panthers only an honourable mention for biggest rivals, saying ""this isn't too much of a rivalry.""  Beyond that, this is nothing but a matchup log hardly worth its own article.  -- Kinu t / c 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Did a quick search and found the Rollin Stones article, but we do not WP:CRYSTALBALL about rivalries.  They either exist with WP:SIGCOV or they don't.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As the nom mentioned, the sources are all routine coverage for the NFL.  There's not enough here to show that there's actually a rivalry.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : none of the cited sources are centered on a ""rivalry"" between the teams.  PK-WIKI ( talk ) 01:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mediapoint: Orphan article.  Many of the sources listed (and not cited inline) are dead.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : All sources are listed are dead.  It's an orphan article and I agreed with LibStar.  CastJared ( talk ) 00:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] archives exist for all of the links so the fact they are dead is not relevant Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I think I suggest that it will keep.  CastJared ( talk ) 12:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll reverse to delete.  CastJared ( talk ) 04:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies ,  and Australia .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Archives of the links demonstrate this org had SIGCOV in 2009.  Notability is not temporary Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jack4576 : Although I appreciate the sources that you've added, I would say that it still fails WP:SIGCOV because both are largely comprised of interviews.  You mention ""SIGCOV from 2009"", however both of the sources you added were from 2012.  Do you have any 2009 sources that could be added to the article?  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you click and open the archived link.  “Brothers Persist as downturn bites advertisers” you can see the article date as 2 Aug 2009 Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Still fails WP:GNG , and per my earlier comment the sources added fail WP:SIGCOV .  Jack hasn't added any more sources and is now banned from AfD, so I don't think much is going to be done here.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mehdi Zatout: Lack of independent, in-depth coverage.  Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NKICK , fighting for ONE championship many times does not give notability.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 11:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts , Thailand ,  and France .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - @ Lethweimaster that article should be improved not deleted; fighter is ISKA and WBC World Champion, making him notable per WP:KICKGUIDE .  Lewolka ( talk ) 12:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :Improve article then, Lewolka.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 16:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ""Kickguide"" are not an official guidelines, they are to help us members of the Wiki project.  These guidelines are erroneous: The WMC title is given loosely at local stadiums in Thailand (Bangla ect).  Winning an ISKA title definitely doesn't make a fighter notable as the organization sanctions low level/non notable events all the time.  Same for WBC Muaythai who's article was deleted for not being notable enough in 2022 ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Boxing Council Muaythai ) If you don't like the criteria you should propose we review them officially, I'd gladly help, otherwise article has to pass GNG.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 20:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lethweimaster Well I’m not a member of the Kickboxing task force but you are, so if those guidelines are erroneous you’re in a better position to start the change.  Lewolka ( talk ) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is written at WP:KICKGUIDE is simply to guide Wikipedians in finding notable subjects, as if  kickboxing athletes have won certain titles, significant coverage is likely to exist.  I don't have problem with the official WP:NKICK guidelines.  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 11:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - He fought for notable world titles: WBC Muaythai, ISKA and ONE Championship Kickboxing (not MMA), which gives him notability.  Source Osu . karellian-24 ( talk ) 16:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have to base our decision on Notability guidelines.  Otherwise our discussions have no structure.  These titles do not give the subject notability as per WP:NKICK .  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 20:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but there it is not full.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force . karellian-24 Also for amateur boxing it is even passing with a NATIONAL championship medal.  Or medalist in the world championships, World Games, sometimes even European championships of all the sports... ( talk ) 00:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The link you are referring to is WP:KICKGUIDE , which states: ""If one of the following guidelines for kickboxing-related articles is in conflict with a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the later has priority over the former.""  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 08:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage .  Note that WP:KICKGUIDE is not an official Wikipedia policy or guideline and thus has no bearing on this discussion.  Per WP:NSPORTS , all sport subjects must pass WP:GNG .  If multiple sources of SIGCOV are found, ping me and I will be more than happy to change my ! vote.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  11:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG , only have routine sources.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 13:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - ISKA, WMC, and WBC world champion, European and multiple time French champion, ONE veteran and World title challenger [18] and coach of a notable fighter , [19] more refs [20] , [21] Lewolka ( talk ) 14:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You already voted, strike one of your votes.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 19:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not meet GNG.  Tapology stats page N Sherdog forums post N ""Yahoo News"" , copied from onefc.com (hosted on FightNewsAsia) N 404 page from WBC Muay Thai , but non-independent anyway N onefc.com non-independent N onefc.com , article repurposed from the earlier onefc.com story copied by #3 N ""AsiaOne"" , identical to #3 copied from onefc.com N Sherdog , routine match preview by a contractor for ONE Championship on a site of questionable reliability N 404 N Boxemag stats N Siam Fight Mag , pure Q&A N Bangkok Post , unattributed copy of The Nation , match preview/interview with opponent, no SIGCOV of Zatout N 404 page from WBC Muay Thai N MMA Fighting , passing mention N MMA.uno 404 , likely routine match recap N mixedmartialarts.com/ONE Championship , non-independent N ONE Championship , non-independent N Sport360 retirement announcement, routine fight recap followed by quotes from a press conference, interspersed with content regurgitating or directly plagiarized from the onefc.com profile from #3.  onefc.com: Zatout, who co-owns Venum Training Camp Thailand in Pattaya , is looking to display the skills that made him a kickboxing and Muay Thai champion in organizations around the globe.  [...] Zatout got his start in Muay Thai through a group of school friends who were learning at a local gym in his hometown of Noisy-le-Sec, an eastern suburb in Paris, France.  Sport360: Zatout, who co-owns Venum Training Camp Thailand in Pattaya, began training Muay Thai at 10, through a group of school friends who were learning at a local gym in his hometown of Noisy-le-Sec, an eastern suburb in Paris, France.  N Wordpress blog N muaythaitv.com results 404 N .  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete after review of JoelleJay's analysis above.  Nswix ( talk ) 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.",delete
"Dan Deublein: Password (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Password (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Film and television DELETE - Non notable, and not necessarily written according to IMBD, the only source listed.   He does not appear to have ever been a ""star"", guest or otherwise.   I edited some entries under Film and television, much of which was exaggerated as to how many performances the actor did.  Possibility the author Dubliner1 is the actor Dan Deublein, as this article is the only one they ever edited.  — Maile ( talk ) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"AC Ventures (company): In particular, all sources here were already considered and rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Ventures (2nd nomination) .  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 23:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've attempted a source assessment table: jlwoodwa ( talk ) 00:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  ""AC Ventures reaches first close of a $250M fund for Southeast Asian startups"" .  techcrunch.com .  14 September 2022.  ~ WP:TECHCRUNCH , see prev ~ WP:TECHCRUNCH , see prev about fund, see prev ✘ No ""AC Ventures' Journey With Adrian Li: Fueling Growth and Impact in Southeast Asia"" .  AsiaTechDaily - Asia's Leading Tech and Startup Media Platform .  9 February 2024.  blog, see prev blog, see prev ✘ No Shu, Catherine (23 January 2024).  ""AC Ventures closes its new $210M Indonesia-focused fund"" .  TechCrunch .  ~ WP:TECHCRUNCH , see prev ~ WP:TECHCRUNCH , see prev about fund ✘ No Rosendar, Yessar.  ""Indonesian VC Firm AC Ventures Closes $205 Million Fund, On The Hunt For Early Stage Startups"" .  Forbes .  WP:FORBESCON WP:FORBESCON ✘ No Staff, TechNode Global (2024-01-23).  ""AC Ventures raises $210M to back tech-enabled businesses in Indonesia and Southeast Asia"" .  TNGlobal .  Retrieved 2024-05-15 .  press release aggregator, see prev press release aggregator, see prev ✘ No ""AC Ventures raises US$210 million for fifth investment fund"" .  The Business Times .  2024-01-23 .  Retrieved 2024-05-15 .  press release ?  no discussion ✘ No Mulia, Khamila (2021-12-01).  ""Indonesia's AC Ventures closes third fund at USD 205 million"" .  KrASIA .  Retrieved 2024-05-15 .  see prev ?  see prev ✘ No ""AC Ventures launches advisor community to help startups achieve operational excellence from day one"" .  Asia Food Journal .  2023-02-21 .  Retrieved 2024-05-15 .  press release ?  no discussion ✘ No ""Indonesia's AC Ventures said to have closed fifth fund at around $200m"" .  DealStreetAsia .  see prev ?  no discussion ?  paywall ✘ No ""AC Ventures raises US$210mil to back founders in Indonesia and Southeast Asia"" .  Digital News Asia .  28 January 2024.  press release ?  no discussion ✘ No ""AC Ventures' Pandu Sjahrir on Asean's Economic Resilience"" .  www.bloomberg.com .  see prev ~ see prev ✘ No ""Tech in Asia - Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem"" .  www.techinasia.com .  see prev ?  see prev about report ✘ No Yong, Yimie (25 May 2023).  ""Tech sector may be in 'funding winter' but AC Ventures sees opportunities in EV, circular economy & sustainable agriculture, says Managing Partner [Q&A]"" .  TNGlobal .  press release aggregator, see prev press release aggregator, see prev ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , Indonesia ,  and Singapore .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Just the history here should be enough TBH, but I can't find anything on my end.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Chavão888: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 04:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment potential COI, warned on User talk:Gustavo (Musician Wiki) at Special:Diff/1197353951 .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 04:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 05:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – No relevance, appears to be promotional content.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No relevance, no sourcing, non-notable.  Worth noting that the sources [16] [17] appear to have copied from a wiki, potentially us.  Using automated Google translate shows a bracketed ""[edit]"" next to some of the headers.  — Sirdog ( talk ) 03:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per above dxneo ( talk ) 13:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tar Heel Wrestling Club: Sources in article are primary, BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 17:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Wrestling ,  and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tarheel wrestling club has had multiple world medalists represent them at significant world wrestling tournaments.  It is equal to that of [Nittany Lions Wrestling Club] which is also an RTC program for the Olympics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjrocha ( talk • contribs ) 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - notability is not inherited.   Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH .  Onel 5969 TT me 18:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Salvio giuliano 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shawn Teller (hy/hym) ( talk ) 20:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : also could not find any significant coverage, not even local -- there is nothing in any of the major Chapel Hill publications that I found, not even student media.  Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 14:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete while there may be several notable people in the club, as a whole, the club itself is not notable.  ArcAngel (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of Primary source, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS NP83 ( talk ) 10:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Defaqto: Sources also seem questionable.  🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link !  10:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Organizations , Companies ,  and United Kingdom .  🌶️ Jala peño 🌶️ Don't click this link !  10:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The orange tags were added by me a few minutes ago; you are free to proceed with this but I would suggest that the presence of the tags not be a part of the reason for deletion.  331dot ( talk ) 10:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This does read like a press release, sources found are mostly mentions or ratings for insurance.  Nothing for GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:24, 19 June 2023 (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 14:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - article is clearly promotional and entirely unreferenced except for the ""History"" section.  Note that another user flagged it for deletion back in 2015 via WP: PROD .  The article may be notable enough for encyclopedic inclusion but would need a complete rewrite.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Taichi Takahashi: This was the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found, containing a handful of sentences of coverage, but no in-depth or sustained coverage.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and Japan .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep From the interview provided, his Japanese Wikipedia, and googling his Japanese name (高橋汰地) there looks to be enough here for WP:GNG .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the six sources in his Japanese article have any WP:SIGCOV .  Feel free to present any new sources you found.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Couple of lengthly profiles here and here .  this , this and this all found just by googling his name.  A more in depth search (perhaps by someone with better access to Japanese sourcing than myself as a lot is restricted here) will likely find more Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for presenting these.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first one is from the JRFU (see the copyright at the bottom) and the second is by the same affiliate.  The others just seem like routine reporting of press conferences without much independent contribution, especially the last one.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sourcing seems restricted to routine coverage of press announcements and interviews rather than independent in-depth profiles.  Not convinced the subject meets SPORTCRIT.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and JoelleJay lacks indepth coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vikas Gupta (born 1970): No evidence of notability of 'political activism' and chairing the Uttar Pradesh Council of Agricultural Research is certainly not grounds for notability.  Note article was previously drafted to 'segregate COI/UPE' by an experienced page patroller, but returned to mainspace after declined AfC submission with no improvement.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Politics ,  and India .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hopewell, Blount County, Alabama: The maps show a few buildings but no concentration, and while there is a Hopewell Church nearby, it may just be coincidence as ""Hopewell"" is a common name for a Baptist church, and there's another in the county which attracts more Google attention due to its cemetery.  About the only other things are references to it as an area.  Mangoe ( talk ) 21:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And indeed, pre-2021-feature-code-squashing the GNIS feature code was … drumroll … ""locale"", so Wikipedia is lying about places to the world again.  Uncle G ( talk ) 11:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not ""lying"", the local county newspaper refers to Hopewell as a community, regardless of whether it is notable.   For some reason I got mad that you said Wikipedia is lying so I found those references.  lol. -- Milowent • has spoken 13:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it is, and it contains thousands of these lies .  We had one that turned out to be stating the falsehood that a well in the middle of the Sonoran Desert was a populated place just a few days ago.  A ""locale"" is a feature code that is not a populated place, which was by contrast ""ppl"".  And as Mangoe has already pointed out, Hopewell Road in that newspaper article is the location of Hopewell Church (which had its own GNIS record that originally said ""church"" as the feature code, amusingly enough).  You have coatracked something about a different place onto the lie. Uncle G ( talk ) 14:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uncle G , wait, is this well, "" Queens Well ""?   Described as a ""village of 15 homes"" by the Tuscon Citizen in 1993 [4] and a Papago village with solar equipment constructed in 1982 [5] , and an ""outlying Indian village"" in which 3 homes were destroyed in a flood in 1962 where the ""Red Cross is feeing and clothing all the residents of Queens Well."" [6] ?-- Milowent • has spoken 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether or not WP is being in some sense accurate here, any accuracy is purely accidental, as this article was mass-created by someone who routinely called all these places ""unincorporated communities"".  I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them conscious misrepresentations, but the level of negligence coupled with the euphemistic color of calling places ""communities"" is particularly galling given the persistent pushback against any kind of wholesale cleanup, much less what goes on when these are nominated one by one.  Mangoe ( talk ) 14:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] G, my addition is about the same Hopewell community, the Hershel Jones road referenced in that newspaper article is near the GPS location linked in the article.   I think there would be probably be little pushback against editing ""locale"" articles to say locale instead of unincorporated community  -- I realize that may render them more likely to be non-notable. -- Milowent • has spoken 16:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as not meeting WP:GNG and WP:N .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Shulamite Ezechi: BEFORE searches on Google and ProQuest remain unpromising Mach61 ( talk ) 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Nigeria ,  and Scotland .  Mach61 ( talk ) 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does pass WP:ANYBIO .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 19:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I definitely meant Doesn’t in the above.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : by the BEFORE search performed during nomination.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe subject has received coverage in secondary source to pass WP:ANYBIO such as here , here , and here .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itomishor ( talk • contribs ) 10:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These sources are secondary, but not independent; the former source is a university Ezechi was affiliated with, the latter two interviews.  Mach61 ( talk ) 11:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The university is independent and secondary source since she is not affiliated.  The institution is acknowledging her notable achievement in the society.  Not all alumni gets celebrated except they are making unique notable contribution in the society.  Itomishor ( talk ) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : The subject is supported by secondary sources though the independence of the sources is vague.  So, I am voting week keep the article because of its potentials.  Bekilicious ( talk ) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : it has coverage on multiple secondary source.  Dcraigo ( talk ) 10:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ben Aulich: [4] After reviewing the sources in the article and through google news.  I believe this is a WP:BLP1E .  Notability is from his alleged money laundering activities.  WP:CRIMINAL Every other sources involve the cases that he took and are supported only by trivial mentions of his name in RS.  Morbidthoughts ( talk ) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia .  Morbidthoughts ( talk ) 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Notability problems aside, I find this article highly problematic.  It reads like a piece of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW .   Additionally the article engages in flagrant WP:BLP violations by claiming that persons who were respondents in civil disputes were prosecuted.  This is irredeemable rubbish.  TarnishedPath talk 11:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've just reviewed the edit history for the article, particularly material removed by another editor which was in the original article and that has cemented my view that this article was created for the sole purpose of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW .  TarnishedPath talk 11:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the only possible claim of notability relates to the money-laundering allegations but that has WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL issues per the nominator.  All the rest is cases he's been involved with but that's just a lawyer doing lawyer stuff and doesn't make him individually notable.  Neiltonks ( talk ) 12:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination by Morbidthoughts .  The comment by TarnishedPath is informative as to why this article exists at all.  The motive relates to real world concerns in court and in ragsheets.  Motive of authors isn't a reason to delete, but helps me understand why WP:GNG etc. was never a goal or concern for this article's authors.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 21:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Morbidthoughts @ Shellwood @ TarnishedPath @ JFHJr @ Neiltonks I am the article’s author.  Thank you for your feedback regarding its issues.  It’s my first attempt at creating an article and this is helpful information.  I will edit the page to address the concerns raised around WP:BLP , WP:BLP1E , WP:ADVOCACY , WP:RGW , WP:CRIMINAL and also adding links and sourcing.  I believe the article on Ben Aulich is a valuable encyclopedic resource.  If his case goes to trial in the Supreme Court of Australia it will likely be newsworthy at a national level (given the issues around disclosure that link closely with the high-profile Lehrmann/Higgins case and a similar cast of prosecutors and police).  I believe the Wikipedia page would be a good reference for those with an interest in finding out more about Ben Aulich, including media covering any trial.  I understand there is an option to move the page into draft space until the issues around notability are resolved.  Would appreciate any feedback on whether this would be a consideration rather than deletion, if the consensus is that the page should not be published?  Thank you.  2023WikiUser ( talk ) 23:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would encourage you to read all of those policies you linked in full plus more.  Also this subject just doesn't have independent, in-depth, non-trivial, broad coverage from reliable sources that justifies an article.  A simple google search confirms that, with most of the hits being their own firm or social media.  TarnishedPath talk 23:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only problem with speculative newsworthiness of a future court case is that it does not speak to notability of this subject.  If the hypothetical SC case were itself notable, there should probably not be a WP:BLP on each litigant, but an article on the case.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 21:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. A draft?  I would eventually WP:MFD a draft of this if one is made.  It will go stale because you can't remedy notability where it ain't.  Otherwise, I'd chip in at MfD if anyone noms said hypothetical future draft before I notice.  Cheers.  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Andy Barron: Boleyn ( talk ) 20:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Music , Photography ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not make a claim that satisfies WP:ARTIST .  Does not pass WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO .  Existing sources are 100% primary.  I searched the web and did not find any independent reliable sources.  This article has barely changed since it was first created in 2006, by an editor who only seemed to contribute a few edits almost exclusively around the topic of Switchfoot.  Note that Barron does not appear to be this photographer also by the name of Andy Barron.  - Lopifalko ( talk ) 07:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A puff piece about a non-notable photographer.  Fails WP:ANYBIO .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It looks like he's worked for some notable outlets, but there really isn't anything in terms of coverage about the subject himself.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 18:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Lopifalko dxneo ( talk ) 08:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lisa Grotts: No sources in article are enough to establish notability and all a search threw up (a short one, I had to stop before I threw up) were bubbles of self-published guff.  Article creator looks very much like either the subject of this bio or a paid contributor.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep She's called on by media as an ""etiquette expert"" [7] , [8] and [9] .  Her publication in the Reader's Digest article also has some discussion in the media.  She might pass as AUTHOR.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Brief mention of the book here [10] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think that any of those links do anything to establish notability.The firstthree merely quote her; they are not about her.  I couldt find the mention in the fourth, but I think it takes more than a mention in an alumnus newletter to establish the notability of a book.  Two reviews in independant reputable publications, I believe.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would also point out that the perpetrator of this article (whose editing history- ten edits and then this confection- suggests that they are either Ms Grotts herself or a paid lackey of some stripe) could only come with an Amazon listing and something from a PR company as refs for the ""book"" (more a booklet; only 58 pages) suggest that there is nothing of any substane out there.  Is there a different set of notability criteria for pamphlets?  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can only find trivial mentions, nothing that I would consider WP:SIGCOV .  Fails WP:GNG and any other notability standards I can think of.  Jacona ( talk ) 15:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Cheryl Kline: Also several significant assertions are unsupported by reliable, independent sources.  Paul W ( talk ) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  Paul W ( talk ) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts .  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am pretty sure this is the work of a PR agent or marketing strategist who is trying a little too hard to publish a WP article on this artist.  There are also drafts by the same creator and another WP:SPA waiting in the wings for Draft:Cheryl Kline , Draft:Cheryl Ann Kline , and Draft:Cheryl Ann Kline (Figurative Painter) if this one gets deleted.  Therefore: WP:PROMO .  While the artist has some technical ability and started her own ""school"" and self-published her own book, an online BEFORE search does not reveal the type of independent coverage in reliable sources that we would normally find for a notable artist.  What I do find are press releases, gallery listings and other primary sources, Amazon and ThriftBooks selling her self-published book, adverts for her ""school"", and user-submitted content, native advertising ""magazines"" like Artist Portfolio Magazine where an artist can buy space to have an article, etc. I am not finding WP:SIGCOV such as in-depth reviews in notable art magazines, entries in art history books nor a a track record of important exhibitions or works in notable museum collections.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST .  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Netherzone ( talk ) 01:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article and its three redundant drafts.  Some gallery shows and two articles in the same local newspaper that both read like retreaded press releases do not constitute a pass of WP:ARTIST .  And you do not get to keep backup drafts waiting in the wings in case your main article gets shot down.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 02:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Netherzone and David Eppstein have said all that needs to be said about notability.  The creators of the drafts (Samism1, Shaunsmith12) should probably be investigated for UPE/socking.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 18:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to closing admin: if this is deleted, what would be the best method for deleting the duplicate drafts?  Would salting be appropriate?  Netherzone ( talk ) 20:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Strike Social: Refs are routine business news and PR.  scope_creep Talk 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per nom, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON .  Coverage available consists of press releases (Business Insider) and routine business pieces in the usual publications such as TechCrunch and Forbes, and in local Chicago outlets, all lacking any any analysis.  Mooonswimmer 13:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies ,  and Illinois .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is coverage in WP:RS platforms, satisfy WP:GNG [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] .  62.201.239.211 ( talk ) 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every single of these fail WP:SIRS .  Paid profiles, the company moving fails and Techncrunch is non-RS.  This editor has 6 edits.  scope_creep Talk 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Lets look at the refs: Ref 1: Paywalled.  Ref 2: [20] PR.  Moving HQ.  Its junk and not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 3: [21] This is a profile.  It is not indepedent, taken from website.  Its fails WP:SIRS .  Ref 4: [22] Providing the analytics for some reason.  It is not independent.    Fails WP:SIRS Ref 5: [23] This reporting on Forbes X of Y article.  It is non-rs.  Ref 6: [24] This is the actual Forbes X of Y article.  It is non-rs.  Ref 7: [25] Moving HQ.  fails WP:SIRS Ref 8: [26] Interview with the founder.  Fails WP:ORGIND .  Ref 9: [27] Forbes contributor.  Non-RS.  Ref 10 [28] It is pure junk.  WP:PRIMARY .  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 11 [29] WP:PRIMARY .  Not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS Ref 12 [30] Paid profile.  Not independent.   Fails WP:SIRS Ref 13 [31] Paid Profile.   Not independent.   Fails WP:SIRS Ref 14 [www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160707/ISSUE01/160709991/why-this-digital-ad-buying-startup-moved-to-chicago] Moving and interview and PR.  Fails WP:SIRS , WP:ORGIND .  Not a single source is valid enough to pass WP:NCORP .  It is an brochure advertising article.  scope_creep Talk 20:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , a non-notable organisation, the article puffed out with flaky sources and the smell of advertising.  Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 20:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Reviewing the assement by Scope Creep, I would agree that references fail WP:SIRS .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 23:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Atul Raghav: -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , India ,  and Delhi .  Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 09:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -per nom.  ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 10:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non notable athlete who has not won any notable championships.  Fails WP:ATHLETE .  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Kindly review the sources cited, It clearly proves the notability of a given article, Hence it passes WP:ATHLETE .  *Note- Kindly have a basic understanding of Taekwondo in India and sports in India.  Do check the World Taekwondo simply compete website for more.  He won bronze medal in World Taekwondo G-2 Championship 2020 in Dubai and gold in national games 2018 which are clearly cited by reliable news sources.  Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation (Government Body) itself mentioned and posted about him on social platforms.  Do keep in mind, Taekwondo is not cricket.  It's growing unlike other unconventional sport and not a single athlete in india qualified or won medal in olympics due to multiple factors but that doesn't mean the athletes are not notable.  kindly check D section of WP:BEFORE .  Don't be bias and do injustice to the termm Wikipedia Notability by deleting articles intentionally and specifically of taekwondo athletes.  Divineplus ( talk ) 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Divineplus Can you please specify which reliable sources supply significant independent coverage?   Interviews, simple reporting of results, or statements about competing in upcoming tournaments do not supply such coverage.   As for his results, he is not even close to meeting WP:MANOTE .   His bronze medal came in one of many G2 tournaments annually, not a world championship.   A G2 tournament is a long way from a world championship (rated G12).  Papaursa ( talk ) 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, Here's the list: IndiaTv, ANI, The Print, News 18, Firstsportz which are showing significant coverage.  Also do check other taekwondo athletes coverage because they are interviews, simple reporting of results, or statements.  They should be deleted as well with this logic.  @ Papaursa They are not celebrities who will get independent coverage on their personal lives just like bollywood stars get but sportspersons who will be covered for their sports interviews, statements or results of a championship.  Divineplus ( talk ) 04:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't consider the sources that say he won a bronze at the taekwondo world championships very reliable when they obviously have the facts wrong.   Being chosen for a relatively minor competition (in taekwondo) after failing to make India's team for the Asian championships, a local news interview, and an interview instigated by the subject fail to show he meets WP:GNG .   I didn't look at other taekwondo articles since that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  Papaursa ( talk ) 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails in WP:ATHLETE , not a part of any notable tournament Worldiswide ( talk ) 01:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As mentioned above, I do not find the sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG .   I also don't believe he meets the notability criteria for martial artists.   His third place finish at a G-2 tournament is considered by the world taekwondo organization to be worth less than being in the top 64 at a world championship (which would hardly be considered WP notable).   This is the third time this article has been created since 2020 and he hasn't had any tournament success since the first nomination.  Papaursa ( talk ) 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mark These Words: Fails WP:NALBUM ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Found no evidence of notability.  See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odd Crew as to why no AtD.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Sweden .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1988): Bear in mind there are two other footballers with the same name.  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've no idea what to do with this one - there's no real coverage of him, but that's probably because he's from North Korea. From a pure policy perspective, it should probably be deleted, but I've seen several other stub articles for footballers with people strongly on the 'keep' side, even though they played for like three seasons and media coverage is limited to a couple archived newspaper blurbs.  But forget all that for a second - while starting a search on him, I discovered that there are three different North Korean footballers named ""Kang Kuk-chol.""  They were all born within about a decade of each other, are almost exactly the same height, all play the same position (defender), and two of them even allegedly played on the national team in the same year.  If that's accurate, that's absolutely hilarious.  If there weren't headshots of them on the (very sparse) source links, I wouldn't believe it.  That said, it's North Korea, so I'm not really inclined to believe it.  Are we sure at least two of these aren't the same guy?  Kalethan ( talk ) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It wouldn't surprise me if two of them were indeed the same.  North Korean football is such a mystery to me and I'd love it to explore it further but you never know what sources to actually trust.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Searching Kang's name and football in Korean yields no useful sources, which perhaps isn't surprising since he plays football in North Korea.  Unfortunately, this means the article is unlikely to ever satisfy WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 12:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"District Regionalism: Search results seem to be either talking about unrelated concepts or mirrors of this Wikipedia article.  No plausible redirect target.  Un assiolo ( talk ) 12:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Geography .  Un assiolo ( talk ) 12:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article has no sources at all, and I can't find any good sources either.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No sources posted with none to be found.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zafar Azimov: 扱.  し.  侍.  ( talk ) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Tajikistan , Russia , England ,  and Nebraska .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Preliminary findings suggest that the subject might meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.  However, a more thorough review of the available sources is warranted to ensure all potential coverage has been adequately considered.  -- 149.172.122.230 ( talk ) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The article cites two real sources: here and here .  The other sources are a company bio, an article on his father, a linkedin page, and a telegram message.  Meanwhile, it's full of extremely controversial claims about a living person which are either unsourced or cited to unreliable sources.  I don't know Russian and can't confidently evaluate whether there's better coverage out there, but as it stands, the majority of this article needs to be swiftly deleted. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Searching for this guy's name in Russian brings up a number of hits.  I can't vouch for all of those, but want to err on the side of caution.  I agree that there's a bunch of dubious claim in the Criticism section, but that's not an AfD issue.  Cortador ( talk ) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cortador May you please link some of those hits?  They could just be insignifcant listings as far as anyone else knows.  Mach61 12:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Search for ""Яхьёевич Азимов"".  Many of the links aren't good sources, but as I said, I'm not able to judge most of them.  The Russian article also cites a number of sources, but I'm not familiar with any of those.  Cortador ( talk ) 12:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :Of the 6 sources currently in the article , 1  and 3  aren't indipendent, 2 doesn't have SIGCOV of Zafar, 4 is WP:NEWSPRIMARY coverage of a meeting he had, and 5, octagon.media, is a literal Russian propaganda source that should probably be WP:BLPREMOVE D .  Not a vote, since I haven't run my own search yat, but notability is not indicated so far.  Mach61 12:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   The coverage under his Russian name is either about an unrelated person who died in 2016, press releases, or derivative of the octagon.media report.  Even if octagon.media is situationally reliable (which could be the case, but it's best to be cautious in a BLP), I'm not convinced this amounts to a WP:NBASIC pass.  Mach61 13:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"HeroCraft: Kadı Message 16:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Russia .  Kadı Message 16:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable (failing WP:GNG , WP:COMPANY ).  Also, the creator of the page and the most prolific contributor Special:Contributions/Haseth to it appears to be a single-purpose account created solely for promotion of this page.  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 20:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies ,  and Cyprus .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not notable.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 21:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete They were around for a while, but most sources that come up are either press releases, routine news or WP:PRIMARY interviews.  There may be significant foreign language coverage so I am open to changing my opinion if that is shown.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know Russian.  But yeah it's mostly Interviews.  Timur9008 ( talk ) 15:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails GNG, cannot be considered as notable; no significant coverage as well.  Ekdalian ( talk ) 13:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Baker's Dozen Donuts: This is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.  747pilot ( talk ) 20:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Canada .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:GNG -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 08:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . In general, I'd expect a franchise that apparently once had 100 locations to be notable, but there are almost no sources that attest to that. It might be that, if we had access to a bunch of Canadian local newspapers from the 80s and 90s, we'd find a wealth of information on this chain. Or we might find nothing. But as it is with almost no sources at all, we can't judge even that. -- Tserton ( talk ) 12:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : there appear to be quite a few results on ProQuest when searching for "" ""baker's dozen"" donut "" restricted to the years 1975-1999; there are also a number of unrelated results.  I cannot access the articles to assess their relevance, though.  Mind matrix 17:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nizam's Carnatic campaigns (1725-27): Even the sources which the author has used in this article contradicts his claims for example author has used New History of Marathas Vol2 by Govind Sakharam Sardesai in his article and that book's Pg 85-90 (here is the link for book) [28] , says there were two campaigns one from 1725-26 and second from 1726-27 both led by Bajirao called ""Bajirao's 1st Carnatic Expedition"" and ""Bajirao's 2nd Carnatic Expedition"" the author simply combined those two conflicts kept a name as per his choice which violates Wikipedia guidelines.  Also result section has a problem; the same source stated above gives a Maratha victory see Pg 85, quoting 1727 April: Karnatik Chiefs submit to Bajirao , so Nizam victory is also inappropriate.  Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk ) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , India , Andhra Pradesh , Karnataka ,  and Tamil Nadu .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - A separate article is not warranted for this much content.  Capitals00 ( talk ) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as per above-mentioned comments.  Rawn3012 ( talk ) 04:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Constructive45 ( talk ) 21:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) .  Blocked sock .  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 01:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see you provided no counter to my comment for which I nominated this article for deletion.  I am assuming it's because you simply can't.  Also, I see your talk page is full of edit disputes with other users where you are constantly trying to push your narrative.  Mohammad Umar Ali ( talk ) 03:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Page is WP:SYNTH .  So many sources and not a single source helps with verification of the war and the timeline.  The page is written with a circular bit of logic.  Fails WP:GNG .  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B: Fails GNG.  Nothing shows notability for Pool B of Group 1 of the playoffs.  This artcle is all stats, BEFORE only showed stats and promo news.  // Timothy :: talk 11:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis , Bulgaria , Croatia , Denmark , Norway , Serbia ,  and Sweden .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An article exactly like this has been made for all the previous editions of the Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I, so I'm confused what's different here?  For example 2022 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool A and 2022 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B , there's even articles for the results of even the lower Groups II and III.  Kr1s71an ( talk ) 12:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The previous years' articles seem way too dependent on primary sources too.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this is a Highly notable event worldwide.  Even the group pools.  Just because the creator failed to include enough sources doesn't mean they don't exist.  I found multiple and added them.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 07:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources do not bear this out.  // Timothy :: talk 21:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like they do to me.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Notable ties.  All these non-English speaking countries cover tennis pretty good, among English sources.  Even though such articles have been made for years, I wonder if Pool A and Pool B could be merged into 1 article?  2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I .  Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 22:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ILIKEIT are not valid reasons to keep.  None of the Keep votes has provided any sources shoing this meets notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk 21:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps because they have been added to the article instead.  They were so easy to find.  The United States news doesn't look at it as all that important but other countries do.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Policy based input, please Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment WP:NEXISTS .  Also Fyunck(click) did add some English sources.  Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Keep votes are ignoring the subject - Group I – Pool B, there are articles about every level of the event, if there is going to be an article specifically about Group I – Pool B then there must be SIGCOV to show this subject - Group I – Pool B - meets notability.  Source eval: Primary, not IS RS  1.  ""2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I"".  fedcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  2. ^ ""Serbia v Bulgaria"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  3. ^ ""Sweden v Norway"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  4. ^ ""Croatia v Denmark"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  5. ^ ""Serbia v Norway"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  6. ^ ""Sweden v Denmark"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  7. ^ ""Croatia v Bulgaria"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  8. ^ ""Serbia v Croatia"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  9. ^ ""Sweden v Bulgaria"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  10. ^ ""Denmark v Norway"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  11. ^ ""Serbia v Denmark"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  12. ^ ""Sweden v Croatia"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  13. ^ ""Bulgaria v Norway"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  14. ^ ""Serbia v Sweden"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  15. ^ ""Croatia v Norway"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Primary, not IS RS  16. ^ ""Bulgaria v Denmark"".  billiejeankingcup.com.  Fails SIGCOV, this is what it states, ""In Pool B, meanwhile, Sweden and Serbia both maintained their own perfect records with victory over Denmark and Norway respectively, suggesting there is much to play for over the coming days.""  17. ^ ""Billie Jean King Cup groups get underway"".  Retrieved 30 April 2023.  Routine sports news, no information about subject, fails SIGCOV.  There is already an article about Group 1 as a whole, this is specifically about Pool B within Group  1 18. ^ ""BJK Cup Group I round-up"".  Retrieved 30 April 2023.  Routine sports news, about a single game, fails SIGCOV  19. ^ ""Bulgaria wins Billie Jean King Cup tie against Croatia"".  Retrieved 30 April 2023.  There is not sourcing for articles about every single zone, group and pool.  This is simply stat spam.  // Timothy :: talk 21:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is sourcing, not to your liking though.  The added sources are not routine... they are specifically written about the event.  And if it's not perfect in all the sources, that doesn't mean you delete it... you keep adding to it.  Could there me a reason to merge with the main article? .. it's possible, but that's a different beast that can be discussed in another conversation.  To just delete the material is the wrong way to go.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 21:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The pool A & B pages might be unnecessary and could be merged together.  But that's more of a keep merge.  I haven't received any feedback from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Billie Jean King Cup articles yet.  @ Fyunck(click) @ Kr1s71an @ Mkrny @ খাঁটি বাঙালি , what do you think about merging them to 2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I ?  And in future avoid Pool and Zonal Group playoff articles.  Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 12:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no issue with that.  I did finally answer you on the project page.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 18:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Just no significant coverage to be found here.  The two contributors who suggest keep  seem not to understand our notability guidelines.  In one of their comments they actually acknowledged the reason for deletion.  Coverage exists for this entire event, but not for this particular segment of it.  T v x 1 08:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We should merge the articles then per WP:ATD-M instead of deleting the content.  Iffy ★ Chat -- 12:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The AFD has been running for three weeks.  More than enough time for you to have moved the salvagable content to the right article.  This particular should simply be deleted.  T v x 1 19:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's been running that long because there are two keeps and two deletes and a keep/merge.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which still isn’t an excuse not to have move salvageable content or a write a new general article in the mean time.  T v x 1 18:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure it is.  Why would someone just start moving contents which would in effect double up the content on wikipedia?  If there's a mandate to merge, sure, but not otherwise.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete way too specific to merit an article on its own.  Wikipedia would be a mass (much more so than it is) if each topic was broken up into several indivisible parts.  Its contents should be merged with the cup's main article.  Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 14:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"The Archer Connection: Attempted to PROD, but a buzzer-beater drive-by editor removed the PROD minutes before the end of the PROD period with no notes about why they did so .  Since I can't double-PROD, here we are at AfD.  Nate • ( chatter ) 18:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No significant coverage found online, and it doesn't look like it'll release any time soon.  Fails WP:GNG .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 20:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:32, 2 August 2023 (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 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found since 2018 sourcing used, appears to have vaporized into thin air...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Indian Springs, Los Angeles County, California: Been trying to de-stub some LACo locations and this one is confounding me.  Possibly location of a ranch/wedding venue/place they shot porn movies https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/cecil-b-demille-ranch-indian-springs-sordid-story/ ?  Possibly a campground in 1910 per https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-herald-indian-springs/139873386/ ?  Think there *might be physical springs slightly to the north but can't find them either (because their name is very common or...?) I suspect it was once an Angeles National Forest-area rustic vacation retreat but can't really find evidence.  Long story short, don't think this meets geographic notability.  (PS There were/are Indian Springs in Chatsworth, Sawtelle, and Montrose but I don't think any of them are this one.) jengod ( talk ) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  jengod ( talk ) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - a quick look at the geographic coordinates seems to place it in Kagel Canyon , [45] , googled that and found this: [46] .  No mention of the springs, tho.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone ( talk • contribs ) 2024-01-30T18:10:12 (UTC) It's not a community.   It is very much private, and it's marked Leonis Ranch on the maps before it was Indian Springs.   You are looking at the ranch of Jean-Baptiste ""J.B.""  Leonis (yes, the Vernon, California one) who was Cecil B. DeMille 's neighbour .   It's not the DeMille ranch itself.   The owner in that real estate advert is claiming too much, as other (alas, not too reliable) sources on the life of Leonis say that DeMille and Leonis were contemporaries and the latter did not buy from the former.   I don't trust the owner's autobiographical book, either.   Although saying that it was once owned by DeMille pales in comparison to Wikipedia saying for 12 years, for 6 of which the buildings didn't even exist, that it is (present tense) a ""community"".  Uncle G ( talk ) 19:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW I just double-checked every Los Angeles County spring listed in Waring 1915 and Berkstresser 1968 nothing is close.  jengod ( talk ) 21:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fun fact!  There's a Demille Fault that runs under this location that's obv named for the adjacent Demille ranch.  [1] jengod ( talk ) 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nordin's book is self-published and the author blurb for it, nor indeed the book contents, do not exactly suggest historical rigour.   But it does say, for what it's worth, that the ranch was initially Leonis's name backwards, and Leonis renamed it to Indian Springs.   Nordin is apparently in it for the booze.   ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 21:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] references Nordin, Richard (2017).  The Iron Fist: The Immigrant Journey of J. B. Leonis to Riches and Power in Southern California .  Xlibris Corporation .  ISBN 9781524570460 .  Nordin, Richard.  ""The Leonis Collection"" .  Christie's .  Bullock, Maggie (2018-12-05).  ""Rare pre-Prohibition whiskeys offer a taste of American history"" .  CNN.  Goldfarb, Aaron (2020-09-29).  ""Mr. DeMille, I'm Ready for Your Booze Stash"" .  The New York Times .  References ^ page 155 Comment - the guy and/or "" Prohibition-era liquor hoards "" sound entirely notable.  Not sure we want to hang this on Indian Springs tho.  jengod ( talk ) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.   The sources, especially the autobiography and the fire sale advert, are poor to woeful; and neither the edit history nor the title at hand are in any way useful.  Uncle G ( talk ) 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 04:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lets just delete it, it's clear there is no Indian springs, California.  All the material you guys found found belongs at Indian springs (ranch).  James.folsom ( talk ) 22:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Louisa Simmons: JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Fiji .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 08:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Does not satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY .  - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zeno (programming language): IntGrah ( talk ) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  IntGrah ( talk ) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No coverage at all.  One of countless programming languages that received no attention.  Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 20:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Meyah Romeo: All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2016 , 2018 , 2019 , 2020 , 2021 , 2022 , 2023 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Trinidad and Tobago .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Michigan and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 01:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Raima Khan: Even the subject is not mentioned in the cast section of the Shows they did.  Fails WP:GNG -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 14:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan .  Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 14:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Loch Lomond (Illinois): Small reservoir without significant, independent coverage to justify an article.  SeymourHolcomb ( talk ) 16:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment , Geography ,  and Illinois .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: If editors of this article wish to keep it, they may want to cite some secondary sources, as the article's only current source is a primary source from the lake's website.  Mjks28 ( talk ) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's a million of these sorts of rentention ponds and suburban subdivisions, but there's no indication this is notable.  Reywas92 Talk 01:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Laughing Jackalope: Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- it's mentioned in a lot of regional crime novels but only passing mentions in RS, mostly having to do with the fact that it was torn down to make way for some other building. Central and Adams ( talk ) 03:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- ""it's mentioned in a lot of regional crime novels"" That mean it has significant pop culture relevance?  Like the Prada Marfa ?  Jaiquiero ( talk ) 06:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No significant coverage outside of local or travel websites.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 04:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Prash Ladva: A longer version , for anyone wishing to read an account of all the cited references: There are apparently 17 references in the article at present, but two of those are identical copies of the same page on two websites.  Not a single one of them is substantial coverage in an independent source, and most of them fail both of those criteria.  The references are as follows.  Currently a dead link, but it is a URL on Prash Ladva's own web site, so it would not have been an independent source anyway: [2] .  Text posted by Prash Ladva himself on LinkedIn: [3] .  Web pages which don't mention Prash Ladva, and which even if they did are on the websites of organisations to which he is connected: [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] .  A listing on a government company listing site of a company owned by Prash Ladva; the listing doesn't mention Prash Ladva himself: [8] .  Another government listing site, this time for a school.  It includes Prash Ladva in a list of governors of the school; the only information about him is his name, the start and end dates of his term as a governor, and ""Appointed by GB/board"" as an explanation of how he came to be appointed to the post: [9] .  A page telling us that Prash Ladva's brother is proud of him: [10] .  Apparently two references on two websites, but they turn out to be identical; both of them say ""SPONSORED"" at the top and ""In association with LinkMedics International LTD"" further down the page.  LinkMedics International is a business belonging to Prash Ladva; in other words the ""references"" are advertisements, and indeed one of the websites carrying it, on another web page, mentions its price for inclusion in its ""news"" coverage: [11] , [12] .  Announcements on the web sites of organisations or businesses offering ""awards"", which include Prash Ladva as a recipient.  It's not clear to me how significant the awards are, but in any case they are not substantial coverage of Prash Ladva, and being on the websites of the awarding organisations they aren't independent sources either: [13] , [14] .  Further pages on the web sites of organisations to which he has a personal connection, including his own business and organisations he works for or has worked for: [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] .  JBW ( talk ) 22:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine .  JBW ( talk ) 22:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : based on the source discussion above.  I find about the same level of coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, please could you clarify why reference 12 (UK Top 100 List) is not ""noteworthy"".  I believe this to be an extremely significant accolade, as would many.  I think there has to be a clear distinction between searching for ""significant coverage"" vs ""noteworthy"" - as then there is subjectivity.  Who does this get escalated to?  In any view, this is only my second written article, and I followed a similar structure to the first article.  I will move onto creating the next one.  But I am curious about the question I have asked above.  Journalist0071 ( talk ) 00:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage is part of the notability criteria, and is about the depth of coverage.  As detailed above, the problem with the Top 100 Influential reference is that the depth of coverage on the site (i.e. his biography) is not in-depth (and I suspect it is based on the subject's own submitted bio), and that there is no indication (that I can find) of the significance of this award - other than the organisation and its staff themselves, almost all of the mentions that I can find about the award is either on winners' social media or the winners' employer's social media; I can't find any independent mentions of the awards.  There are a lot of 'Top 100 Influential People' awards, in many industries, and most of them would fail to meet the criteria on Wikipedia as reliable sources; in fact the only one I can think of which is considered a notable award in and of itself is Time 100 .  As to 'who does this get escalated to?' - the answer is, the community here... which is what is happening on this page!  Phantom Steve / talk ¦ contribs \ 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Journalist0071 , you're in the escalated place already: this is where notability is decided.  No one puts much stock in things like ""being in a top 100 list"".  If there were some significant coverage of him somewhere, perhaps something like the top 100 list would be enough to motivate an editor who was on the fence to ! vote keep instead of delete, but if that's all we have, and no sigcov anywhere, the chances anyone will make a solid keep argument are basically nil.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 08:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Although an interesting young person, I agree that there is not enough evidence to show that he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion, and the breakdown of sources above is a good indication of the lack of reliable sourcing that is available.  Phantom Steve / talk ¦ contribs \ 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Paul The Trombonist: Was removing quite a few unreliable sources but do not see any left that show notability.  Also did a WP:BEFORE and unable to find significant coverage in anything reliable.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Funny anecdote about voice recognition [35] and him, but that's about all there is for coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject was featured on fox news as a notable musician [1] Article feature in International Musician magazine as notable musician [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpaper50673 ( talk • contribs ) 02:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Sandpaper50673 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Musician was member of Glenn Miller Orchestra a band of notability, performed with Arethra Franklin and then went on to launch solo career [3] Interviewed on Forbes about this career [4] Playing trombone on a major national television broadcast.  Capitol 4th Television Special [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefish5021 ( talk • contribs ) 19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Littlefish5021 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] References ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=U8KId4-CJ8g ^ https://internationalmusician.org/paul-nowell/ ^ https://internationalmusician.org/paul-nowell/ ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanrobinson/2019/08/16/choose-niche-business-idea/? sh=5ac1a554265b ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=G9j1BTHkXrI Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on info provided above, he meets WP:MUSICBIO .  Criterion 6 is met for playing in Glenn Miller Orchestra.  Criterion 12 is met for being on major TV news show.  Possibly also he meets Criterion 4 for being on worldwide tours with Glenn Miller Orchestra.  Hkkingg ( talk ) 08:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To get this back on the log, note TK.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Following a discussion on User_talk:Joyous! #Paul_the_Trombonist and User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_The_Trombonist , @ Joyous!  : indicated their willingless for this to be reopened rather than a DRV kickback and fourteen days.  I offered to be the relister for tech reasons.  Courtesy @ CNMall41 and Hkkingg : who contributed to that discussion.  While I didn't see a consensus at the time of closing, I don't have an opinion at the moment as it's too late in the evening so this is a procedural relist.  Star Mississippi 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  I can see why this is a difficult one to evaluate.  For WP:MUSICBIO#C4 , They've been on an international concert tour, and we have a single non-trivial sentence of independent coverage from a source that then quickly shifts into an interview.  [36] One of the first gigs Paul Nowell landed just out of Berklee College in 2007 was a world tour with the Glenn Miller Orchestra.  As a reliable publication, stating it in their own editorial voice, we should treat that sentence as independent, but I can understand hesitation.   Also note that ""trivial coverage"" is defined in a few different ways, but not on this page for a biography, so but my personal go-to in this case is the definition tied to WP:BASIC .  This is not close to a database entry, nor a mention in passing, so it is non-trivial.  I don't think WP:MUSICBIO#C12 is met, because the Fox clip seems to be a local broadcast, and the other clip doesn't feature the subject.  I don't think WP:MUSICBIO#C6 is met, because one must be a ""reasonably prominent"" member of 2 notable ensembles, which would only pass for Glenn Miller, not Aretha.  If people disagree on C4 above, then it is quite possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON .  — siro χ o 04:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Assuming the source is reliable and accurate, he was part of an orchestra that toured, not the person who was on tour.  If we considered C4 to include all members, then we could create a page for all members of the orchestra who received a sentence in a source saying they were part of the tour.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First off, just want to be clear that I don't disagree with your request to reopen this, I think it's a borderline case at best.  I'll explain my interpretation in depth.  I am not trying to be argumentative, just clear.  If there were a source that had a sentence ""A, B, C, D, E.... all went on a world tour"", or worse, ""The members of Glenn Miller Orchestra went on a world tour"", I would consider that trivial by the policy of BASIC.  If hypothetically each member of the orchestra had a separate news piece about them that individually confirmed that they did a world tour in a nontrivial one sentence statement as part of an article about them, then sure, they would all qualify.  I'm guessing the reason the criteria landed here is that, in practice, that never happens.  Not for jazz orchestras, not for classical orchestras, not even for the Polyphonic Spree .  If it were to happen, then it would indeed be some special signifier of notability for each of the people who did that international tour.  I hope that helps explain my interpretation.  — siro χ o 06:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does clarify your position.  However, I think you are interpreting the guideline wrong.  The guideline would apply to the orchestra, not individual members.  That's why we don't create pages for everyone in a band that has gone on tour.  Even if it did, the guideline calls for ""non-trivial"" coverage which in this case I would say a single sentence in a single source about being part of an orchestra that toured would be ""trivial."" -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as currently written and sourced.  There is really nothing here that works as a substantial source for an article.  BD2412 T 01:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Here are some more citations that are not currently in the article: link1 [1] , link2 [2] , link3 [3] , link4 [4] .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandpaper50673 ( talk • contribs ) 03:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://issuu.com/joep1965/docs/paul_the_trombonist_international_trombone_associ ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=5jOy3lyCwvo ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanrobinson/2019/08/16/choose-niche-business-idea/? sh=1470a052265b ^ https://mashable.com/archive/phone-on-the-toilet-video — Sandpaper50673 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Star Mississippi 13:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3 of the new sources provided by above commenter are valid and good.  International Trombone Association Journal has deep coverage.  Youtube video is from MSN and should count towards notability.  Mashable article would count towards notability.  Forbes unfortunately is not unacceptable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources .  Naomijeans ( talk ) 17:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The MSN YouTube video is about as garbage a piece of journalism as journalism gets.  Also, I note that both that video and the Mashable piece are about a ""viral video"" on the topic of texting while on the toilet, which is not currently mentioned in the subject's article at all.  BD2412 T 16:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MSN is garbage???? since when is one of the most reliable news organizations garbage?  This is actually MSNBC and according to WP:RSP MSNBC is a reliable source.  According to WP:BASIC  ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;"" I have posted more sources below that are in depth.  Naomijeans ( talk ) 03:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC .  Naomijeans ( talk ) 17:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you provide a list of the reliable sources you feel meet BASIC? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BASIC says that ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;""  Some of the ones below are actually in depth International Trombone Association Journal - in depth internationalmusician.org 2nd article - in depth projectrevolver.org/ - in depth latfusa.com/ -in depth Youtube video is from MSN - about a 30 second intro on him.  Mashable dansr.com in depth Naomijeans ( talk ) 03:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe you and I disagree on the meaning of ""in-depth"" and ""reliable source.""  Just a few examples here: WP:MASHABLE must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  In this instance, the writer is a sports journalist writing about a musician which seems odd so I would not treat it as reliable.  Dansr is a marketing platform so not sure how this would ever be notable since it exists to promote artists.  Revolver does not show a byline for writer and it appears the site is open source (no editorial oversight) so it is also not reliable.  The YouTube video is his video with an intro from MSN which is more routine coverage and not in-depth.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kojo Soboh: No links to any RS found.  Reads like a resume.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment by creator - @ User:Oaktree b no link to a reliable source you said? , checkout the website publications as shown by Google News here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess ( talk • contribs ) 20:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those appear to be RS, except perhaps the Forbes one.  We need more than one article about a person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b Sources used as references are from GhanaWeb , Yen.com.gh , Peacefmonline.com , Daily Guide (Ghana) , The Ghanaian Chronicle , Business and Financial Times which are the most reliable source of information in Ghana where the entity comes from.  Siagoddess ( talk ) 20:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Africa .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Seems to generate coverage in Ghanaian media, but it's not strong coverage and mostly looks like recycled press releases from him, rather than objective articles written about him, for some external reason.  The EMY coverage in particular: this is an event that he's behind, rather than an independent one which has recognised him.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 09:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Though notability is not inherited, the sources provided state his contributions to the Ghana event industry, leading and overseeing major events.  He is also a former musician with songs that top charts in Ghana.  Siagoddess ( talk ) 12:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"SP77 31-18: SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 14:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , absolutely nothing notable about this object, fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG .   No studies dedicated to this object individually or as a member of a small sample.   The article is created purely on the basis of a large radius, calculated from one large-scale database which has a particularly high luminosity and low temperature.   Other databases suggest a more typical star, possibly not even a true supergiant.  Lithopsian ( talk ) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - running a search, I came across this Simbad data .  I assume that does not count.  I didn't find anything else using non-astronomical resources online so it doesn't meet WP:GNG .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : there are no studies or other sources with any WP:SIGCOV of the star; the only sources are SIMBAD and databases.  Neither of those sources establish any notability.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO .  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 08:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Himeko: This name fails WP:NNAME and WP:GNG (no WP:SIGCOV , hardly any reliable sources outside of simple databases).  All of the people listed are fictional characters, none of which seem notable enough for their own article.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Lists of people , Fictional elements , Lists ,  and Japan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  PROD had to be successful.  Orientls ( talk ) 17:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does not meet WP:NNAME .  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 21:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ocient (company): Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – seems like it's based on press releases.  TLA (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the feedback.  The information from the page is from earned coverage in several unpaid articles.  I'm also happy to explain more on context if helpful.  https://venturebeat.com/data-infrastructure/ocient-scales-hyperscale-data-warehouse-for-machine-learning/ https://www.datanami.com/2023/03/10/hyperscale-analytics-growing-faster-than-expected-ocient-says/ https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/startups/how-startups-grow-their-business-on-googles-open-data-cloud https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/blue-sky/ct-chris-gladwin-ocient-startup-bsi-20160726-story.html 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 19:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a link solely focused on Ocient https://thenewstack.io/ocient-makes-the-case-for-coupling-storage-and-compute/ 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 17:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a good post from tech journalist Chris Mellor that is unpaid and noteworthy.  https://blocksandfiles.com/2022/07/01/ocient-hyperscale-data-analysis/ 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 20:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Ocient Computational Center could also be added.  It's at Illinois Tech.  https://www.iit.edu/computing/research/research-centers 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  Analysis of the source posted above: Venturebeat article relies entirely on announcements from the company and interviews/quotes from their execs with no ""Independent Content"" as per ORGIND.  DataAMI article suffers the same flaws.  Fails ORGIND.  Google is a partner company, not independent, fails ORGIND.  Chicago Tribune relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND The New Stack article relies entirely on info provided by the company and their execs and has no ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND.  Blocks and Files article suffers the same way.  Fails ORGIND.  The IIT listing is a short company profile, no in-depth information and relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 21:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your time and review.  Because you're looking for more ""independent"" content, how about being included in this tech analysis: https://mattturck.com/mad2023/ or this independent write through: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/thanks-trillion-hyperscale-data-warehousing-takes-flight-kavanagh-pewie/ 73.211.222.32 ( talk ) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Independent Content"" is not simply content that is published by somebody independent of the topic company, but content which contains ""original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation"" which is also in-depth.  I'm unable to find any mention of the topic company in your first reference, but as a blog post (self publishing), it is not considered a "" reliable source "" anyway and would not meet our criteria for establishing notability.  Similarly, LinkedIn is self-publishing and is not considered a reliable source.  Even leaving that aside, the LinkedIn article relies entirely on information from the founder/company and has no ""Independent Content"" as per the definition at WP:NCORP .  HighKing ++ 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"East African School of Media Studies: Not seeing sources to WP:V basic details, whether it is a degree awarding institution etc.  Possibly sources exist that I'm not seeing but currently per WP:V claims can be removed.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Kenya .  JMWt ( talk ) 08:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Maria Rabinky: A Google search only produces links to websites selling her artwork, although I did find this press release on Google News about a distinction she seems to have won.  I'm unsure of its notability.  In any case, I haven't found anything else.  (NB: Sorry for resubmitting, was interrupted when I did it the first time and it was deleted.)  WikiFouf ( talk ) 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , Architecture ,  and Russia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , it's basically a CV/resumé, of a busy artist with a knack for self-publicity, but with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST Sionk ( talk ) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST .  She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums.  Seems more like WP:PROMO -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete purely promotional as written.  SportingFlyer T · C 05:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and above lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 13:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zane Pais: He doesnt satisfy WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNGACTOR criteria.  BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 01:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi BoyTheKingCanDance.  I am grateful for your help with the page.  Its improvements are all thanks to your attention.  As I hope you can see, Pais does satisfy all three criteria.  He's been lauded in the New York Times (""at once irrepressible and oddly vulnerable""), interviewed by Playbill , podcast-profiled at BroadwayWorld .  He's a leading actor in a forthcoming series based upon a best-selling and much-lauded work ( Three Women ), and made his debut as one of  four leads in a movie ( Margot at the Wedding ) by one of the US's leading filmmakers, Noah Baumbach .  In just the five days the page has been available—and so far as I can tell it does not yet feature in Google results—page views have averaged around 75 per day, with yesterday coming in at 87: that is, Pais is an actor about whom Wiki users are curious.  I myself made the page after seeing his work in Margot : I was curious to follow the progress of such a talented young performer.  With Three Women set to premiere this year, interest in Pais will only increase.  I think the current incarnation of the page demonstrates his notability—and once again I appreciate your help with the entry.  Zoidbergmd ( talk ) 04:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote retain.  Zane Pais and his mother, Lisa Emery , from of TV series “ Ozark ” on Netflix, have made the professional jump between TV, Movies, and the New York  Stage world, a notable achievement.  Like Julia Garner , also a Ozark alum, Zane Pais has starred in the New York Times / Amazon Studios series Modern Love .  Other stars have featured Tina Fey , Dev Patel , Catherine Keener , Julia Garner , Andrew Scott , Anne Hathaway , Anna Paquin … TraceyHechler ( talk ) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 07:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  source eval: Comments Source Not SIGCOV, ""12-year-old Zane Pais, son of actors Josh Pais and Lisa Emery)""  1.  Chris Knight, ""Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves,"" National Post, November 23, 2007.  ""The film opens on a train, which Margot (Nicole Kidman) and her androgynous son, Claude (12-year-old Zane Pais, son of actors Josh Pais and Lisa Emery), are taking to visit her sister Pauline.""  Not SIGCOV, ""She lives with their son, Zane, 10, in the East Village.""  2. ^ McCarter, Jeremy (31 January 2006).  ""THEATER; A Working Stiff, With Style"".  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 31, 2023.  Not SIGCOV, ""Zane Pais ... makes his acting debut as the preadolescent Claude, who accompanies Margot to the wedding of her estranged sister and sometime best friend, Pauline""  3. ^ Vanessa Lawrence, ""The Good Son,"" Women's Wear Daily, November 6, 2007.  ""Zane Pais ... makes his acting debut as the preadolescent Claude, who accompanies Margot to the wedding of her estranged sister and sometime best friend, Pauline.""  Mentioned in  a list of actors, not SIGCOV  4. ^ Scott, A.O. (February 7, 2023).  ""Dearly Beloved, We Are Gathered Here Today to Rend One Another Apart"".  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 31, 2023.  Promo  5. ^ Rabinowitz, Chloe (January 20, 2023).  ""'Jessica Hecht, Ben Edelman & Zane Pais to Star in World Premiere of Sarah Ruhl's LETTERS FROM MAX"".  Broadway World.  Retrieved March 30, 2023.  No info on subject.  Fails  V 6. ^ Goldberg, Lesley (February 7, 2023).  ""'Three Women,' Starring Shailene Woodley, Finds New Home at Starz (Exclusive)"".  The Hollywood Reporter.  Retrieved March 30, 2023.  Not SIGCOV, ""starring Zane Pais and Marquis Rodriguez, about a second date that takes a tragic turn.""  7. ^ Jones, Daniel (July 15, 2021).  ""'Modern Love' Season 2 Is Here. So Where Are the Original Essayists Now?"".  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 31, 2023.  Listed with cast, no SIGCOV  8. ^ Felperin, Leslie (March 20, 2023).  ""'This Closeness' Review: A Couple and Their Airbnb Host Get Acquainted in an Astute Dramedy of Awkwardness"".  The Hollywood Reporter.  Retrieved March 31, 2023.  Two sentences about a character in a performance  9. ^ Collins-Hughes, Laura (February 28, 2023).  ""'Letters From Max' Is a Sacrament of Grief, and a Comedy"".  The New York Times.  Retrieved March 31, 2023.  One sentence about a character in a performance  10. ^ Hofler, Richard (March 3, 2020).  ""'The Perplexed' Theater Review: Why the Really Rich Don't Really Deserve America"".  The Wrap.  Retrieved April 3, 2023.  BEFORE showed more mentions and listings, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 12:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Timothy's evaluation of the sources.  My own search also shows only routine coverage, not significant coverage.  Wikipedia does not host articles about the next big thing .  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"D2iQ, Inc.: References are routine business, startup and funding news scope_creep Talk 09:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , article fails WP:SOAP as well.  Catalyzzt ( talk ) 13:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Based on this coverage, I think the company passes W:NCORP : The Information : In Cloud Software Wars, Mesosphere Bows to Kubernetes , In Pivot, Mesosphere Plans to Give Away Key Software Forbes : Why Microsoft Could Reportedly Want To Buy Cloud Startup Mesosphere Even At $1 Billion , Will Mesosphere DC/OS Emerge As An Alternative to Kubernetes?  Standford Business : Mesosphere: Creating Lasting Value on Top of Open Source Software Mooonswimmer 12:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 12:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a case study there which usually means its notable.  However the references are extremenly poor.  The Forbes ref above is a contributor is an non-rs.  The Information ref is speculation at best wouldn't pass WP:SIRS .  The first block of references doesn't contain a single valid ref, that passes WP:SIRS .  scope_creep Talk 15:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what you mean by speculation?  It is relatively significant coverage about the company itself, The Information is a reliable, secondary source, and the authors and source appear to be independent from the subject.  You're right about the second Forbes article, but the first one I linked to was written by a Forbes senior editor.  Mooonswimmer 17:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be senior editor but its based on The Information article.  It is not reliable nor independent.  The Information article is not reliable as its speculation.  scope_creep Talk 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the information here, every single bit of it is company generated.  It is all PR.  scope_creep Talk 18:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have vague memories this company was covered by analysts (Gartner? Forrester?) but I'm unable to conduct a search due to limited access at present.  Perhaps someone else can take a look?  HighKing ++ 19:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I couldn't find anything.  Certainly they do seem to be liked by Gartner who reckon they follow recommedations in the container management using Kubernetes market segment  and they are mentioned in aa Gartner report is which likely an ideal secondary source, but they're not in a Gartner magic quadrant report or any Forrester analyst reports.  The references that comes close, is the case study in the article, which likely make combined with the Gartner coverage which is significant.  In saying that Globaldata has a report on them.  scope_creep Talk 20:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete agree with the nominator and other users.  The company pretends to be notable but really good independent sources are not found.  Javierel ( talk ) 14:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps you could evaluate the sources I've provided above.  Mooonswimmer 16:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  The sources presented need further evaluation anda.  consensus to be established about whether they qualify for GNG.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 23:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Craig Drummond: He's a lawyer who's had some notable clients, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited.  The book is self-published, and the only review of it I could find in reliable sources is the St. Joseph News-Press review cited.  He has appeared on some local news broadcasts, appeared once on Court TV as a legal commentator (at 4:00 - 8:26 in the source cited), and wrote a commentary piece for the News Journal , but the sources for that are all primary.  All I could find about him in a WP:BEFORE search of secondary sources was passing mentions, with no significant coverage of him, apart from him speaking publicly about cases where he was counsel.  Article creator is a declared paid editor for another Las Vegas company, and both the unsourced personal details and repeated uploads of promotional photos suggests conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Law , Military ,  and Nevada .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your concerns regarding the notability of the subject as per Wikipedia guidelines.  However, I would like to clarify a few points regarding your assessment.  While it's true that Craig Drummond may not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:ENT, it's important to note that notability is not solely determined by a person's profession or the significance of their clients.  As you rightly pointed out, the book associated with Craig Drummond is self-published, and the coverage of it in reliable sources is limited.  Regarding Craig Drummond's appearances on local news broadcasts, Court TV, and contributions to the News Journal, I acknowledge that the sources provided are primarily primary in nature.  However, these appearances and contributions do demonstrate some level of public engagement and recognition within Craig Drummond's field, albeit not to the extent required for Wikipedia notability.  Furthermore, I'd like to address your concerns regarding conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing.  While it's important to remain vigilant against such practices, it's equally important not to make assumptions without concrete evidence.  Accusations of conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing can be damaging and should not be generalized without proper verification.My last article was marked as 'paid,' but that doesn't imply that this article is also paid.  I have been working on this article for the past month.  Therefore, it would be more appropriate for Wikipedia to consider marking it for deletion with proper evidence rather than making assumptions.  In conclusion, I appreciate your attention to detail and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines in evaluating the notability of subjects.  However, I encourage further discussion and collaboration to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of the information presented in the article.  Potpart ( talk ) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : as irredeemably promotional per WP:G11 .  Alternatively, delete because the only arguably significant coverage is about the one book he's published (which doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR ).  I will note that the article creator's comment above is almost certainly LLM -generated and pretty much consists of arguments to avoid .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 07:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : per what Voorts said.  - Master of Hedgehogs ( converse ) ( hate that hedgehog! ) 14:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Event Supplier and Services Association: Fails WP:CORP .  SL93 ( talk ) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom .  SL93 ( talk ) 18:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As to be expected with a small trade association, coverage is only in WP:TRADES publications and does not rise to the level of coverage needed for NCORP.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Claudia Pană: All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 2018 , 2019 , 2020 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Romania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete' – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 17:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Was unable to find coverage.  Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 00:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2016 Spanish Quidditch Cup: There's no Spanish Wikipedia article on this one.  The article lists some references (no inlines), but they all just say ""this event will happen on this date at this location"" then explain what quidditch itself is, so no significant coverage provided.  Really wasn't able to find anything else other than an article about who won that was behind a paywall.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Europe ,  and Spain .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Quidditch Cup .  Geschichte ( talk ) 11:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur: No notable source.  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions .  Hongsy ( talk ) 14:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran .  If a town or district is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#06 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable.  @ Hongsy , is Hoseyniyeh-ye Mashkur listed?  Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE .  Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This place is an abadi which are explicitly excluded from WP:GEOLAND ( "" Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable"" ), since many of them are not actually villages but instead farms, factories, military bases, pumps, shops etc.  In this case Google translate tells me the name means ""Thank you Hosseini"" though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into that.  The population is large enough that the place should eventually be converted into a village, though I don't see any evidence that this has happened.  FOARP ( talk ) 10:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 17:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is one of the many articles Carlossuarez46 created on places listed in the Iranian census; later investigation revealed that many of the places weren't communities at all and he didn't fully understand the sources he was interpreting.  In light of that, I think it's fair to delete any questionable-looking article he created that doesn't have additional sources.  (I'll leave it to people who know the country better to determine what counts as questionable-looking, but this article seems to.)  TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 19:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Infant Jesus School, Saharanpur: No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL , unsourced.  On a side note, I feel bad for the kids that have to say they went to ""Infant Jesus"".  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools .  Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Completely unsourced, and even searching Google turned up nothing that supports WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 11:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Eric Edem Agbana: The notability claims here are as a youth political organizer and as yet unelected candidate in a future election, neither of which are grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one -- but the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which are not support for notability, and the one hit of media coverage about him winning a primary to contest the future election is not by itself enough to make him more special than all the other unelected candidates in the country who aren't getting articles on that basis.  Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the fall if he wins the seat, but nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to already get him an article now.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Radio ,  and Education .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Most coverage I can find about him seems to be about his candidacy or him saying something.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I was literally going to AfD this for exact same reason as Bearcat.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unelected candidate for office with no other claim to notability.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Article can be reverted to AFD as there will be other requests to recreate the page a few months from now.  In my view, he established notability after winning the primaries because of the circumstance around it.  As he's not yet a politician, does he qualify for notability as a ""regular"" person Heatrave ( talk ) 21:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"1981 Buffalo State Bengals football team: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design: Natg 19 ( talk ) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , United States of America ,  and California .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Architecture .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Codest Boi: As such, non-notable.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] UPDATE : By ""the PM News Nigeria is mediocre"", I meant the piece used on this article and not the entire PM News publication, to be clear.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians ,  and Nigeria .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nominator.  Subject does not satify WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICBIO .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 10:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good day @ Jamiebubaokay you say it doesn't meet up with Wikipedia:GNGcheck what entails under that it does the sources used in the article are all reliable sources according to wikipedia's Wikipedia:NGRS check that for your self as the subject is a Nigerian artist, because most editors make the mistake of trying to make judgement on Nigerian artist with international sources.  hope that explains this much better have a blessed day ahead.  ProWikignome ( talk ) 17:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – With the exception of this and this (both publish almost the same time, implying some sort of wp:BLP1E ), there are no reliable sources left to establish notability.  ( ( edit conflict ) while striking. ) Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Good day @ ToadetteEditif you check the PM news article really closely you would see that it was an interview an interview that was recorded by PM News that was why i included it for references so the fact it was released on the same day is entirely on the team at PM News he was in the limelightband the got an interview and posted it the same day as tribune online did that was why and you should know that both articles meet up the standards for Wikipedia:NGRS thank you, have a blessed day ahead.  ProWikignome ( talk ) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : ""Music sensation"" with only two articles, both published on the same day, with nothing before or since... [59] .  For someone active since 2011 and ""sensational"", there is a lack of coverage.  Something's wrong...  This is PROMO.  Delete for lack of sourcing and almost obvious puffery.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good day @ Oaktree b you check the PM news article really closely you would see that it was an interview an interview that was recorded by PM News that was why i included it for references so the fact it was released on the same day is entirely on the team at PM News he was in the limelight and he got an interview and they posted it the same day as tribune online did that was why and you should know that both articles meet up the standards for WP:NGRS thank you, have a blessed day ahead.  in Nigeria am Nigerian my self once there is a new sensation not just one press wants to talk about it everyone wants to and in no way this is a promo because all the articles are Nigerian reliable sources.  ProWikignome ( talk ) 17:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good Day @ Vanderwaalforces i consider you one of the most respected wikimedian Editor.  all the vote here are behind the fact that he is a Nigerian artist with Nigerian reliable sources according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources let me outline all the points of the Wikipedia:GNG Independent Of The Subject each of those articles was written either because he did something that grabbed people's attention or achieved something significant in his career.  This means they're not tied to any specific topic but reflect different aspects of his life and accomplishments.  Significant Coverage There's substantial coverage because he was discussed extensively, which isn't the case for a promotional post.  Even the article on PM News was structured as an interview, and since PM News is still esteemed in Nigeria, perhaps that's why they chose to feature the subject in an interview format.  Reliable Sources the sources are reliable as they all meet up with wikipedia Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources that is why the article does not have any tags saying the article doesn't have  reliable sources.  To name a few points, I hope this convinces you of why the article deserves a place on Wikipedia.  Have a blessed day ahead.  ProWikignome ( talk ) 18:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update i already removed the PM News Citation...  ProWikignome ( talk ) 09:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not even close to being notable as per WP:GNG InDimensional ( talk ) 13:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I already explained the reasons why it does and they meet up with the sub topics under Wikipedia:GNG ProWikignome ( talk ) 16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and has not been discussed in reliable sources.  As a matter of fact, all of the sources cited in the article are all press release coverage about some of the subject's songs.  Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ?  14:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Timișoara Award for European Values: Maybe in time it will establish itself, but as of now this reads more like a press release than a reflection of notability.  — Biruitorul Talk 18:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Europe .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON .  The award hasn't even been given yet for the first time and we already have an article on it.  Agree with nominator that it might become notable in the future.  I'd recommend the article's writer to save it up in their sandbox or somewhere else and wait to see if that is the case.  Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 09:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify/Userfy -- Sources right now are all WP:PRIMARY or WP:PRIMARYNEWS .  I agree with Super Dromaeosaurus that it may well become notable after it is awarded and discussed in wider, secondary WP:SIGCOV with some WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE .  Also, as noted in the nomination, the article right now is filled with WP:PEACOCKs and will need to be edited extensively before it is ready for mainspace.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you very much for the constructive feedback, which I will be happy to implement in a future version and can well understand.  I would like to point out that the nominator's political motive is obvious, as he identifies himself as a supporter of the unification of Romania and Moldova and his language is anything but neutral.  BeneEfimero ( talk ) 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as puff-piece.  Dahn ( talk ) 05:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tevin Gamboa: JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Belize .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mark Willis (politician): He appears to have been involved in a brief internal spat within the Republican Party as a member of a State Republican Committee, which garnered a handful of reportage at the time, but probably falls under WP:NSUSTAINED .  In particular, the initial version of the article pretty much read as a campaign document for his run at RNC Chair and included a great deal of unverified personal bio - probably created by the subject or someone closely associated with him.  This has been edited out over time for a more Neutral POV and encyclopaedic style, but there's no evidence of notability outside of that brief party-internal politicking.  It does not appear that there's anything worth merging (or redirecting) to another article unless the objections to the 2012 RNC Rule Changes were themselves considered notable enough for an article.  Hemmers ( talk ) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Hemmers ( talk ) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Military , California , Maine , Maryland ,  and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not even technically a politician, simply a non notable political challenger.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:05, 17 April 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 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN .  Reads like a resume, skims the surface of his work background, with no substance about any of it.  Not notable anything.  Sourcing is all political focus.  — Maile ( talk ) 14:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"All-Russian Committee for Defence of Kuriles: ltb d l ( talk ) 08:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  ltb d l ( talk ) 08:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Incomplete article ,Please add secondary sources before deleting GQO ( talk ) 7:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC) i think you've got that backwards.  ltb d l ( talk ) 07:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – I was unable to find English-language books or journals which mentioned this organisation.  Web searches of both the English- and Russian-language names did not return reliable sources which went beyond brief mentions.  Yue 🌙 20:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Church of Ireland Historical Society: Sources cited in the article are all primary.  Searching on Google Scholar and Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the COIHS in citations and acknowledgements, but no significant independent coverage.  Searching online, I was able to find some concerning, scandalous, coverage that still appears to fall short of the ORGCRITE line: two letters to the editor in The Independent ( [12] , [13] ) alleging that the COIHS played a key role in covering up a child sex abuse scandal in the Irish church, and two articles in The Phoenix making the same assertion in passing ( [14] , [15] ).  I was able to find exactly one likely (but paywalled) example of significant coverage in an independent RS ( [16] ) reporting on the same allegations, although even if we assume the absolute best of this source, we fall short of ORGCRITE's requirement of multiple such sources.  I tried to look for potential merge targets on Wikipedia but didn't find anything promising.  signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Religion , Christianity ,  and Ireland .  signed, Rosguill talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator source analysis.  I also tried to identify a redirect, but the organization appears independent from the Church of Ireland and I couldn't identify another option superior to deletion.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  My own WP:BEFORE returns the same coverage/mentions that the nominator identified in their own.  Namely things like ROTM announcements in the Irish Times and mentions in letters to the editor in the Irish Independent .  Or this in The Phoenix.  A search in RTÉ returns only a single similar/fleeting passing mention .  The only substantial coverage I can find is the same article (titled ""Historical society accused of 'rewriting' its own past"" and subtitled ""Church of Ireland Historical Society removes references to founder following accusations of child sexual abuse"") noted by the nom.  Which, on its own, doesn't establish independent notability of the org.  I also can't conceive of target for a redirect.  Or other WP:ATD .  Guliolopez ( talk ) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , regretfully, since my paternal grandmother was a member of the CoI.  There's just not enough sourcing .  Bearian ( talk ) 15:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Where is Kate?: , an article on the speculation surrounding the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales , and the Mother's Day photograph that followed.  I immediately started the first AfD discussion , motivated by editors at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales who had resisted calls for including the topic on that article.  The first AfD discussion closed on 19 March as keep.  From 20 March, editors at the BLP noticeboard raised concerns that the article violated WP:BLP , which was hardly cited in the first AfD.  On 21 March, Simonm223 initiated a deletion review , believing that the closing statement of the first AfD did not sufficiently weigh the BLP concerns.  This deletion review closed on 31 March as no consensus.  With the announcement of the princess' cancer diagnosis on 22 March,",delete
"Drew Shirley: Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG and should be deleted per WP:BANDMEMBER .  glman ( talk ) 22:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  glman ( talk ) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vishesh Hemraj: Shellwood ( talk ) 00:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Suzan Mazur: No independent references.  Lokys dar Vienas ( talk ) 05:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 07:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The absence of any independent sources makes this one an easy one to delete , and I'll be glad to see it gone.  Nonetheless, the fact that someone is thoroughly objectionable doesn't mean that they are not notable: we can all think of repulsive and dishonest politicians who are notable whether we like it or not.  So if someone writes a properly sourced article about Suzan Mazur it will probably need to be tolerated.  I should add that I only have direct knowledge of her antics at the Altenberg 16 meeting (which I have discussed with an organizer of that meeting).  I have no idea whether she really represented the USA on a visit to Iran or about the other things in the article.  Athel cb ( talk ) 15:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Definitely fails WP:JOURNALIST and I'm not seeing enough citations to prove any other type of notability. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 18:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The notability of a journalist is not established by referencing the article to sources in which she's the bylined author of coverage about other things , it's established by referencing the article to sources in which she's the written-about subject of content authored by other people .  But the sources here are of the former type, not the latter.  Bearcat ( talk ) 21:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Alexandre Castaing: This player certainly exists, but he lacks WP:SIGCOV .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and France .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I am having a hard time finding enough coverage to meet WP:GNG .  Please ping me if sources are found.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The sources (database I exclusively) means the article individual exists but it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBIO .  Trust this can be notable in the future.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  11:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Remote (company): However, it doesn't seem like there is a significant change in the topic's notability.  I will tag all of the previous discussion's participants below.  UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , Companies , United States of America ,  and California .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagging all previous (non-blocked, non-IP) AFD's participants: @ Chris troutman , Husond , Tony Fox , Oaktree b , Martinp , Scope creep , Jacona , DoubleCross , Serial Number 54129 , BusterD , Sportsfan 1234 , Gusfriend , Iskandar323 , Trey Maturin , Nil Einne , Girth Summit , Fakescientist8000 ,  and HighKing : in hopes they can see something better here than I can.  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Tech crunch articles are more about the company, but it's not a totally RS.  Rest is still funding announcements.  I still don't see enough sourcing about the company that isn't related to financing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as prior closer.  I saw this come through AfC this morning and had some concerns about a brand new editor creating a well-formed article, but only reviewed enough to say not a G4.  Will look into the sourcing during the discussion.  Star Mississippi 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Now that it's been pointed to me, It was clear I made an error mistakes in judging the notability of the topic.  Apologies folks.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 16:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Same usual mix of funding and valuation annoucements typical of a startup.  Fails WP:SIRS , WP:CORPDEPTH .  Its not changed much from the previous version as far I can see.  More of the same thing has been added if anything.  We can go through the first two blocks of references in detail if necessary, but to summarise, Ref 1, 6, 7,8,9,10, 11 are trivial funding annoucements.  Ref 2 is non-rs.  Ref 3,5 are PR, Ref 4, 9, 12 is valuation.  The rest are PR.  They all fails WP:SIRS in one way or another.  scope_creep Talk 17:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject fails NCORP and GNG.  All the cites are embarrassing churnalism .  I cannot understand why this company sent an employee to attempt this task on Wikipedia after a former admin could not manage it.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep (with thanks to UtherSRG for the ping, above).  Just as in the 1st AFD, I think the Techcrunch source is a good one, and there were and therefore still are enough others that are reliable (independent) and meaningful enough to be OK, though I haven't re-looked in the current excessive list of references to locate them.  I also think that we as a community have our ""need to stop spam"" filters set so high we do a crappy job covering companies, rejecting articles where similarly notable sports figures, TV shows, etc. sail through unchallenged.  All this leads me to Keep.  And yet: this is so clearly written with a PR perspective, so focused on unencyclopedic funding details (and yet over-referenced) that I don't see how we're going to get a reasonable article to arise from this and who will maintain it.  And so while I wrote ""Clear keep"" on the 1st AFD, I'm now watered down to a ""Weak keep"" only.  Martinp ( talk ) 17:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The guidelines for notable sports figures, TV shows, etc, are not the same as the standards set for companies which uses GNG/ WP:NCORP .  The TechCrunch articles all fail WP:ORGIND as they rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs.  HighKing ++ 21:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Our standards describe our practice, and I agree with you they seem to have developed to be different for companies than in other areas.  So many people, like you, claim an article in a mainstream specialized publication about a company that is a secondary source primarily based on information by the company and its employees as primary sources, is insufficiently independent.  Yet a profile of a notable figure that would be equally based on an interview with the figure, and information provided by that figure's collaborators, would likely be deemed sufficiently independent because of the editorial effort put in by the author -- an effort likely very similar to that of the author of the article about a company.  I believe this is an inconsistency.  The biases underpinning it are indicated by the pejorative language that tends to come up in discussions, e.g. ""churnalism"", ""regurgitate"", ""PR crap"", ""marketing spam"" (I'm not casting aspersions at anyone specifically here, just what the tone of these discussions ends up being in general).  I speak up about when I feel strongly we're getting it wrong in a specific case, but I'm not going to argue this one, where it does seem we ultimately have very little to go on about this company than it own marketing collateral and funding information Martinp ( talk ) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just so that we're clear, yes, that is correct.  Our guidelines have particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company and if it is an ""article in in a mainstream specialized publication about a company that is a secondary source primarily based on information by the company and its employees as primary sources , is insufficiently independent."".  That's the mechanism by which we ensure that companies are truly notable and not just good at marketing.  If they're notable, somebody, somewhere, will take the time to write something in-depth and original about them.  HighKing ++ 21:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Hi everyone!  I'm not sure how best to reply to all the comments but I really want to say thank you to everyone for the feedback and for spending the time and energy to look through the article and its sources.  I got really great help from the Article Wizard, the other available resources on Wiki, and referred to the Wiki pages and sources of Deel (company) and Gusto (company) as guides on how best to cite and write this article as neutrally as possible.  If there's anything else I could edit to help make a stronger case to keep the article, please let me know.  Ad Astra Per Asperaaa ( talk ) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ad Astra Per Asperaaa , the best thing you can do is point us to independent, reliable sources.  Read WP:SIRS first, it will help you understand what would be most helpful.  — Jacona ( talk ) 19:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would highly implore you to point to reliable secondary sources that prove the notability of the subject.  It would be a shame for the article so fail, but it will do if it must.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 00:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks to you and @ Jacona for the advice!  I'm grateful.  When I was writing this, I referred to that page, to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources , and some other pages too.  Given it's my first time writing a Wiki article, I've also been referring to Deel (company) and Gusto (company) as guides, since they're in similar industries.  What I noticed was that there are parallels in the news articles and sources cited, where quite a number of the sources report on valuations and fundraising for these two companies, since that's the main issue of this article from the feedback so far.  I also notice that both those pages have press releases and their respective company websites as sources.  I'll keep looking and adding more notable and legit sources because I think that's crucial to this whole process, especially given my position.  Given my inexperience, and genuinely so, I would appreciate it if there's anyone that can help me understand how this article can be on equal standing with Deel (company) and Gusto (company) .  Ad Astra Per Asperaaa ( talk ) 09:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of the sources meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  They all rely on announcements or other regurgitated company information, fails WP:ORGIND .  HighKing ++ 21:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I may be the odd man out here, but based on multiple coverage in well known publications such as Techcrunch, VentureBeat, Business Insider, Reuters, etc they meet WP:NCORP.  Although some of the articles sound like announcements, they go in detail about the company's services and operations.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 22:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, ""coverage in well known publications"" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability.  Nonetheless, you say they meet NCORP.  Please point to any specific paragraph in any of those sources (or any other sources you can find) which you believe contains in-depth Independent Content .  Note ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  HighKing ++ 21:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The company name makes searching for significant coverage challenging.  Of the presented sources, I don't see one of them which directly details anything about the business.  Just fund-raising and principals.  It's clear there's some capital behind the project, but the corporation hasn't garnered any descriptive press about itself, even in routine business news.  I don't see any basis for a keep outcome here.  There's no claim of notability whatsoever.  BusterD ( talk ) 15:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry: Not seeing it.  Sourcing that I have found describes the two in broader contexts of tennis competition, but not specifically focused on their rivalry.  Eddie891 Talk Work 19:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I don't see it either.  Per Wikiproject Tennis: ""According to WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are not inherently notable. We can only have articles about tennis rivalries if there is significant media coverage about the rivalry. For example, great rivalries like Agassi–Sampras or Federer–Nadal warrant an article, but articles about rivalries like Agassi–Rafter and Federer–Hewitt have been deleted by the community. If in doubt, consult WP:TENNIS before creating a new rivalry article.""  That's what this looks like to me.  The fact it was deleted before, when they were both playing and in the news, speaks loudly that this is not a player interaction that requires a stand-alone article.  19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Fyunck(click) ( talk ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the article doesn't seem to be a ""rivalry"" versus a head-to-head match history.  It's not something that I can find any significant references to.  LizardJr8 ( talk ) 23:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus and Russia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Marketing Agencies Association: Cabayi ( talk ) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Advertising ,  and United Kingdom .  Cabayi ( talk ) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  and WP:PROMO .  Fails WP:ORG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Frenchs Forest Public School: LibStar ( talk ) 06:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL (ie WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG ) and would seem unlikely to be able to meet any criteria.  Otherwise a nicely constructed little page, pity.  Cabrils ( talk ) 23:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Barker (advertising agency): ~ T P W 16:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  ~ T P W 16:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Companies ,  and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails notability as there is a lack of reputable coverage that directly addresses the company and its notability.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 03:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Open Site: The mentions I can find are citations to the infomation from the website (e.g: [8] [9] ) or as an entry in lists of online encyclopaedias (e.g: [10] ) neither of which are WP:SIGCOV .  I don't see anyway this could ever meet WP:NWEB At the previous afd ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Site ) in 2007, the article was kept on the grounds that seem to me mostly WP:ATA type arguments (e.g: It is important , That it will be notable in the future , we have articles on less notable things , etc).  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 15:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 15:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 15:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : Although this website is probably not notable now, at its original time before Wikipedia, it was probably notable.  Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 06:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY .  The article has never had any sources, and there weren't enough found in the 2007 afd.  On what are you basing you opinion that it was once notable , because I can't see how that can be based on any Wikipedia policy like WP:GNG or WP:NWEB .  Cakelot1 ( talk ) 09:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can't see keeping this because it was short-lived and didn't really go anywhere.  We do, however, need to find where all it is mentioned on WP and change the wikilink to, perhaps, a link to their archived web page .  It would ideal to get a sentence or two into the DMOZ page saying that it was by ""x"" and ran from yyyy to yyyy.  Otherwise, there's no history as context in that article.  Lamona ( talk ) 02:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"IC 3278: C messier ( talk ) 07:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : not notable.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Society of Quality Assurance: LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find anything either; given the huge relevance and profile of quality assurance in general, I would expect a notable society representing quality assurance to have a lot more hits than the Scottish Qualifications Authority, but it doesn't.  Might be a US thing and I'm missing it because I'm in the UK.  Article reads like a mission brochure.  I'd suggest delete , and if it ever turns into anything in the future, re-create then.  Elemimele ( talk ) 12:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Malhama: None of the 3 entries on this page is known as ""Malhama"" and the page is made up of only WP:Partial title matches , and so should be deleted as a disaambiguation page.  There is no wikt entry for a soft redirect.  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:PARTIAL .  The page is not really disambiguating anything, and I couldn't find anything that could fit on the page.  Persent101 ( talk ) 11:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  I removed one entry, another is very questionable.  This does not meet dab guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk 16:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Leo Motley: Reads like a resume with flowery language.  Non-notable per sources, none found we can use.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The page about Leo Motley should not be removed because he is a significant figure in the technology industry as the founder of Cloudax Ltd and the creator of numerous popular programs and applications used by hundreds of thousands on platforms such as Google Play, App Store, Discord etc.  His contributions have had a substantial impact on the software industry and have garnered attention from various sources.  Keeping this page allows Wikipedia readers to access valuable information about a prominent innovator in the tech world, preserving his accomplishments for future generations to learn and appreciate.  JaydenPritchard ( talk ) 09:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So it's PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete promotional and non-notable person.  SportingFlyer T · C 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  Fails WP:GNG .  SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk ) 13:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've deleted some unsourced information.  But still, all the sources are primary sources like LinkedIn, his personal website, etc.  SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk ) 13:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly this should probably have been speedied.  SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk ) 19:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Pure promo, no indication that it meets WP:NBLP .  ARandomName123 ( talk ) 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jamaica–Turkey relations: Most of the actual diplomatic relations in the article isn't specifically about relations between Turkey and Jamaica.  The only thing noteworthy is a bit of trade but that is minuscule compared to the size of the Turkish economy.  Lastly the banned editor had a habit of adding extraordinary long reading list none of which refers to Turkey.  LibStar ( talk ) 05:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey .  ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 05:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions .  ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 05:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No good refs.  More importantly, there just doesn't seem to be much of a relationship.  The countries recognize each other legally but neither has an embassy.  Turkish Airlines flies to 124 countries ; Jamaica is not one of them.  Jamaican imports from Turkey <2% of total imports.  Jamaican exports to Turkey were minuscule: $500,000.  On the Turkish side the percentages are infinitesimal.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions .  LibStar ( talk ) 08:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Aintabli ( talk ) 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Yu Kwang-jun: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 17:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nicole Brune: BuySomeApples ( talk ) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women .  BuySomeApples ( talk ) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Googling leads to only social media.  Adler3 ( talk ) 03:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, I'm not clear as to the reason for this or what needs to be done, but I'm happy to make any needed adjustments.   If I'm understanding this, 'darklordofpinup' said this needs to be done?   That name being attached to this issue raises red flags as to the legitimacy of the complaint.   I'm very aware of who is attached to that name and they have a tendency to show up every few years to verbally assault Nicole's carreer until they find a new distraction and show up again years later.   They were recently blocked on instagram due to harrasment.  What is a ""sigcov"" thanks for the help!  Elcack ( talk ) 21:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Sigcov"" is an abbreviation of ""significant coverage"", and it's one of the requirement for a citation source to be seen as adequate.  You can read more about it in WP:GNG .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 23:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Poorly composed article, which relies exclusively on trivial mentions and non-independent sites (like link to purchase product from the subject).  Searching online, I only found more trivial mentions, promotional pieces, and one coverage about a horse racer with the same name.  Seems like a WP:PROMO to me.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 23:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for this comic book artist.  No way to bring this up to notable.  WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This promotional entry on a non-notable artist Fails WP:GNG , WP:NARTIST , WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO .  I removed the ""source"" that was a bare url link to an advertorial sales site.  The article is poorly formatted and the current sourcing consists of one trivial mention, one does not mention her at all, and two are photo caption mentions.  Netherzone ( talk ) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wavetick: I would say being founded by Sharooz is a CCS , otherwise I would have used A7 .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 17:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination, I was mulling over a WP:BLAR to the Sharooz article, but so far can not find a single secondary source on it.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jaime Morgan Stubbe: I was unable to find any substantial sources for him.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not notable and lacks reliable sources.  Aintabli ( talk ) 01:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Law ,  and Puerto Rico .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Redbus Internet Exchange: No WP:SIGCOV could be found on Google, Newspapers.com, or the Times Digital Archive.  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Internet ,  and England .  ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me!  16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Akhil Marar: Being a contestant on Bigg Boss does not establish the notability of the person as WP:BIGBROTHER states that the contestants should not have an article only because of their participation in the program, and all the coverage received for the person is because of his participation in the Bigg Boss.  Ken Tony Shall we discuss?  17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , India ,  and Kerala .  Ken Tony Shall we discuss?  17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No independent coverage to meet GNG.  All citations depends on Big Boss and some controversies.  202.164.137.17 ( talk ) 04:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is the director of a malayalam Movie Oru Thathvika Avalokanam.  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/oru-thathvika-avalokanam/movie-review/88621456.cms Bijzindia ( talk ) 12:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per nominator, not enough to show WP:GNG is met, nor for WP:FILMMAKER .  Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is the director of the malayalam movie Oru Thathvika Avalokanam.  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/oru-thathvika-avalokanam/movie-review/88621456.cms https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/malayalam/oru-thathwika-avalokanam-review-joju-george-niranj-raju-pillai-fail-to-save-this-lackluster-movie-7700092/ Bijzindia ( talk ) 14:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE : Only known for participation in Big Boss.  Fails GNG and NACTOR.  103.165.167.187 ( talk ) 09:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is the director of a malayalam Movie Oru Thathvika Avalokanam.  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/oru-thathvika-avalokanam/movie-review/88621456.cms Bijzindia ( talk ) 12:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jon Allen (diplomat): Second source is dead, and could not find WP:SIGCOV in google news search.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Israel , Spain ,  and Canada .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above arguments.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of JJ Lin concert tours: Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 12:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 12:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The content of this article is translated from Chinese Wikipedia.  The singer has a certain degree of popularity.  进阶的无处 ( talk ) 01:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tour lists are very common on Wikipedia, and the singer has a large tour scale and has a certain amount of attention.  进阶的无处 ( talk ) 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia cannot be used as a directory of concerts unless only notable concerts are listed.  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 08:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I think it fail WP:NLIST as well.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into JJ Lin .  While JJ Lin is certainly very notable in the region, I don't think there should be a separate article for a list of his concerts.  -- Blissfulclarity ( talk ) 15:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , agree with the deletion rationales that we can't just have WP:LISTCRUFT of not-particularly-notable concerts which would be better suited on a fan site.  I don't like the idea of merging this vast amount of data onto the subject's own article as it would be excessive and detract from the biographical nature of the subject's article.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 19:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Constance Hsu: None of her roles are particularly notable, with majority not even having names.  She also apparently hasn't acted at all in the past decade.  JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done ) 21:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women .  JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done ) 21:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Aintabli ( talk ) 21:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kechaoda: Charlie ( talk ) 02:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China .  Charlie ( talk ) 02:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP .  DJ InstaMalik ( talk ) 08:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) A possible WP:SPA that solely participated in numerous AfD nominations I recently initiated, which raises significant doubts from the outset.  - Charlie ( talk ) 07:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there just isn’t enough material here for an article.  Mccapra ( talk ) 07:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Khaled Al-Hanaai: None of the current sources are good enough either and the subject has played only one minute of professional football 3 years ago and done next to nothing since.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Qatar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Al-Shahania SC : Not notable enough for a standalone article 109.169.34.46 ( talk ) 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He left Al-Shahania in 2020 so is no longer mentioned in that article.  A redirect would be confusing for the reader.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, then delete .  109.169.34.47 ( talk ) 11:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Disagree with redirect as he has played for multiple clubs.  Giant Snowman 22:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 20:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The mentioned page requires more related-source to indicates its notability, otherwise I might be better to be deleted.  Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 20:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lee Jin-e: While, she has released couple of songs, none of it charted on the Circle Digital Chart , the national chart of South Korea.  — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 14:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Dance ,  and South Korea .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : source 4 is listed as a RS, but it's trivial coverage.  I can't see any other sources.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Deepak Thanwala: And also created by a sockpuppet.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  08:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India .  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  08:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not pass NPOL and the mass of refs are all to unreliable sources, likely churnalism.  Mccapra ( talk ) 09:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 09:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Modestus Fernando: Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 07:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Sri Lanka .  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 07:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Natasha Frew: The sources provided do not establish notability.  Contested PROD.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Scotland .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wahyu Aditya: There may be some sources in Indonesian that I've missed, but I can't find any significant coverage online.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 20:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Arts , Comics and animation ,  and Indonesia .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 20:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are a few articles in Indonesian, but I looked into it and there are only interviews, WP:PRIMARY .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Derick Chimebere: Sources cited are mostly referring to Diamondz Africa (his brand) and not him specifically.  No significant coverage and promotional puff .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject is notable with reliable sources.  Chimebere is also called “Diamondz Africa”.  He named the brand after his professional name.  Mevoelo ( talk ) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The short version: There is no evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as none of the cited sources is substantial coverage of Derick Chimebere.  Also all of them are all either avowedly telling us Derick Chimebere's opinions or else written in such glowingly promotional terms as to cast doubt on their being independent sources, with several of them having all the appearance of press releases.  The longer version: I have checked all of the references in the article, and they are as follows: 1: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/07/30/diamondz-africa-reveals-secret-behind-acceptance An article telling us what Derick Chimebere says about his own company.  Neither an independent source nor significant coverage of him.  2: https://thenationonlineng.net/entertainers-doing-most-for-economy-diamondz-africa-ceo/ A three sentence account of what Derick Chimebere says about actors and entertainers.  Neither an independent source nor significant coverage of him, nor in this case even of his company.  3: https://independent.ng/how-we-have-sustained-diamondz-africa-brand-chimebere/ A page about Derick Chimebere's company, which is full of such language as ""truly outstanding and original craftsmanship"", ""the most magnificent jewellery possible"", etc etc, and which uses the word ""we"" in its headline.  Neither an independent source nor significant coverage of him.  4: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/03/celebrity-jeweler-diamondz-africa-vows-to-maintain-quality/ Again, about his business, not him, and again full of such language as ""providing customers with just the greatest service"", etc etc. 5: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/08/diamondz-africa-becomes-choice-of-highly-profiled-celebrities/ Another page on the same website as the last one, and very much the same in character.  6: https://leadership.ng/celebrity-jewelery-brand-diamondz-africa-becomes-toast-of-all/ Much the same again: glowing praise, including a quote from Derick Chimebere, about his business, not him.  7: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/02/after-berbiedoll-diamondz-africa-may-unveil-more-brand-ambassadors/ Yet another page on the same website as numbers 4 & 5, and again similar in nature.  8: Another copy of the same citation as number 3.  9: https://tribuneonlineng.com/diamondz-africa-winner-of-best-jewellery-brand-award/ An announcement that Derick Chimebere's company has won an award.  I have no idea whether it's a significant award or just an industry promotional award, but in any case the announcement contains only two brief mentions of Derick Chimebere as the owner of the company, not substantial coverage of him, and it is full of language such as ""exceptional, one-of-a-kind pieces of jewellery"", ""captured the hearts of those who seek the pinnacle of luxury and sophistication"", etc etc. 10: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/09/03/diamondz-africa-wins-jewelry-brand-of-the-year-at-scream-all-youth-awards-23 Again, an announcement of an award to the company; again, only brief mentions of the owner of the company; again full of glowing language such as ""dazzling the world with its exquisite jewelry creations and cementing its place as a jewelry brand that truly embodies the spirit of excellence"".  11: https://editor.guardian.ng/arts-2/4-star-awards-diamondz-africa-shines-emerges-as-best-jewelry-brand/ Another announcement of the same award as number 9 and similar in character.  12: https://guardian.ng/news/scream-awards-calls-for-nomination-as-10th-edition-beckons/ No mention whatsoever of either Derick Chimebere or his company.  JBW ( talk ) 12:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly a promotional vanity page, sourced with promotional ""articles"" we're seeing more and more of on Nigerian Wiki.  Nswix ( talk ) 00:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable entrepreneur.  Probably too early for an entry .  And per JBW's source analysis.  Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 01:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Stelios Longras: Absolutely no WP:SIGCOV found on extensive Greek and English-language searches, only passing mentions such as this .  There are no pointers that there would be offline coverage of this person either.  Thereby the article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:GNG .  GGT ( talk ) 16:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Cyprus .  GGT ( talk ) 16:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis.  Jogurney ( talk ) 15:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ryang Kyu-sa: Simione001 ( talk ) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and North Korea .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: This one is technically also notable given he has international caps, however more research needs to be done to establish how long he's played for the North Korean national team.  Dazzling4 ( talk ) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The number is international caps isn't relevant when establishing notability as per WP:GNG.  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Satyakam Mohkamsing: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does perform yet I found no reviews, awards, or independent coverage.  The website is down.  Appears to be a working professional without encyclopedic notability.  gidonb ( talk ) 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  I also found no coverage.  He doesn't have an article on any wikis in other languages, either. — Moriwen ( talk ) 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Audel Laville: I found one good piece of coverage here , which I added, but unfortunately this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON .  Other sources like this and this are not independent.  It might be a good idea to Draftify .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: See if there is more support for draftification.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , there are also these sources [2] [3] [4] .  Perhaps not perfect, but with a healthy dose of WP:WORLDVIEW ?  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per SailingInABathTub.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 14:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - Article doesn't pass WP:GNG yet as the only thing approaching SIGCOV is the eMAGE DM article linked by the nominator.  This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON .  Jogurney ( talk ) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, NYC Guru ( talk ) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per GiantSnowman no evidence of notability.  D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Alex Coury: Acting/producing credits do not appear to be notable.  Fails WP:NBIO .  KH-1 ( talk ) 06:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Authors ,  and United States of America .  North America 1000 10:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Zero notable roles for ACTOR, business activities are nothing for wikipedia.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikifamouspeople is typical of the non-reliable sources used in the article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rani Hazarika (singer): She's sung a few more songs since then but I see no real new evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Women ,  and Assam .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for pieces which are pretty obviously intended to be promotional, whether promoting her or the industry in general.  I haven't found any honest neutral coverage, and that suggests GNG is not met.  Basically the same concerns as the original discussion .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 17:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've found substantial coverage of the artist in reputable media outlets few of them are like [1] [2] and recent once [3] , which I firmly believe meets the notability criteria.  While some articles may seem promotional, it's common for media houses to highlight positives when interviewing artists and they most of the times don't keep the view point neutral.  Let's discuss further to ensure a balanced perspective.  Rainylights ( talk ) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete While some of the projects she had helped to provide tracks stand on Wikipedia, I don't see her currently passing WP:GNG .  All I find are just press releases that fail to provide any significant coverage of the subject. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I respectfully disagree with the proposal to delete Rani Hazarika's article.  While I understand the concerns raised about potential promotional content, I believe there are sufficient neutral sources to establish her notability.  Hazarika's contributions to the music industry, including her involvement in various projects and collaborations, have been documented in reputable sources beyond mere press releases.  Moreover, her continued activity in the field since the previous deletion discussion indicates ongoing relevance.  Therefore, I argue that the article should be kept, as it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.  Rainylights ( talk ) 08:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a useless platitude that misunderstands the reason for deletion entirely and appears to be AI-generated.  * Pppery * it has begun... 14:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Pppery, In addition to your baseless accusations, I'd like to highlight that I can see, two articles published—one in the Times of India [4] and another in Nework KNT [5] —both praising the artist in question.  It's worth noting that I have no affiliation with either publication.  These articles further affirm the importance of the artist's work, casting doubt on the deletion of the Wikipedia article.  I await a thoughtful response.  Previously, you placed a Speedy deletion tag on the article, which was later declined by the checker User/Administrator User:Ivanvector , citing legitimate reasoning G4: not substantially identical (CSDH).  Now, resorting to an AFD is like digging a well in the desert while knowing there is no water Rainylights ( talk ) 04:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More AI-generated nonsense.  The Times of India is useless for establishing notability.  The Network KNT source, is, despite heaping praise on the subject, not actually WP:SIGCOV and I'm not convinced it's a reliable source either.  Now, resorting to an AFD is like digging a well in the desert while knowing there is no water -> huh?  I'm not following your analogy at all.  The only thing that could mean is that I somehow knew this AfD was doomed to fail and was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point , and if you're really accusing me of that you need much stronger evidence for it.  * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While doing preliminary research, the articles and links that show up in google, even though most are press releases about different song releases and events she has been part of, but the articles happen to be published by some of the largest Newspapers and Portals in the country, like Times of India [6] , [7] , ANI [8] , Hindustan Times [9] , Financial Express [10] , Deccan Chronicle [11] and India Today, The Print, IBTimes [12] among others, some mentioning her as a sensation and others speaking in similar words, while a number of portals carry her interviews and achievements and contributions, suggesting she is very well known.   Hope the attached links help in arriving at better clarity about the decision.  Hjeelani ( talk ) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From a very quick glance, you have cites to The Times of India , which is useless for establishing notability .  * Pppery * it has begun... 14:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Closer look.  Cites 1, 2, and 4 are useless as explained above.  Cite 5 is not significant coverage, and cite 7 is reporting on a non-notable award mill , therefore also useless.  Given the lack of any byline and such I'm not convinced cite 6 is a reliable source.  For Cite 3 see WP:RSPANI - it's not a reliable source.  Also keep in mind Paid news in India when trying to establish the notability of India-related topics.  * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (These comments are based on the numbering as of when I originally posted the comment , further discussion above has shifted the reference numbers slightly) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You may check her new song 'Wallah Habibi Arabic"" from current Bollywood Movie ""Bade Miyan Chote Miyan"" [13] Rainylights ( talk ) 03:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So? That's just more puff from The Times of India and of no value in establishing notability at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't pass GNG with SIGCOV or NMUSIC or NARTIST. Most cites used are TOI that are not reliable for BLP and no notability outside one song. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She's Notable singer , It's worth noting that having 100 articles about an artist isn't necessarily the only measure of their significance. Reviewing the tabulation in the article with all sources might provide a clearer picture of her level of notability to you. Additionally, her impact extends beyond just one song and encompasses multiple works, as evidenced not only by coverage in TOI but also in numerous other reputable portals.Its not just a one song but, multiple and its not just TOI but, many other articles from reputed portals and she does pass GNG with SIGCOV . Rainylights ( talk ) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP . May not be amongst top singers but notable one. This , this , this , this and this covers the needful for WP:GNG per WP:THREE . -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 03:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One more good coverage by The Asian Age found here . -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources are: a repeat from above, not significant coverage, not significant coverage, unclear why this article without even a byline would be a reliable source, ""partnered content"" which I would assume means paid promotion of some sort especially given its tone. And the Asian Age source is probably just more paid news in India given the tone its written in. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pppery sigh! You asked for WP:RS and I gave. The Asian Age is paid? Such a shame. If so, I must say, WP:RS is really debacle forever. If this AfD results out here , then outcome should be same. Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 17:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you really think a supposedly independent source would write things like As the name suggests Rani Hazarika is a voice with thousand attributes ? And your AfD link is WP:OTHERSTUFF and not even a very convincing OTHERSTUFF, since I see no relationship at all between this AfD and that one other than that both are about musicians. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Asian Age is WP:RS per consensus. Next to it, Times of India is not non-reliable but ""reliability matter on the contributor of the topic. "" , which means notable jpu8rnalist's writing in Times of India are always reliable.  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Asian Age is WP:RS per consensus.  -> per consensus where?  It's not on WP:RSP or WP:NPPSG where I would expect such a source to be documented.  The issue with The Times of India isn't reliability per se, it's that it is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage , which makes it completely useless for establishing notability as all having an article in The Times of India proves is that you paid them, not an assessment of independent worth.  * Pppery * it has begun... 03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Subject seems to be notable.  Maybe I guess some works needs to be done on the article but I don't think deleting is a good option. -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 18:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How, exactly, does the subject seem to be notable? Do you have any refutation to my analysis of any of the sources above? If you don't substantiate your opposition to deletion it will be completely ignored by the closing admin. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From some of the newspaper seen. She seems to be notable but I can't say if the article needs to be keep because her case looks confusing to me. That is why I said the article needs to be improved and maybe if not deleted can be sent back to draft and has to pass through the WP:AFCREVIEW .-- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is she notable in a way that meets Wikipedia criteria?  That does not appear to be the case, although I can see why she is known in certain circles.  Vacosea ( talk ) 20:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not notable as of now TheChronikler7 ( talk ) 06:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your Verdict feels like a final judgement from the supreme court judge.  made without considering the arguments presented by the advocates or the significance of artist involved.  Rainylights ( talk ) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Irrational!  ! vote.  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://www.awazthevoice.in/india-news/assam-s-popular-singer-rani-hazarika-says-she-found-singing-in-kashmiri-difficult-20529.html ^ https://www.apnnews.com/rani-hazarika-a-melodious-journey-of-a-versatile-playback-singer-and-live-performer/#google_vignette ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/bade-miyan-chote-miyan-rani-hazarika-receives-applause-for-her-song-wallah-habibi/articleshow/109273863.cms ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/bade-miyan-chote-miyan-rani-hazarika-receives-applause-for-her-song-wallah-habibi/articleshow/109273863.cms ^ https://networkknt.com/2024/04/rani-hazarika-strikes-gold-once-again-wallah-habibi-arabic-version-from-bade-miyan-chote-miyan-sets-the-arab-world-ablaze/ ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/rani-hazarika-and-jaan-nissar-lones-melodies-enchant-the-spectacular-bangus-festival/articleshow/103696182.cms ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/rani-hazarika-mesmerises-with-her-song-mystic-trance-at-the-russian-african-forum/articleshow/102139001.cms ^ https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/international-sensation-rani-hazarika-and-jaan-nissar-lones-melodies-enchant-the-spectacular-bangus-festival20230915172818/#google_vignette ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/rani-hazarika-and-jaan-nissar-lones-melodies-enchant-the-spectacular-bangus-festival/articleshow/103696182.cms ^ https://www.financialexpress.com/lifestyle/amid-freezing-temperature-kashmir-hosts-bollywood-rubaru-concert/2178194/ ^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/in-focus/051219/rani-hazarika-the-rockstar-from-assam.html ^ https://www.ibtimes.co.in/dadasaheb-phalke-excellence-award-2018-heres-complete-winners-list-767405 ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/bade-miyan-chote-miyan-rani-hazarika-receives-applause-for-her-song-wallah-habibi/articleshow/109273863.cms 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.",delete
"Anne Lise Kjaer: Attempting to avoid EN bias, however, I cannot find articles to support WP:SIGCOV .  The article appears to be more about her keynote speaking than any single event but still reads as a resume.  30Four ( talk ) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and Denmark .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably passes as an author, [50] and was the editor of a substantial book [51] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If the best that can be said is she ""probably"" passes as an author, that seems like it really shouldn't be a keep vote.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 17:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not judging the suitability of AUTHOR, only that it seems to pass in my limited capacity to review the sources at hand.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No significant coverage, sources are dead or unreliable or connected to the subject.  On top of that the article reads like a blatant WP:PROMO .  Delete.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 17:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete sources confirm she delivered a few presentations but lacking in-depth coverage to meet WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 13:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not notable.  Note that she doesn't have a Danish Wikipedia article - that's not a requirement for inclusion here, but it is telling.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Farzad Ataie: Simione001 ( talk ) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Can anyone run a searches in Dari Persian, Pashto or Farsi?  I would assume 15 international caps and winning the Afghan Premier League notable.  [31] However I just see a lot of databases in my search.  Ping me if there are decent hits.  Govvy ( talk ) 14:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Persian searches only come up with coverage on Facebook and YouTube rather than any actual WP:RS coverage Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca and Ailurus fulgens): It is handled at both of the species' articles ( giant panda and red panda ) as well as the disambiguation ( panda (disambiguation) ).  - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Science ,  and Biology .  UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - eminently superfluous.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 11:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Agree it's redundant with the species articles.  If there is any intersection discussion between the two in terms of characteristics, that can be handled in the respective species articles like we do for other species that share a name or similarity.  KoA ( talk ) 21:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Adding onto KoA's point, the respective Giant panda and Red panda articles already emphasize these species' distinct evolutionary history with Red panda#Phylogeny providing multiple phylogenetic trees to explain this point.  BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"KCDH-LP: How did KCDH-LP have The WB when it was on ""KWMB"" (via WB 100+ )?  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Louisiana .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose I'm not sold that this was not notable.  To those in the area, it was considered their local access channel and is part of their local history.  -- Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 07:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This probably requires a newspaper (Winnfield) that we do not have available.  Coverage is nonexistent otherwise.  Delete .  It's not totally unreasonable that The WB was on KCDH in the pre-1998 period, by the way, but nothing is provable about this station.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Without seemingly any WP:SIGCOV , this subject fails all notability guidelines with the current sourcing.  If sources can be found, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote.  User:Let'srun 03:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete What I could see is this station simulcasting WB100+ primetime on the local cable system as a condition of carriage, but it's doubtful that can be easily confirmed as whatever provided existed then was subsumed into Altice, and there's not much we can prove about this station's existence.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : if Sammi Brie cannot find the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG , it probably doesn't exist (at least in any easily-accessible sense).  For what it's worth, while the station was listed by FamilyNet (its other claimed network) c.  2010 as having been authorized as an affiliate since 2000 , none of the seemingly-contemporary WB affiliate lists I've seen ( 1995 , ~1998 ) have included anything resembling this station.  Even post-1998 carriage of The WB is not impossible: there were a small number of incumbent WB affiliates in these small markets that were not dropped right away (at least in the early days, the intent of WeB/The WB 100+ was to bring The WB to markets with an insufficient number of stations to get an actual affiliate—akin to Foxnet , which unlike WB 100+ was always more of a stopgap that never itself directly precluded a regular Fox affiliate if a station became available—without having to resorting to the WGN national feed carriage also in effect back then), and The WB 100+ did end up with a small number over-the-air affiliates where available in the early 2000s.  (In and of itself, none of that is of much if any relevance to notability or the lack thereof, but I figured I'd attempt to tie up that loose end.)  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Looks like the station really didn't have that much support but yeah, I don't understand the WB thing other than the 1995-2006 thing was false.  It would be 1995-1998 .  Mer764Wiki ( talk ) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jim Kirwan: PatGallacher ( talk ) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime ,  and Ireland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV , WP:NVICTIM and WP:1E .  Before my own PROD tagging , I found (and subsequently added ) a number of sources to support parts of the text.  These are the only modern sources, however, I could find and they all deal with the subject's death (somewhat in passing) as part of the reprisals/aftermath of the Headford ambush.  Not amounting to significant biographical coverage.  The only contemporary (1921) sources I could find only deal with the subject's death - also reported as a matter of fact in the broader context.  (For example the Irish Independent of Tue 25 Jan 1921 which refers to ""Kirwan (22), of Ballinastack"" as ""the second victim.  His father states that lorries, carrying about 10 men, entered the village at 2.30 p.m., having a machine-gun mounted on one of the cars.  Kirwan, who was on the road, was asked where his son, Jim, was.... ).  While there are therefore some contemporary short/news sources which deal with the subject's appalling/sad death, I can find NO sources which deal with the subject's life.  So no significant biographical coverage there either.  As I can/could not consider any alternatives to deletion (Draftify - to what end? Redirect - to where?) I am left with deletion as the only recommendation.  On NVICTIM/SIGCOV/1E grounds.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 10:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable.  900 civilians were killed in the Irish War of Independence alone; how many civilians were killed in conflicts around the world in the same period?  The article creator is User:Fergananim , who was notorious for creating stubs on non-notable people of all sorts.  Scolaire ( talk ) 12:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Non notable death.  Spleodrach ( talk ) 22:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Alan Filion: Fram ( talk ) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime ,  and Florida .  Fram ( talk ) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not make this article but I was going to make one on the same topic at Draft:Torswats , but alas I am extremely lazy and was beaten to the punch.  Would that still be okay?  I agree the one as is has problems.  Shouldn't be focused on him, should be on the service PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW Torswats itself is 100% notable.  Gotta be careful about the BLP stuff until he's convicted though.  Also he was charged as an adult.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 17:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fram any issue with an article on Torswats (the swatting service) and not Filion?  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 17:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there isn't an issue, I can write the Torswats article fast and then redirect his name into it without mentioning it until he's convicted.  Relatively few of the sources name him anyway.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 18:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft : Would more than likely be notable once convicted, but until then, not really much for notability.  Perhaps TOOSOON Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even then, from what the sources say he is not the only person behind ""Torswats"", he is the main one.  It is implied he had affiliates.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] also I agree with draftify if my proposal above isn't accepted.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I agree.  But I would consider @ PARAKANYAA 's request and redirect ""Alan Filion"" to Torswats if it is ever moved to articlespace.  Best, Danzigmusicfan1 ( talk ) 21:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If an article is to be created about the pay-for-swatting incidents it should not be a BLP of a previously unknown minor with his mugshot before conviction.  The current article raises ethical issues and it should not be a BLP.  See WP:BLP1E .  Per WP:BLPCRIME 'Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.  For individuals who are not 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. "" AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the only sources we have for the subject being Torswats all fail BLPCRIME, and if the subject isn't Torswats they are a non-notable minor.  -- LCU A ctively D isinterested « @ » ° ∆t ° 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ksenija Nagle: Searches only yield match reports and squad lists.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Latvia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jong Chol-min: Simione001 ( talk ) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree, this article fails  WP:GNG, This person is not notable enough and doesn't have enough coverage EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is an unsourced stub.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete —Fails WP:GNG , a recurring theme with this types of articles.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sports broadcasting contracts in Germany: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Lists ,  and Germany .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE .  No evidence that these lists are encyclopedic, they've never been discussed as a group in RS.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Indiscriminate list of trivia.  Flibirigit ( talk ) 11:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Aukro.bg: Google gives limited sources.  Spinixster (chat!) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet , Websites ,  and Bulgaria .  Spinixster (chat!) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it evidently operated in several central and Eastern European countries for a while before being taken over but I’m not seeing anything to suggest notability.  Ukrainian Wikipedia has an article about the brand in that country with some sources, but I find nothing for Bulgaria.  Mccapra ( talk ) 08:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a declined prod.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 04:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The subject doesn't pass the WP:GNG .  Cruzdoze ( talk ) 19:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lee Chu-hong: Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women ,  and South Korea .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Remember to provide rationale 104.232.119.107 ( talk ) 17:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That was an error; thank you!  Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per rationale.  104.232.119.107 ( talk ) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete because this can’t scratch WP:NSKATE .  She medaled at South Korea’s national championships, a senior-level event, though this is not international, and her international accomplishments did not earn her a medal.  There is no WP:SIGCOV for her in this or another context unfortunately.  CherryPie94 🍒🥧 ( talk ) 05:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Elmar Kivistik (ship): Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 18:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Estonia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Delete would be a strange option as the Estonian Shipping Company has an article.  At the very least this should be a redirect.  I did not check for sources so not a ! vote, just my two cents.  gidonb ( talk ) 00:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Estonian Shipping Company : Can't find any SIRS sources, redirecting is an ATD per gidonb.  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 01:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm not crazy about redirecting to Estonian Shipping Company – all that page tells the reader is that the Elmar Kivitisk is a ship formerly operated by that company.  These sort of redirects are frequently created at AfD as an alternative to deletion, but too often end up at RfD.  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 11:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why on earth would it end up on RfD?  ""no mention in the target article""?  Nope, it's there.  Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 16:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, but it's unhelpful to the reader looking for concrete information.  It's misleading.  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 16:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the point being made here by the nom, in that redirecting to the parent company with no additional detail is unhelpful and without purpose.  I do not think someone searching for this ship will find helpful resource having being sent to Estonian Shipping Company .  On balance, considering the redirect proposal, I would suggest simply deleting.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 09:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as I do not see any value in a redirect to the company where the subject is not discussed in any meaningful way (a list entry, among others, does not constitute a mention).  Furthermore, if I was treating this as a RFD for arguments sake, I would consider WP:R#DELETE point 10 of reasons to not have a RD, which states ""If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject."" - this could , at some future point, become an article but the proposed target discussed here I do not think offers value at this time and so without a credible claim to notability, I suggest deleting.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 09:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sandrine Matiasek: Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Environment ,  and United States of America .  Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete page reads like a resume.  Associate professor with little impact, WP:MILL and doesn't fulfill any WP:NACADEMIC criteria.  Broc ( talk ) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  She has good citation counts for one publication, but she is in the middle position among the authors of that one, and nothing else stands out as evidence for WP:PROF notability.  That leaves a potential pass of WP:GNG instead, based on the ""media appearances"" section.  Several of the sources listed there are non-independent (published by CSU Chico, her employer).  Otherwise, we have three local news stories in NSPR and the Chico Enterprise-Record.  Of these, ""Chico State professors publish Camp Fire water pollution study"" has little depth of coverage of Matiasek, spending more of its attention on her coauthors and their study.  ""Blue Dot"" is a local radio station interview with the subject, not a story about her.  And ""Students study"" is, as the title suggests, mostly about a student research project, with only incidental mention of Matiasek's role in directing the students.  I don't think that's enough depth and prominence of coverage for GNG either.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete way too early with no real verification of notability as yet.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 04:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not meet WP:NACADEMIC .  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:NACADEMIC .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jonathan Burrows (producer): The claim appears to be substantively correct.  The only source that actually looks like a source is this about a production he was involved in, but it was a press release in what appears to be a local source, says so at the end.  I could not verify many of the claims in the article either in the sources cited or independently.  If reliable sources can be identified, I am happy to fix the article but it needs to be deleted if not.  Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople , Theatre , California , New Jersey ,  and New York .  Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably delete - there seems to be a general problem verifying the facts here, but even if there wasn't the claims of notability seem thin and I'm not seeing any better refs.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Disagree on the ""self-written vanity"" part.  While it was apparently written initially by a colleague, and also contributed to by Rnguyen1 who provided the photo used in the article, during my cleanup, I believe I removed anything that may have been biased.  You may elaborate on your concern of misinformation or unverified claims, and I can answer them.  Disclosure: I do not know the subject, and I only happened to undelete the page at WP:RfU .  Jay 💬 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jay , would you agree that the restaurant, the polo and the personal life of the subject are irrelevant for encyclopedic considerations, that they may be included just because they can be but those are not by themselves knowledge worth knowing?  Would you agree that the main issue here is whether or not the subject is notable as a producer?  Would you then agree that we need a little bit of significant coverage to presume notability here, given the career happened far enough back but not too far back and in a country that generates a lot of coverage, in an industry that is, whatever the opposite of obscure is?  Assuming we broadly agree on the above, the biggest problem I see is that most of the article is based on the presumption that the one self-published profile can be taken at face value.  I simply do not think it can, especially in a BLP, especially when its accuracy has been challenged.  The next source (the one from the American Film Institute) does not have enough for us to be able to tell that it's even the same person.  We can assume they are, but it happens often enough that desparate sources we collate on lesser known individuals based only on a name search ends up creating a composite biography for a person that does not exist.  These are not sources we can base a standalone biography on.  That leaves the Los Angeles Times piece that is behind a paywall.  I do not know what it has, but I suspect it does not have much simply because other sources didn't have much and the one piece that had some content was cited seven times compared to just once for that piece.  But if I assume wrong and if it has usable WP:SIGCOV and if there is just one more source that also has SIGCOV, as I said, I would be glad to see one more well-sourced biography on a living person, especially knowing now that the subject was reportedly devastated to learn of its deletion.  The impression that there is exaggeration in the biography, I get, from among others, the fact that our article says he produced Fire! while the IBDB source says it was ""Produced by David Black; Produced in association with Jonathan Burrows"".  To editors who are partial to retention on the grounds that he produced Fletch , I caution that it should be determined what exactly his role was as can be verified from reliable sources.  He is not among the many people that made it into the infobox of our article on that film (in contrast again, to this article's lead's claim that he is best known for producing that film).  Generally, one film may be enough for a director or a lead actor, if the film is iconic enough, I do not think it should be for one of many producers, especially since ""producer"" can mean many things, not all of those imply a creative contribution.  Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll respond to the points about ""misinformation / unverified"".  Which is the self-published profile referred to, is it patch.com?  You suspect that the person referred to in the American Film Institute source is a different person, and the suspicion arose because the article has been challenged.  I agree that additional sources would have helped, but many sources I went through were blogs or interviews that I could not include.  I took the Los Angeles Times ref and associated content from Fletch (film)#Development .  On producing Fire!  , I provided a source other than IBDB that said “Fire on Broadway” , which I assumed was a typo with quotes for “Fire"" on Broadway . I agree in hindsight that ""in association with"" should have equated to ""co-produced"" or something of the sort. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have some experience improving articles that I decided against AFDing with what sources were there and what I could find. I would not expect to be held responsible for every little detail I miss when doing so. Indeed, that is how we are supposed to build this encyclopedia. I would have left the article entirely alone but for my misgivings about the patch.com piece. If only we could take the claims in there at face value, the worries about verification would be minor. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I removed the line referenced from the Los Angeles Times because the article did not mention Burrows at all, much less him shopping the film around in Hollywood. Mr. Gerbear | Talk 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK. I have tagged a citation needed for this at the Fletch article. Jay 💬 04:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also see, Talk:Jonathan Burrows (producer)#Reddit ""Campaign"" . Jay 💬 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think it matters. They are not brigading; they seem largely in disagreement with OP, and most of them don't see anything wrong with the article. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , could not see significant coverage in RS. I do not know if there is coverage in older and offline books or magazines. The article had been soft deleted earlier, and the person who requested undeletion had suggested there are sources, but a lot of what I found was self-published content. Jay 💬 13:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , This seems like an attempt on character assassination by the person’s alleged son. Also, this article was active for quite some time and it was not a subject of debate all the time it stayed relevant. I just checked the talk page and there certainly have been a few very real participants suggesting additions to this article. Moreover, it also says that the person bought rights and produced fletch. The sources provided in the article are also verifiable, just not notable. You could argue to delete this just because it do3s not meet the notability criteria, disregarding the other information, but I think this article has its value of information, that should be preserved. I don’t see the point in deleting this article to be honest. RoundStrider ( talk ) 14:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , The article's subject meets notability criteria on a couple bases, it reads unbiased nowadays, and there is reasonable evidence showing long term effort toward continuous improvement on this article. Deleting the article would not be a constructive removal given the individual's contributions toward many notable works under arts and entertainment and particularly destructive considering the apparent campaign coming from outside sources/people/sites to influence its removal. Pedantical ( talk ) 15:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:PRODUCER . Criteria 1 and 2 do not apply. As for Criteria 3 and 4, Fire! was not a notable theatre production. He also did not produce Fletch; the source merely says a production company bought the rights for it and didn't even end up producing the film. IMDB says his credit on the film is ""Produced by Special Arrangement,"" under ""additional crew""; this is not notable either, particularly if it simply means that his production company allowed another to use the rights. As for the list of theatre productions, ""working as a production executive"" on those isn't notable. Also, everything relies on one source, and while Patch may be reliable, the article is evidently promotional in nature: [1] . The wording is identical to Mr. Burrows' bio on the promotional site for Can-Can . As for the restaurant and polo stuff, mere mentions of him in articles that aren't about him at all don't make him notable. Mr. Gerbear | Talk 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At the bottom of the Patch page, it says the information was supplied by the press and PR department of the playhouse. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just wanted to clear up a few things about the way I feel about this article. My father is a well intentioned elderly gentleman who has been retired for about twenty five years, and who is unfamiliar with how wikipedia works. He wrote his own page and I stupidly felt a bit of second hand embarrassment from the way in which it was written. Ironically, I have opened a can of worms on myself and more and more people are checking out his page. I am sure this would make my father very happy, and he is having a rather rough time now, so this has made me happy and changed my perspective on the whole matter. I believe his work attempting to get Fletch produced is notable enough. Basically all I wanted cleared up with some irrelevant details about his personal life out of an overabundant and rather neurotic desire for privacy. I would like to offer my apologies, as well as my thanks, to the diligent people of wikipedia for their work on this trivial matter, as well as for all you guys do. Basically, I just wanted to protect my poor old Pops from putting too much about himself on the internet. Zanelburrows ( talk ) 20:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Everson, Emily (2014-09-21). ""Papermill to Open the Season With Rousing Production of ""Can-Can"" "" . Millburn-Short Hills, NJ Patch . Retrieved October 26, 2018 . Delete . This person was a producer on only one film (or was he?), and an ""associate producer"" on another, which was a flop. He produced only one Broadway show (which ran for only 6 regular performances), two off-Broadway shows, one tour of an off-Broadway show (although none of the off-Broadway credits is verified) and later one regional theatre production.  All of his other ""producing"" was as a ""production executive"".   He was not a significant creator (only ever writing one short film).  There is only one source cited for his producing, and it is from Patch.com.   His ownership of the barbecue restaurant would also be, IMO, WP:MILL .  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He is only mentioned in 2 paragraphs in the production section for the film Fletch , where it is mentioned that it was co-produced by his brother, Peter Douglas .  Abdullah raji ( talk ) 10:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Peter Douglas is the half-brother of Michael Douglas .  Jay 💬 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There's plenty of coverage of his restaurants [20] and [21] in Gbooks, seems to be a choreographer with the same name that is discussed at length, but I'm unsure if it's even the same person [22] or this [23] ; if it is the choreographer, we're likely at GNG, if not, I'm not sure...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The choreographer has his own bio here in Wiki, so it's not this person.  I just don't see enough in RS that talk about this producer person.  The restaurant bits are trivial, rest seems to be a person that worked for a long time in their field but never gained much notability (as far as wiki is concerned anyway).  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He's rather interesting but I don't see the sourcing to back up notability by Wikipedia standards.  I did see the quote about shopping around Fletch to movie studios in a one line mention in a Quillette article, but it's a trivial mention, and of course as an opinion site that's not a reliable source anyway.  Happy to revisit if someone finds better sourcing, but absent that I'm at Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER.  Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Richard Meyer (producer): No evidence of notability.  Previously deleted and salted as Swayd .  Also including Lunar Sound , the studio he operated, which is similarly unreferenced.  * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable producer, a web search brings up no coverage whatsoever and the article reads like a résumé.  InDimensional ( talk ) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:BLP and WP:RS .  There are zero sources in the article, a violation of BLP.  We usually delete articles about producers, who are run of the mill .  Bearian ( talk ) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article has been updated and refined with multiple sources added.  Richard Meyer is a notable producer in Switzerland, and it is important for non French-speaking people in Europe to be able to read about him as his company, Lunar Sound, is an active recording studio.  LissyBaldwin ( talk ) 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Last.fm, Discogs, Apple Music and Dailymotion are not the best sources.  InDimensional ( talk ) 22:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about physical newspaper articles?  Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources.  LissyBaldwin ( talk ) 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To evaluate the additions .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of content was added but no new in-depth coverage I can see other than this from China Daily , but I don't think using a Chinese source of questionable reliability/indendence to establish notability of a Swiss producer is wise.  * Pppery * it has begun... 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about physical newspaper articles?  Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources.  LissyBaldwin ( talk ) 12:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Toadette Edit!  12:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LissyBaldwin : it would be helpful if you could detail those newspaper sources here as someone might have access to them and could evaluate them, regards Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure thing!  There's an article from Le Matin dated October 7, 2006 and another from that same newspaper dated October 14, 2007.  I know that there were others but couldn't tell you the dates.  All Swiss publications, all in French.  LissyBaldwin ( talk ) 10:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Strike Germany: This topic, a small number of people calling for a cultural boycott of Germany due to government support for Israel, lacks sustained , in-depth coverage.  Many of the sources on the article are about other incidents, such as events cancelled in Germany due to anti-Israel views of the artist, or a violent protest that occured in Berlin.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 06:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this article should be merged with another article related to Palestinian politics.  There are sources, yeah, but is it enough for a standalone article?  I don't think so. -- Eastern Anatolia ( talk ) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect I had tagged the article for notability for similar concerns.  Merge targets, Israeli–Palestinian conflict ?  IgelRM ( talk ) 14:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  Strong case of WP:NOTNEWS .  TH1980 ( talk ) 01:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: See if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Arnold Shara: (proposed by JTtheOG)  Avishai11 ( talk ) 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Cricket ,  and Olympics .  Avishai11 ( talk ) 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avishai11 Can you explain me why you removed the PROD and immediately nominated it for deletion via AFD?  Uncontested PROD would anyway get deleted in 7 days' time.  Robo Cric Let's chat 16:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh my gosh!  I am so sorry, as this was an accident.  I clicked the wrong button.  Is there any way to undo this?  Avishai11 ( talk ) 16:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG , no suitable redirect per WP:ATD as there are no lists for Zimbabwean cricketers.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Warwickshire Primary Care Trust: Shellwood ( talk ) 17:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources for this article.  Tintinthereporter226 ( talk ) 18:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Richard Beck (music manager): Reads like a resume.  No secondary sources.  Risedemise ( talk ) 18:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Pomotional.   Creator User:Cate andersona Possible sock.  — Maile ( talk ) 19:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Yep.  It's just a resume without any secondary sources.  Can't find any either after a quick Google search.  TheWikiToby ( talk ) 18:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Music , Management ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete promo.  Additionally most BLPs on Category:Articles with a promotional tone from May 2024 are like this and should be deleted too Justanotherguy54 ( talk ) 11:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Balijhor: MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets our WP:GNG with foreign language sources like this .  Lightburst ( talk ) 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello Lightburst .  That seems to be a WP:ROUTINE preview article for an upcoming series, and multiple sources are needed to establish notability.  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not foreign language source.  The film is in Bengali language and the source is also from bengali language.  ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk !  06:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG and WP:RPRGM .  Source eval: Comments Source Launch promo  1. ""New television show Balijhor to launch next month"".  The Times of India.  Routine entertainment news  2. ^ ""Balijhor; Trina Saha, Koushik Roy and Indrasish Roy in the passionate tale of love withstanding the power of politics"".  Aaj Tak Bangla (in Bengali).  Routine entertainment news  3. ^ ""Trina-Kaushik starrer Balijhor to replace Nabab Nandini will become Mithai's new opponent from 6th February"" (in Bengali).  Routine entertainment promo  4. ^ ""TRP: বালিঝড়কে হারিয়ে দিল মিঠাই! অনুরাগের ছোঁয়াকে কি টলাতে পারল জগদ্ধাত্রী?"" (in Bengali).  BEFORE showed nothing taht meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 09:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with the source table review above, nothing notable, a preview for the series doesn't help for notability either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jacques Alberts: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV .  I'm thinking he goes by a nickname because I found an astonishingly low amount of hits.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails WP:SIGCOV .  Contributor892z ( talk ) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Most Daring episodes: OWaunTon ( talk ) 02:29, 27 November 2023 (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/2023 November 27 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 02:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Bulk of article fails NLIST, the rest is unsourced OR.  Sources in the article, IMDB, tvschedule.zap2it.com, ""Shows A-Z - most daring on trutv"", show this is just a database listing, nothing showing this has been discussed as a group directly and indepth by WP:IS WP:RS to meet NLIST.  Here is the AfD for the main article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Daring , hard to argue this list is notable when the main has been deleted.  // Timothy :: talk 06:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly right!  OWaunTon ( talk ) 11:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Renata Wielgosz: This person lacks significant coverage.  She does not even get 1 gnews hit, which is unusual for an ambassador from a major country.  None of the keep ! votes last time provided any examples of sources.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Cyprus , Greece ,  and Canada .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The situation has not changed since the last AfD, and the subject still meets WP:NPOL after serving as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States and director of Global Affairs Canada .  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 01:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable subject, page is well sourced and written from a neutral point of view. While it might never be more than a stub, it deserves its place on Wikipedia. Broc ( talk ) 07:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 2 of the sources are primary, the first source is a 1 line mention and the remaining source is a dead link. How exactly does she meet WP:BIO ? LibStar ( talk ) 08:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LibStar I might revise my !vote, I started looking for sources and there is little WP:SIGCOV of the subject in secondary sources. I could only find a talk she gave at her alma mater and a farewell from the Canadian Institute in Greece . A bit weak for WP:BIO . Broc ( talk ) 09:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the other hand, as mentioned above, WP:NPOL is probably met. Broc ( talk ) 09:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : worth pointing out that no reason to overturn the last AfD was given by the nominator. What did the previous AfD get so wrong that we have to be back here 10 months later? Also worth noting that the same editor has nominated this both times. -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No rule against the same person renominating.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Though it seems poor form so quickly after the previous SNOW keep, and seems disruptive; do you have a point to this? .  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the keep ! votes last time provided any examples of sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly fails WP:GNG , which not a single vote in either AfD has addressed.  The ""well sourced"" comment is wrong - she's mentioned in one sentence of the Globe and Mail article, one is from the Cyprus government showing she's the ambassador, one link is broken, the two remaining links in the articles are links to a directory database of Canadian governmental workers.  I cannot find any sigcov in my search, and ambassadors do not get an NPOL free pass.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per WP:NPOL , [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable, and this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador.  She has also served as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States , meaning that she has held international office in addition to being an ambassador.  Her OAS experience actually predates her appointment to the role of ambassador of Venezuela, and her meeting WP:NPOL is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO .  Nothing has changed since last time, where there was consensus to keep this article.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "" this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador.""  Ambassadors are not inherently notable.  Over 100 have been deleted by consensus.  LibStar ( talk ) 05:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And as for the role in the OAS, where she held international office ?  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was specifically talking about her role as ambassador, ambassadors do not a get a free pass under WP:NPOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Red-tailed hawk I don't understand your line of thinking here.  That's not ""holding international office"".  We don't say that every diplomat, ambassador, or UN employee is inherently notable.  The OAS role doesn't qualify for NPOL either, as far as I can tell.  I presume the secretary-general of the OAS would, but I'd also presume they'd already be notable by WP:GNG .  -- asilvering ( talk ) 06:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Watch out for the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 06:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I have experience creating an article about a diplomat ( Wendy Hinton ), and searches in all the places I looked for sources there come up negative.  Entirely unconvinved wp:NPOL is met, and there's no reason to think sources offline exist.  Mach61 ( talk ) 03:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL , and strong procedural keep as it was renominated by the same person, after a previous snow close.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 22:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're allowed to re-nominate, and NPOL does not apply here.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But it does.  She served as second vice-chair of the OAS and director of Global Affairs Canada .  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 02:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, how does it apply in that case?  Second, how does it apply if GNG still isn't met?  NPOL provides a presumption , not a guarantee.  SportingFlyer T · C 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But then what's the point of NPOL if it just serves as a maybe, maybe not?  It wouldn't add anything to a notability discussion beyond just what's at GNG.  It looks like it was added as an introductory sentence in 2018 but nothing on the 2018 talk page (unless I missed it) supported that addition (or at least that change in policy) just a conversation about changing #3 Shaws username .  talk .  19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It serves as a guideline - if you've won an elected official position, there's almost certainly been GNG-passing coverage of you at some point.  I do not believe serving on the OAS is a NPOL pass, and even if it were, NPOL still ultimately requires GNG coverage in order to have an article written about you, especially if you're a BLP.  SportingFlyer T · C 19:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NoonIcarus What does Global Affairs Canada have to do with WP:NPOL ?  People who work for Global Affairs are civil servants, not politicians.  Unless they're cabinet ministers, which she isn't.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's allowed in the sense that you aren't going to get blocked for it, it's still frankly bad form.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 15:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, you aren't going to get blocked for it the first time ... :) Nfitz ( talk ) 00:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I took a pass at improving the sourcing in the article.  It appears that she was not the director of GAC, but rather a director of a division within GAC.  I don't think that's a position that gives automatic NPOL notability (the same goes for the ambassadorships), so we need to consider WP:GNG instead.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On further consideration, delete .  I strongly disagree with the NPOL-based keep opinions above (the clear consensus of past AFDs is that ambassador does not automatically pass NPOL although ambassadors may be GNG-notable, and none of her other positions are even at that level of visibility).  And my searches have convinced me that there just isn't enough coverage of her in independent sources for GNG.  The York University source that I added is the best so far, but as she is an alum it isn't independent enough to count.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There's almost nothing available in independent secondary RS, and certainly nothing SIGCOV.  She does not meet NPOL, which merely presumes notability anyway, so she has to meet GNG.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Ambassadors have never been considered to be inherently notable, and this person fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO .  Yilloslime ( talk ) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ariunbold Batsaikhan: Also tried using his native name.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Mongolia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Have found [12] , [13] , which is little bit, and there are number of sources like this, his name mentioned in match reports.  Also is this footballer also a chef?  There are a couple of interesting results, not sure how much can contribute to GNG.  Remains to be seen.  Govvy ( talk ) 08:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Govvy : Well these two sources are simply passing mentions, and do not contribute significantly to GNG.  I did see the Utah-based chef in stories like this and this .  While it seems interesting, I doubt it's the same person, and even if it was him, I still think it would not satisfy GNG.  However, that is why we're at AfD.  Cheers.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JTtheOG That says goalkeeper...  Ariunbold Batsaikhan, so it should be him.  Ivan Milenin ( talk ) 13:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JTtheOG Comment I think you might be confused with these sources for that matter from the chef and the goalkeeper.  That's how it happened.  Ivan Milenin ( talk ) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sonia Shehzad Khan: BoraVoro ( talk ) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism ,  and Pakistan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:BASIC .  Insight 3 ( talk ) 14:42, 20 May 2023 (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 23:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  77 followers on Twitter and not much else, so clearly non notable.  Mccapra ( talk ) 06:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria: Apart from much detail regarding his family (his father and mother's articles, by the same author (tagged as closely connected to the subject in Indonesian) also fail WP:GNG - although the father's AfD closed as 'No consensus' a couple of months back.  Sourcing is primary or unverifiable (the first source is about the subject's father, the second a contribution to a poetry anthology and it doesn't get any better), there's no evidence of notability as an academic and the books are little more than pamphlets as far as I can ascertain.  The 'award' is not a bluelink.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors ,  and Indonesia .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The award he won seems to translate to ""National Book Award"" in the category for ""Best Islamic Book"".  Was unable to find reviews of that book, likely to be in Indonesian.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this person is a Bruneian not Indonesian.  I read this article and many words including phrase, etc. referred to Brunei.  Ariandi Lie Ariandi Lie 04:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG .  Seems to lack reliable sources which is especially critical for BLP.  Wozal ( talk ) 00:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Survived and Punished: On Google News, when I search ""survived and punished"" ""prison"" I get 14 results .  These sources are good, but only pass mentions of the organisation rather than being articles specifically about the organisation.
 This article also isn't sourced well.  I count 7/10 sources that are about women in prison rather than the organisation.  — Panamitsu (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Crime ,  and Discrimination .  — Panamitsu (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , California , Illinois ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"National Association of Asian American Professionals: No significant coverage from secondary sources found in a WP:BEFORE search, just passing mentions of someone winning a NAAAP award [39] , [40] .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Naxatra News Hindi: ☆★ Sanjeev Kumar ( talk ) 11:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , Bihar ,  and Jharkhand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not have any significant coverages and non-notable news portal.  Citadeol (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A pure, unadulterated promotional effort , haphazardly put together after being allowed to appear ten years ago.  But Wikipedia has thankfully moved on from that time.  It's explicitly not a collection of random information.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 16:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I want to allow this, because it seems to be a real station with 85k subscribers on Youtube and thousands of clips posted, but in my searching I could only find one third-party source [23] and it's an article from 2008 that might just be a press release.  Night Gyr ( talk / Oy ) 18:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jorekhali Senior Fazil Digree Madrasah: Theroadislong ( talk ) 12:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh .  Theroadislong ( talk ) 12:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No coverage found in Google or Gnews, what's used now as sourcing is government documents (test results).  appears PROMO as well Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 02:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"SongLyrics: PROD contested by an IP.  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 00:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites .  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 00:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article is one of a series, mostly of nursery rhymes, written by the same editor, using multiple accounts (now abandoned) as well as editing logged out.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : unsourced, author does not know the year it was created.  I couldn't find any WP:RS in my search, and prose of article seems like an WP:ADVERT.  —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts!  23:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No SIGCOV or RS.  This isn't the type of website to get any in the first place.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 03:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Waycross, Indiana: Waycross was opened by the diocese in 1957 , and it pops up in a previously blank spot on the topos shortly thereafter.  I'm marking this for deletion rather than some other outcome for three reasons: first, all I'm getting for it besides its website is directory listings, so notability is an issue anyway; second, there's nothing much in the article that would be useful in making an article anyway; and third, there should be no redirect from this name because it would allow the misconception that this is a settlement to persist.  The article on the diocese doesn't mention the facility, but it should be called by its proper names (it's often just called Waycross) in linking to a section there.  Mangoe ( talk ) 03:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity , Geography ,  and Indiana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Leaning delete, though there actually is some coverage of the Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center: in the Brown County Democrat in 1999 and again in ""Making a difference through cookies"" in 2017.  The cookies article explicitly refers to Waycross as the name of the children's camp and conference center, not as the location (""Brown County"").  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 10:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per the above, and per what I can see from county maps and histories, the site doesn't appear to be anything more than a camp and conference center.  ╠╣uw [ talk ] 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article is factually incorrect as this is a camp, not a community, so WP:GNG applies.   I'm not sure it's met from the sources above.   I suggest delete ""without prejudice"" so that an article about the camp (not any supposed ""community"") could be re-created if more sources are found.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If someone wants to establish notability for the local church camp (questionable) that can be done separately; repurposing a false article about a supposed community is not necessary.  Reywas92 Talk 14:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If enough other sources are found, one could make a separate article for Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center , but it seems misleading to keep an article called ""Waycross, Indiana"" and presenting it as a ""community"".  Incidentally, a search for ""Waycross"" in Indiana newspapers over time mostly returns articles about Waycross, Georgia .  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with everyone, and add that if Cielquiparle and ╠╣uw won't even vote to keep it, it's time for it to go.  James.folsom ( talk ) 03:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"End of Everything: Previously deprodded in 2007 with reasons that amount to inherited notability * Pppery * it has begun... 14:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Walking Dead references pop up, nothing for this musical number.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 14:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  Three (End of Everything album) should also be deleted.  BoxxyBoy ( talk ) 05:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Enchanting Apple: Unable to find sources.  Fails WP:NBOOK .  Charcoal feather ( talk ) 14:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions .  Charcoal feather ( talk ) 14:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:V , no interwiki.  Not a hoax, but nothing in the article suggests WP:NBOOK is met.  Failed attempt to create an article.  Original PROD removed by the creator, sigh.  Almost all of their articles have been deleted ( [13] ), I see one is prodded, I'll prod the last one.  Someone clearly has hard time understanding WP:GNG .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Sexuality and gender ,  and Japan .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Cookbooks and a Victorian Halloween traditions are what come up, nothing for this manga/book.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2023 Uzbek Women's Football Championship: This is basically a ""stats only"" article with no sources covering the topic of the article in depth.  So, no indication of wp:notability under GNG or the SNG.  Regarding the subject of the article, the prose contains merely a statement of it's existence and what it is and the n remainder is stats-only covering who won it.  In trying to do my NPP job properly, I can find no evidence of wP:Notability under GNG or the SNG.  Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 00:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Uzbekistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable enough.  killer bee 09:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – Supposedly it is the most important women's football competition in the country.  Women's football is certainly less notable, but I don't think it's a case of exclusion.  Svartner ( talk ) 04:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being the top event of the country doesn't mean it passes WP:GNG , which is needed for this article to be kept.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rho Capital Partners: No references hace significant coverage so fails the general and corporation specific policies.  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Finance , Organizations , Business , United States of America ,  and New York .  UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only found the usual routine company listings and statistics; other sources seem to be press releases.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Most sources are just based on investment participation for other companies.  Still, no significant coverage.  Toadette ( let's chat together ) 12:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No SIGCOV about the fund, beyond routine business transactions or non-independent sources.  22:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) 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.",delete
"TalentEgg: Article unchanged since then but does not meet WP:NORG .  Orange sticker ( talk ) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Internet ,  and Canada .  Orange sticker ( talk ) 10:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  Most of the sourcing focuses on interviewing the founder and contains no ""Independent Content"" beyond what has been provided by the company and/or execs.  HighKing ++ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"CyberEmotions: Article was created in 2011 and then BLARred in 2014.  A failed attempt at restoring the article was made a few days ago by Belbury which was then reverted by Randykitty , and there's apparently no agreement in sight.  Pinging other editors who participated in the linked RfD: Thryduulf , Lunamann , Voorts .  CycloneYoris talk!  09:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet ,  and Websites .  CycloneYoris talk!  09:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No serious disagreement here, my ""attempt at restoring the article"" was just to undo the redirect and restore the previous version of the article, after having followed a CyberEmotions wikilink that took me to a page that didn't explain the term.  No view from me either way on whether the article should exist.  Belbury ( talk ) 09:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The previous AfD had two keep ! votes, but neither specified any policy reason for keeping the article.  There was no source discussion and the only nod to notability was that it had ""big players"" in the project.  But it was, nevertheless, just a research project that seems to have no lasting notability.  Research outputs would be primary sources, but, in fact, could be useful in articles that talk about notable subjects for which these are relevant.  For instance Sentiment in Twitter events would be interesting in something on the Oscars, or Twitter, or an article about group dynamics.  Those notable subjects are not the project itself.  Redirect would be fine if there were agreement on a redirect target, but failing that, this should be deleted.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Run of the mill research project.  40 participants sounds impressive, as does the list of the organisations where they work, but a standard NIH grant to a single investigator usually runs up to a million $$ for 4 years.  The EU grant contrasts rather paltry with that: 3.6 million Euros (augmented with existing funding 4.6 million) for 4 years for those 40 investigators.  Usually these consortia are ephemeral and CyberEmotions is no exception.  It was closed in January 2013 and has disappeared without much trace since.  Of course, notability is not temporary, but almost all of the references present in the article date back to when the project wa active and none are the in-depth independent sources required for GNG.  Some don't even mention this project at all (e.g. ref 4), which is all too common in this kind of drummed up promotional ""articles"".  Note that one of the conditions to obtain EU funding id to publicize the project and its funding sources as much as possible, and WP is then an obvious target.  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 15:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mount Diablo Silverado Council: No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources.  Secondary sources provided are either unreliable or passing mentions.  spryde | talk 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge to Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America in California#Mount Diablo Silverado Council .  There's a lot of content there.  The article simply needs a good editor.  -- evrik ( talk ) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  While No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability is only an essay, it saves me from having to type out my argument.  Even if a target can't be decided now, a re-direct can be quickly created at any time by any editor.  Graywalls ( talk ) 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, basically.  Just no notability.  This is not unlike what we see in articles on university departments--they are rarely notable in their own right, and that their existence relies on being part of a notable organization doesn't make them notable. I doubt that really any councils are notable--looking at the category and clicking randomly on one, San Diego-Imperial Council , that one is not notable.  Drmies ( talk ) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Scouting ,  and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no notability.  It's weird how some sections of the project just accumulate cruft.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Topic is not notable, as councils, even with so many references (many of which are primary), are not notable to begin with.  Also, there isn't much coverage on the topic.  Haruka Amaranth 09:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable.  Axad12 ( talk ) 18:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Martin, Kansas: Mangoe ( talk ) 05:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I can't find any evidence this was ever more than a rural post office .  Jbt89 ( talk ) 07:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC) </strikethrough> [ reply ] See Ellis County, Kansas#Communities .   Blackmar does not have this at all.   But I have a second more contemporary source, in addition to the KHS one here, for this being a post office.   However: Martin ; a hamlet in Saline Township, in Ellis County.  — Gannett 1898 , p. 146 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGannett1898 ( help ) Uncle G ( talk ) 12:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Hmm, maybe the play is to Merge into Buckeye Township, Ellis County, Kansas .  The site is currently in Buckeye Township, which ended up with it after absorbing Riverview Township, which was formed by dividing up Saline Township.  [24] https://www.kshs.org/geog/geog_townships/search/county:EL Jbt89 ( talk ) 20:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't have a problem with redirecting to the township when it has the same name, but I don't see the point here.  Mangoe ( talk ) 13:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] references Gannett, Henry (1898).  A Gazetteer of Kansas .  Bulletin.  Vol.  154.  United States Geological Survey .  OL 20596112M .  Merge it or delete It's a post office, the local paper for this county goes back to around 1840 at least.  There are no mentions of a settlement called Martin.  There is a post office called martin along the Saline river.  People used it as a stopover between destinations.  Purportedly, postmaster Delay's wife was a good cook, and would serve a good meal to those laying over there.  There isn't really any one article that tells the story though.  You just kind of have read them all.  Every mention of this place is of the post office, The most illustrative example being this one.  https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-county-news-republican-drowned/139266707/ .  Sorry to bum you guys out.  James.folsom ( talk ) 22:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries.   At this point we have the Kansas Historical Society now, the contemporary Kansas State Board of Agriculture back in the 19th century, and your newspaper clippings, calling this a post office; and only Gannett in 1898 saying that it is a ""hamlet"", which isn't that great a claim in any event.   And on the gripping hand, nothing much to say about it in either form.   Especially if we subtract the generic all-Kansas-articles infobox and further reading, and unverifiable ghost town with zero population claim.  Uncle G ( talk ) 07:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I've copied over a couple sentences about the post office at Martin to the Buckeye Township article.  People who are really interested in the history of this part of rural Kansas can find it there.  No reason for this obscure rural post office to have its own article.  Jbt89 ( talk ) 06:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Player positions (paintball): Couldn't find any official termonology for it in any google search Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  I found a few articles about it online, but nothing that indicated that this is used in competitive or even casual games.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 10:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete another example of non-notable paintball fandom.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jesús Silva: All I can find are trivial mentions in TUDN and SN Digital .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Playing for a reserve team at the age of 31 and no WP:SIGCOV falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSBASIC , as nom suggests.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 05:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Article is an unsourced stub.  The term ""Jesús Silva"" on search engines find other men of the same name instead of this Mexican soccer player, failing WP:V too.  Moreover, I even tried searching his full name and ended up finding nothing.  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – per no evidence of notability and fails GNG.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 13:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Konstantios & Evripidis Trachoniou: However, it's an unsourced one-line stub about a football club that played in third- and fourth-tier leagues in Cyprus.  According to WP:FOOTYN football clubs can be presumed notable if they play in a league eligible for the country's national cup or top-tier tournament, which for Cyprus is the first and second divisions, so this club has never been eligible.  I also could not find any sources in English or Greek to support general notability .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 13:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Cyprus .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 13:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Google was kind enough to offer the search in Greek, and still nothing turns up.  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I was the person who nominated it for speedy deletion, the article doesn't pass any notability guidelines or has any sources Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 22:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I found some mentions of the club but nothing to indicate WP:GNG .  There is Sigma Live 1 and Sigma Live 2 but neither address the club in detail.  The club may or may not meet WP:FOOTYN but, in any case, GNG is of far greater importance so I would prefer to delete on that basis.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jeff Anderson (singer): No sources found except for database entries.  The individual albums do not appear to be notable, either.  Fails WP:GNG .  Earlier AfD discussion in 2013 did not really bring forward any arguments for notability.  Broc ( talk ) 10:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Christianity ,  and Georgia (U.S. state) .  Broc ( talk ) 10:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Looking for reliable sources came up flat.  I could hardly even find any promotional material, even when searching for his name and albums.  He is clearly a non-notable artist.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 10:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Appears to be a religious preacher with the same name, unsure if it's this person.  Regardless, no sourcing found for a singer.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean Delete I found one source that had just a tad more information on him, but I'm not convinced that it's of high enough quality for Wikipedia.  Otherwise, I think that this article should be deleted.  ❤History Theorist❤ 04:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Northern Radio of Michigan: Let'srun ( talk ) 19:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Radio , Companies ,  and Michigan .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete One-market radio broadcaster does not meet WP:CORP.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Defunct small-market broadcaster; all of its properties went to separate parties so there's nowhere to logically redirect to.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft Keep I believe this article ( Northern Radio of Michigan Spins Three FMs to Separate Owners ) qualifies as a significant reliable secondary source.   If not, I may change my mind.   If you disagree, please explain why.  -- Eastview2018 ( talk ) 15:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Though citing them is fine for honors, I generally don't really find state broadcasting associations to be a proper source for station sales and format changes as they're an advocate for the stations they represent and don't have a neutral interest; just my view though, someone may disagree with me.  Nate • ( chatter ) 16:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 19:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per most everyone else.  I can't exactly say it's impossible that a one-market radio station group can meet WP:CORP , but I don't think there's anything that indicates that's the case here.  (It would be hard to argue that the Michigan Association of Broadcasters is an independent source for any broadcast entity in the state, so their article probably counts zero toward establishing notability.)  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Acorn, Santa Barbara County, California: The article's only citation is to the USGS GNIS verifying that there was once a site with this name.   The only other verification I could find was old topographic maps (most recent from 1947) showing the site with that name, absolutely nothing else since then.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 04:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 04:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : At these coordinates, Google Earth and Google Street View show just a compound at 901 Floradale Avenue belonging to Launchpad Land, apparently an agribusiness.  Lots of agricultural equipment and some living facilities for migrant field workers (that's from the sign at the gate).  There are several more buildings scattered along a mile of Floradale Avenue.  Other than that, it's just 100s of acres/hectares of crops.  It's about a mile west of Lompoc, California .  My ref check came up empty.  If there's something of historical interest that would make this place notable, ping me.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I found one newspaper reference to Acorn being a place, and that articles makes it sound like the site of an agricultural plant, not a community.  Likely yet another of the mistaken GNIS ""populated place"" entries.  TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 03:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This appears to be a named place but not a notable community.  ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 23:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Perry Stone (radio personality): BD2412 T 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  BD2412 T 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : All media coverage was about the incident, not the person, and was fleeting.   No media mentions since 1989, apart from a one-sentence name-drop in SFGate .   Non-notable individual remembered for getting fired 34 years ago...who cares.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:BLP1E .  Fails WP:BIO per nom.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 07:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Citizen Matters: User4edits ( talk ) 07:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"El Cielo (band): I couldn't find relevant sources in Spanish or English.  This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved.  There doesn't seem to be a suitable WP:ATD .  Boleyn ( talk ) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Argentina .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Conserveira do Sul: Boleyn ( talk ) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Portugal .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   A few web searches did not turn up anything likely to lead to reliable sources, so I do not think this meets our general notability guidelines .  Malinaccier ( talk ) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Matthew Kirk: I don't believe the single source coverage here passes WP:GNG .  Uhooep ( talk ) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Bilateral relations , Finland ,  and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Few WP:ATD 's in this case.  For this subject, a clear ATD would be a redirect to his father Peter Kirk (English politician) .  Alternatively, this article can be deleted and Matthew Kirk (artist) can be moved to this title.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable and this one clearly fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 07:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I looked for Finnish language sourcing, and while there's a bunch of quotes (think ""UK Ambassador Kirk said so-and-so about such-and-such"" in a longer story about some event), the only even vaguely useful bits for this AfD I found are the following, from best to worst: [39] 350 word bio/interview about Kirk quitting as an ambassador and starting at Vodafone.  Despite its length, it's complete fluff with pretty much no encyclopedic value beyond the first two sentences, which give age, length of service as ambassador, and say that he is indeed starting at Vodafone.  [40] Finnish News Agency press release about Kirk's successor.  Consists of four sentences, of which one is about Kirk.  [41] The whole story is a single sentence: Matthew Kirk has invited for a visit demonstrators opposing the Iraq War, and has organized events to familiarize people with the embassy.  That's it.  That's the article.  There's also a Kauppalehti story at [42] , which I can't access it thru the paywall, but based on the 1 minute reading time, it's nothing extensive.  Probably just regurgitates some press release, as so much of Kauppalehti coverage does.  In totality, delete absent further sourcing.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Atterbury Theatre: However, not enough to meet WP:N from what I could find.  Boleyn ( talk ) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"ICE-CREAM (Podcast): Non-notable podcast without reliable sources and significant coverage.  Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 00:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Most of the sourcing is from youtube and I can't find anything about this.  Plenty of hits on ice cream the food, nothing about the podcast.  Weak PROMO perhaps.  ""Sodas and telepaths"" is flagged a suspect by the source bot as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Internet .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I cannot find in-depth coverage of this podcast.  Pichpich ( talk ) 17:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , no significant coverage, and all the sources in the article are primary.  Artem.G ( talk ) 11:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ace-Liam: He isn't notable outside of this event and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article at this time.  Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ?  20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , list of Artists-related deletion discussions ,  and Ghana .  Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ?  20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Only known for the one event, does not meet WP:ARTIST .  Previously deleted three weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ace-Liam_Nana_Sam_Ankrah .  No significant change since then.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 21:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Versace1608 How can you say his not notable and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article  ?  Notability is a criterion used to determine whether a subject warrants its own article or entry in reference works like Wikipedia.  Generally, notability is defined by the subject's significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.  It assesses whether the subject has received enough attention and acknowledgment from reputable sources to be considered of interest or importance to a broader audience.  ok i just did Significant Coverage : The subject must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself.  This means in-depth articles, features, or stories that go beyond trivial mentions.  Independent and Reliable Sources : The sources providing coverage should be reputable and independent of the subject.  This includes news organizations, academic publications, or other third-party sources that adhere to journalistic or scholarly standards.  Sustained Interest : Notability often includes sustained interest over time, not just fleeting or sensational coverage.  This shows that the subject has ongoing relevance or impact.  Media Coverage :  If a child, even as young as one year old, has been featured by several media powerhouses and notable platforms, it indicates significant coverage.  This media attention shows that there is a broad interest and that the subject has made a notable impact, even if for a single event.  Notable Platforms :  The involvement of prominent media outlets suggests that the coverage is not trivial.  If respected news sources are discussing the child, it indicates that the subject meets the criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.  Age and Achievement :  Expecting a one-year-old to achieve typical milestones such as scoring free kicks is unrealistic and irrelevant to notability criteria.  What matters is the level of attention and the significance of the event or context in which the child is known.  If the coverage highlights something extraordinary or widely recognized, it justifies notability regardless of age.  Precedents :  There are precedents where individuals known for a single significant event have stand-alone articles.  These cases show that notability can be achieved through a noteworthy impact, even if it is centered around one event.  The key is the coverage's depth and the subject's impact, not the breadth of their accomplishments.  the child's notability is supported by the criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.  The media attention from notable platforms demonstrates that the subject has captured public interest and has made a noteworthy impact.  The argument against the child's notability due to being known for a single event does not hold when considering the quality and significance of the coverage.  Therefore, the child deserves a stand-alone article based on the established criteria for notability.  There have been several media power house notable platforms talking about the same kid or what do you expect from a one-year-old??? to score freekicks?  lol sorry if i sounded rude am just trying so hard to see how he fails meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST when they clearly stated that he has sold 26 piece of art and even got commisioned by the countries First lady common man Also there have been other media coverage about him [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Afrowriter ( talk ) 16:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:BLP1E applies.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per Tecyarg dxneo ( talk ) 11:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per Tecyarg, it seems like there is nothing notable outside of his single event Wiiformii ( talk ) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Still non notable.  Deleted 21 May 2024 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace-Liam Nana Sam Ankrah .  No significant accomplishments since then.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 20:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mahesh Kumar Garg: Thilsebatti ( talk ) 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India .  Thilsebatti ( talk ) 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article was created by someone with a similar name, and it fails WP:NAUTHOR .  The sources provided in the article aren't enough to meet notability.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 03:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The Economic Times references falls within WP:NEWSORGINDIA (no author bio so no indication of editorial oversight).  The other only mentions him along with a program he is involved with.  An online search found nothing better.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
 I am preferring this appeal to enable me to keep the Wikipedia page for Mahesh Kumar Garg who is an accomplished poet and writer.  I am aware that there is a policy against creating autobiographies on Wikipedia.  The page for Mahesh Kumar Garg has been created after extensive research on poet's life, and I have included citations to the sources which are all authentic and comply with Wikipedia's standards and policy.  I have also been respectful of other editors and have not engaged in any disruptive behavior.  It is requested to revoke the block so that I can continue working on the Wikipedia page, which will be of help to the community and millions of readers and scholars of Hindi Literature.  Note: Please do not delete my page.  It is a valuable resource for others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaheshGargBedhadak ( talk • contribs ) 11:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, MaheshGargBedhadak , AFD discussions are determined by consensus of editors so your plea to keep this article is one opinion.  The other editors have based their opinions on Wikipedia policies which carries more weight for the admin who will evaluate and close this discussion at the end of a week.  But if you want to continue to work on this article, you should request that it be ""Draftified"", either to Draft or User space.  As of the discussion right now, this is a more plausible outcome than a ""Keep"".  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Arthur Gill (priest): Chumpih t 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Or, failing that, redirect to Archdeacon of Cloyne .  As with other similar articles by the creator contributor, there is nothing to indicate that the subject has any notability independent of the role/job that they held.  The sources in the article (including this directory style entry alongside HUNDREDS (thousands?) of other clerical people) do not constitute material biographical coverage.  Nor can I find any.  The sources barely support (as the creator, frankly, should have done) a sentence or two about the subject WP:WITHIN the article on the role that they held.  Other than for the ""completionist"" reasons that seems to have driven most of the creator's submissions, there is nothing to support or justify a short sub-stub/stand-alone biographical entry.  Guliolopez ( talk ) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  No reliable sources to validate notability of this individual.  Unlike bishops, archdeacons are not inherently notable by virtue of their office.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV .  Twe directory listings is not significant coverage.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tines: Refs are routine coverage, PR, monies raised.  Fails WP:ORGIND , WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS .  scope_creep Talk 22:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Software ,  and Ireland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is a promotional piece.  WP:NOTPROMO — siro χ o 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would appreciate any feedback on how to make it less promotional while highlighting the aspects that make this company notable.  Salsakesh ( talk ) 18:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No demonstration of notability as this fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've gone back and added further references, could you take a look?  Salsakesh ( talk ) 18:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Quantity of references was not the issue.  Quality of the references is.  There needs to be at least three references that have all three of these qualities: reliable , independent of the topic , and significant coverage of the topic .  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of these do you feel is not being met?  I strive to include only reliable sources in all articles I write, including this one.  Most of the sources included provide significant coverage of the topic.  Independence can be somewhat subjective, but I would consider sources such as The Times of London, Irish Times, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, WIRED magazine, Security Week, etct to be independent sources.  Salsakesh ( talk ) 19:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is a notable Irish tech company in the no-code space with many WP:RS references and coverage.  Salsakesh ( talk ) 00:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Comment I will go through the references later. scope_creep Talk 07:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG . Spleodrach ( talk ) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and edit In addition to the many tech industry sources like this one from VentureBeat (plus the TechCrunch links about their funding rounds), there is this piece by The Irish Times that definitely counts as significant coverage, there is this piece by The Times . Those are both real newspapers not tech industry publications. The article needs significant editing to be less promotional, but there are sufficient sources for meeting the core guidelines of WP:CORP . Steven Walling • talk 01:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those are independent. The Times fail WP:SIRS . They are not idependent of the company. The Irish Times is also not independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH i.e. the ""monies raised"" clause. Its using company stats. The Venture beat article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH monies raises. Techcrunch is junk ref. Non-rs. There is a reason why these kinds of generic reference no longer are considered value, because they areso generic. WP:NCORP was rewritten in 2017-2018 by Tony Ballioni and that group specifically to remove these type of generic references. scope_creep Talk 07:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your reply is extremely bizarre, verging on outright lying, unless you really don't know anything about these sources. The Times and The Irish Times are fully independent news organizations with an editorial staff that produce daily newspapers. They are not trade industry publications or press release factories. The Irish Times is the newspaper of record for Ireland, where the subject of the article is based. The Times is specifically listed as reliable in our list of perennial sources , as is VentureBeat, when covering businesses and technology. Steven Walling • talk 16:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do 6 or 8 of these Afd's every week particularly on non-notable companies and startups. I've done thousands of them over the last decade and a half. It is yourself that doesn't know what he is talking about. While the papers are indeed listed in the WP:RSP , they take the advertising dollar as much as any other newspaper.  Looking at the Time ref. It states ""Hinchy describes the experience as “stressful” but it’s one that set the ball rolling for Tines software. “It really helped shape a lot of what we are building in Tines today,” he says. We are allowing... "" It goes on. That is an interview with the company founder. He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. WP:SIRS specifically precludes these types of references, because it is not independent from the company. It can't used to prove notability. What is worse is that your a WMF product manager and administrator on this wikipedia and yet you do not understand current Wikipedia policy around organisations particularly WP:NCORP . If you keep this up, you will get taken to WP:ANI because your espousing false consensus. This is the 2nd time I've seen you making statements at Afd that are patently false, that don't seem to show an clear understanding of WP:SECONDARY sourcing and what that actually means. The last time was about month ago.  I'm going to look at your contribution at Afd over the next few days. scope_creep Talk 17:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that major newspapers like The Times or The Irish Times publish articles in return for payments like a press release. That's quite simply a baseless conspiracy theory. The consensus view is that newspapers of record are typically some of the most reliable independent sources available, and the coverage here is significant in both cases. Steven Walling • talk 01:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [2] , [3] , [4] . scope_creep Talk 08:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those links prove what you just said. One is an ad network , which everyone knows is how newspapers make money and is not the same thing as paid content. The other one is a press release agency. Many journalists get sent press releases every day, but the articles being used as sources here do not include material from any press release. None of those links show that two major newspapers wrote articles in return for payments, direct or indirect. Steven Walling • talk 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is a four year old startup. Lets examine the references for the first block. Ref 1 [5] This is a non-rs and social media link. Ref 2 [6] Has several interview style paragraphs with photographs of the company. Ref 3 [7] ] Archived at [8] This is an interview with the founder. It is not independent from the business failing WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS SIRS states to establish notability sources must be both Independent and WP:SECONDARY and that each source must be evaluated independently. Ref 4 [9] Another interview that predominantely discusses funding failing both WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND . Ref 5 [10] Profiele style segment in a overall much large article. It discusses comment in the context of no-code development from Hinchy again. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent of the company. Ref 6 [11] Another interview. Monies raised. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent as its an interview with the founder and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND . Ref 7 [12] Its an interview. Fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND Ref 8 [13] Monies raised. From a press-release. Names as a unicorn. Fails WP:SIRS Ref 9 [14] Written by Hinchy himself. Fails WP:SIRS Ref 10 [15] Conference paper. Describes a model no-code security architeture with the information take from [16] Fails WP:SIRS Ref 11 [17] Monies raised. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial coverage. Ref 12 [18] ""Your security game plan is only as good as the information you have to work with"" says Hinchy. Trade journal. This is not independent. Ref 13 [19] Behind a paywall. There is an image of both the founders present which suggests its an interview. Ref 14 [20] An X of Y article. Profile. Fails WP:SIRS as its not in-depth. This is a four year old company who have been described as a unicorn. As its a company growing fast it has a large advertising budget. Branding and advertising are a standard way to build your company. But neither advertising nor growth are factors in notability. Only coverage that passes WP:SIRS and there is not a single reference here that passes that criteria. All the information about this company, comes from the company. None of it WP:SECONDARY . It fails WP:NCORP , specifically WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creep Talk 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Steven Walling and his assessment. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - sources identified by Steven Walling in this discussion appear to be the type of promotional sources that the WP:NCORP guideline seeks to address, as discussed at WP:ORGCRIT : Tines, which helps enterprise security teams automate repetitive workflows, raises $26M ( VentureBeat , Apr. 8, 2021) - this is a funding announcement, so it is an example of trivial coverage that has insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability, and the source includes substantial quotes from the cofounder Hinchy, so it appears to fail WP:ORGIND , because this source reads as if a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties . Tines raises $26M Series B for its no-code security automation platform ( TechCrunch , Apr. 8, 2021) - the same trivial coverage, but more transparent about churnalism , e.g. ""the company notes in today’s announcement,"" in addition to substantial quotes from Hinchy and attribution to what the ""company argues"". Irish cybersecurity start-up Tines valued at $300m after raising $26m ( The Irish Times , Apr. 8, 2021) - the same trivial coverage, with substantial quotes from Hinchy, and quotes from Mr Fixel, including “We look forward to supporting [Hinchy] and the Tines team as they continue to scale the business and enhance their product which is beloved by their unmatched customer base,” so this also appears insufficient for WP:ORGIND . Beccaynr ( talk ) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I agree with the nominator and Beccaynr, and I disagree with Steven Walling. Got nothing of substance to add beyond what they've said. — Alalch E. 09:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this appears to be unfixable promotional content at this time, based on a lack of sufficiently independent and significant coverage of the company itself in multiple sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy . Available coverage includes examples of trivial coverage , such as quarterly or annual financial results , capital transaction[s], such as raised capital , non-notable awards received by the organization , and inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in ""best of"", ""top 100"", ""fastest growing"" or similar lists , while coverage that meets WP:SIRS and could help develop an encyclopedic article has not been identified. Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete very clearly WP:PROMOtional and I'm not convinced WP:NCORP is met. The Irish Times article, for instance, is clearly trivial, even if the plublication itself would be okay for other articles. Even if it somehow does pass NCORP WP:TNT is the only solution here. SportingFlyer T · C 21:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Pegasus Software: It reads like an ad/catalog and doesn't have any news or scholarly articles (or anything at all, really) that I could add to save it.   — Paper Luigi T • C 05:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable SME ; fails WP:NCORP .  Jfire ( talk ) 05:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Business , Companies , Software ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As stated in proposal, this article isn't notable.  ''Flux55'' ( talk ) 06:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Hardly any independent sources found.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Instinctively, seeing this AfD my reaction was ""What? But I've heard of Pegasus Opera!"" - which seems to have been the overriding sentiment in the 2006 ""Keep"" AfD.  But my searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability .  A redirect to Infor could be a possible WP:ATD .  AllyD ( talk ) 09:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Savage Ridge: The article also includes a brief biography of the person the ridge is named after, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions .  BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GEONATURAL .  – dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL .  Last1in ( talk ) 20:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Marco Borges: The article was created by a sockpuppet, which is not promising – in the sockpuppet investigation , Spicy said ""fairly obvious UPEs"" i.e. undisclosed paid editing, like this thing.  Any media coverage discovered in WP:BEFORE is stuff like ""I ate like Beyonce & lost 16 pounds in 3 weeks"" that mentions this guy in passing.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 16:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Food and drink , Health and fitness ,  and United States of America .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Borges does not inherit notability just because he has worked with notable people.  We would need to see reliable sources give significant coverage of Borges himself.  The sources I saw were either obviously unreliable or only mentioned Borges in passing when discussing Beyonce.  – Tera tix ₵ 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with Teratix, notability is not inherited.  The subject lacks significant coverage and generally fails to meet WP:N .  ZyphorianNexus ( talk ) 14:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  his news is around being Beyonce's trainer, etc. I could not find any articles that are primarily about him.  Yolandagonzales ( talk ) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There does not appear to be substantial in-depth coverage of the subject themselves or their professional activities, with most coverage being brief and primarily in relation to their association with high-profile clients.  X ( talk ) 04:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Teratix, subject has no notability of their own Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article lacks independent evidence of the subject's notability and appears to be promotional.  Waqar 💬 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of songs about Cork: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:LISTN and WP:OR .  There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context.  Geschichte ( talk ) 11:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Lists ,  and Ireland .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  Or, failing that, a selective merge/redirect to List of Irish ballads#Places, emigration and travel .  As an WP:ATD .  I understand the nomination in principle.  And certainly, before my own WP:BEFORE and WP:VER checks and cleanup , there were more than a few entries which weren't discussed AT ALL/ANYWHERE.  Not to mind being discussed as a group somewhere.  As WP:NLIST would typically expect.  However, with those random and unexplained (and seemingly quasi-promotional additions) removed, many/most of the list entries do appear to be covered - as a group - in reliable/verifiable sources.  Including in Crowley's 2014 work Songs from the Beautiful City : the Cork Urban Ballads ( ISBN 9781910179406 ) and in Healy's 1978 work Comic Songs of Cork and Kerry ( ISBN 9780853424987 ).  While additional clean-up is likely needed (including to better reflect the sources that do discuss the list members as a group), I'm inclined to lean towards a ""keep"".  (Note: While I can't see the ( now deleted ) ""List of songs about Oslo"" title that is referred to in the nom, if it's equivalent to what's now at no:Liste_over_Oslosanger , then I'm not sure it's an entirely fair comparison.  An (entirely?) unsupported 1400-point list, and a (semi) supported 30-point list, wouldn't seem directly comparable... ) Guliolopez ( talk ) 20:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - is there a list of songs for every other county in Ireland?  Why is Cork special?  Actually, don't answer that!  It's an indiscriminate list, no reason to keep.  Spleodrach ( talk ) 17:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  RE "" Why is Cork special? "".  It's not.  There are also titles on List of songs about Dublin , List of songs about Clare , List of songs about Tipperary , List of songs about Louth and List of songs about Wicklow .  If anything, deleting the Cork list (which, per my note above and NLIST, is supported by reliable/external/independent sources which cover the members as a group), while retaining the others, would possibly be indiscriminate/inconsistent.  ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST are two sides of the same WP:ATA coin...)  Guliolopez ( talk ) 12:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia is not a song directory.  * Pppery * it has begun... 04:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I would just say there is nothing so special about this topic that it needs to be kept despite deletions of  similar articles.  Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"CudaText: Most of the secondary sources I could find are by people with unknown credentials.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I oppose deleting this as it's clearly a very active project (note the forum) with some history.  I know people that use it.  Okay it's no notepad++ popularity wise.  I also see no gain from CudaText's side as it's open source and my adblocker kicked in only for the github link (to those that don't know GitHub is a VERY popular code hosting site and this is very normal).  The article is also being kept up to date.  86.140.41.40 ( talk ) 08:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The activity of its forum or the number of people that you know that use the software has nothing to do with whether this should be a Wikipedia article.  Please read WP: N .  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Their own website, SourceForce, Github, then discussion boards.  I don't see any sites reviewing this software, or any mention of it in media we'd use as a RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : with no independent sources providing SIGCOV, this fails NSOFT.  Owen× ☎ 10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Delete or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters (but 99% of this is unreferenced).  WP:FANCRUFT plot summary in list form...  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and failing WP:NLIST .  Minor character lists require notability along with an impact to the outside world.  This list doesn't even need to be merged since the character information on the main list covers it quite well.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails WP:NLIST as a group without significant coverage.  The main list is already covering this more appropriately.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and failing WP:NLIST .  Others have already said my opinion.  Spinixster (chat!) 02:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we're not going to keep this article, I'd rather take up the suggested merge per WP:ATD .  - B RAINULATOR 9 ( TALK ) 19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Edgar Pineda (footballer): Joeykai ( talk ) 02:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - a person of no notability.  MisterWizzy ( talk ) 08:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Spirit Level Film: Source consists of WP:PRIMARY .  The BBC source does not credit the production company.  This, like many of those also listed via AfD, may have been created by WP:COI .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Politics , Companies ,  and Transportation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NCORP.  Sources in article and BEFORE showed mentions in subjects they are associated with but nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  and TimothyBlue.  Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Choe Mi-gyong: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT .  All that came up were trivial mentions ( 1 , 2 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"KaSelly: Bio not yet shown to meet WP:GNG .  UtherSRG (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Africa .  UtherSRG (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Failed AFC, fails WP:GNG as all sources are promotional in nature.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Honourable curators, a lamentable truth presents itself: the textual tapestry of KaSelly, suffused with undue promotion, beckons the axe.  Yet, I rue the vexing paradox: a refashioned article, stripped of its promotional palette, would meet the same fate.  This grievous state of affairs stokes the ember of underrepresentation, a bane that continues to shroud the vibrant narratives of Africa within our digital archive.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OMG!  That comment needs to be preserved for all time!  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Promo for a non-notable ""designer"".  No sources other than the fluff one in the article that I can find.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agrees with all Delete comments and nomintor.  Historical Heritages of Bihar ( talk ) 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Oaktree b.  Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 09:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Just promotional material really.  ULPS ( talk ) 20:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Genetics and educational attainment: Guy ( help! - typo? ) 13:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Biology ,  and Psychology .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not just a fork, but from a brief inspection, written to push a particular perspective, and based around the questionable use of the sources cited.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was my impression too, but it's only an impression, as I don't have the energy to do a more thorough check.  For the moment, therefore, I won't vote, but if I do it will probably be D*l*te .  Athel cb ( talk ) 14:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For a blatant example of misuse of a source, consider this statement: ...some parents may choose to prioritize immediate pleasures, like vacations, over setting up a college fund for their child.  The source cited ( [15] ) makes no mention of 'vacations', or 'college funds'.  It would have been rather absurd to do so for multiple reasons - not least of which being that the primary data being discussed in the source includes contexts where 'college funds' weren't even a thing.  Regardless of the merits of the source itself (it looks to me to be an exercise in begging the question, but as someone with a degree in anthropology, I'm always sceptical about 'genes explain everything' theories) it shouldn't be cited for random made-up shit.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 20:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to read this article, but would like to note that ""genetics and educational attainment"" is a mainstream subject in the field of behavior genetics.  The people involved in this research are not racists or involved in race/IQ/genetics ""research"".  I have no opinion on the quality of this work but it most certainly is not a race and intelligence fork.  Of course, this research (like any other research) can be (and likely will be) misused/misinterpreted by ""race researchers"", but that is another matter.  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 14:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and draftify : I'm probably not equipped to analyze the scientific merits and accuracy of the article content in detail, but that's not necessary here: even if the article is WP:RUBBISH in its current form and highly susceptible to policy violations (like NPOV issues), that does not affect the notability of the subject. AfD discussions are not the right venue for discussing reworking an article, and articles should not be deleted solely on the basis that they're quite bad. As Randykitty mentioned, this is a mainstream field of research (not WP:FRINGE per se), and while the sources in the article might have been misused or misinterpreted to create the current text, they do establish that the subject has been researched, analyzed, and discussed extensively in highly reliable pulications. This is not a matter for AfD, but for the article talk page. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC) To address the concerns about the current article content: For the time that this article needs to be reworked to be in compliance with NPOV and other relevant policies, it can be draftified. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article was created by a blocked user who caused disruption on many articles and has added copyrighted material to their article creations. I am not convinced they wrote this article, this was created with 33,165 bytes of text [16] with no other major edits by them and is unlike their other edits. Something is off here. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm not going through every single reference for this as I don't have time, but I chose one at random and it failed verification. I think TNT applies here, maybe it's a notable article but anything based on this will always be dubious given the other issue is already mentioned. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 17:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TNT .  Sources fail verification, as noted above, and some are simply not up to the purpose when it comes to supporting an article like this (e.g., the two ""Neuroscience News"" items are press releases).  A total rewrite would be necessary, presuming that this is even a good title for the topic.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree that it is a POVFORK.  It's not quite a orphan but close.  I can't see any reason to keep this when we already have race and intelligence .  -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 23:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I just checked the author's global contributions and it looks like they may have made similar articles in other languages, particularly French. It might be worth somebody checking this out. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 23:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Polygenic scores for/genome-wide asssociation studies of educational attainment is a very normal, mainstream field of research.  See e.g. the second source in the article .  Don't really have any idea what you're talking about regarding race and intelligence.  Endwise ( talk ) 08:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since content was created by now-banned editor and is not supported by MEDRS-compliant secondary sources.  NightHeron ( talk ) 01:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and Snow Close .  This one ain't even close, folks.  jps ( talk ) 02:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per discussion here and the other AfD .  Completely unacceptable.  〜 Festucalex • talk 07:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per TNT without prejudice to recreation - no need to keep this article per other voters above, but without prejudice to recreation by someone else, as the topic ""genetics and education attainment"" is a notable topic with lots of scholarly coverage, e.g. [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , and 67,000 more hits on Google Scholar .  Levivich ( talk ) 18:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:TNT but per Levivich, this is a notable subject and not necessarily a POVFORK of Race and Intelligence (although the article asis meets that description).  Genetics is not the same as race, not a synonym of race.  Race is socially constructed, and genetics are biology (and clinal).  Neither is educational attainment the same as intelligence.  A page on this subject is possible, but this is not that page.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't really like the appeals to the creator of the article, as it is the article itself that is up for discussion, but the content and style of the article are completely inadequate.  I also don't see much point in draftifying it, as it would have to be rewritten from scratch to pass AfC.  Deckkohl ( talk ) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I have not read this article in depth, and I'm neither a scientist nor a professor, but based on other people's perspectives, it's totally unacceptable.  There is one thing I find particularly questionable, about how far a child can make in schooling is wholly based off of their parent(s).  Also, the article's in-depth analysis is completely off the rails.  We already covered this subject with race and academic attainment.  HarukaAmaranth ( talk ) 19:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"JR Esterhuizen: The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this piece on his apparent career switch.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wholesale Souls Inc.: I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 00:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 00:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 11:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete likely a student film, clearly fails WP:NFILM .  Here's a passing mention in Greely Tribune .  Mooonswimmer 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Proofs of elementary ring properties: The material better belongs on Wikiversity or Wikibooks; it's already been exported to Wikiversity.  Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator.  Left guide ( talk ) 07:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  A well-intentioned, cleverly executed but ultimately misguided effort that doesn't belong here.  Owen× ☎ 15:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator.  This would be possible to verify many times over (using elementary textbooks) but it's out-of-scope per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK .  — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Retranswikify to Wikiversity ( their current version hasn't really been updated in a decade ), then Delete per WP:NOT .  Folly Mox ( talk ) 19:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Randy Stageberg: Let'srun ( talk ) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Women , Florida ,  and Virginia .  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"WFHA-LP: All radio stations must meet WP:GNG , and this one does not.  All sources are primary government sources and directory/program listings.  First AfD was closed as keep due to assertions of the inherent notability of every radio station in the world.  A RfC has subsequently rejected this.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , United States of America ,  and Florida .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Yet another remnant of the looser notability ""standards"" of 2007 in this topic area — and most of that era's over-presumption of notability for broadcast stations was still at least somewhat present during that 2020 AfD (there's virtually no way, after the 2021 RfC the nominator alluded to that found no consensus for any looser notability guideline in this topic area than the GNG, that citing NMEDIA / BCAST would be considered policy or guideline-based today).  We now require significant coverage , and directories, government records, and program affiliate lists don't fall under that category (the affiliate lists probably also wouldn't be independent , which in and of itself would take them out of contention for determining notability).  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV .  Let'srun ( talk ) 12:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Diakonia Catholic School: The school didn't have any notability for inclusion to Wikipedia.  Thank you.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity ,  and Indonesia .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect Not finding anything either.  Would suggest a redirection to List of schools in Indonesia .  ❤History Theorist❤ 23:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article is unreferenced and clearly fails to meet WP:NORG 1keyhole ( talk ) 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Enabled.in: I also don't believe the coverage this has received is enough to pass WP:NCORP or WP:WEB .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Websites ,  and India .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This article is nowhere near enough to meet WP:NCORP .  There does not seem to be enough references to establish notability and it is written like an advertisement.  The prose is also very poor.  Article was created by the person who created the site.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 21:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Subject not notable, and the very short article is basically an advert.  Roger (Dodger67) ( talk ) 09:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Milos Calic: All I found was this interview.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , France ,  and Serbia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Minimal coverage Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've seen articles with loss less coverage still being on Wikipedia.  Боки ☎ ✎ 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While this is certainly true, it is also irrelevant to this discussion.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I'm not seeing any coverage which meets the WP:GNG for this subject.  Let'srun ( talk ) 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zuzana Králová: She was a finalist in some competitions, but did not win any.  Under the keyword ""Zuzana Králová"" search engines preferentially find other people with this name.  Images uploaded and article written by a single-purpose account,which indicates a personal interest.  FromCzech ( talk ) 06:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Fashion ,  and Czech Republic .  FromCzech ( talk ) 06:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; doesn't meet Notability per WP:NCREATIVE .  I spent the better part of the last day trying to justify a WP:TNT approach to just put the bio as a small part of an article about the business.  Unless there are separate rules for fashion designers that I didn't see, though, it doesn't meet the guidelines.  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Research notes: Alrighty then.  First off, I found it absolutely hilarious that three websites ( [30] , [31] , [32] ) all copied a list page from Wikipedia.  One of them didn't even bother removing the ""edit"" lines.  As to notability: Her company website press page gives a starting point for verifying notability.  Had I been able to prove it under any of the criteria, I would suggest that this page be restructured and renamed, to cover the company rather than to cover her personally, with a section of the page dedicated to her as president/owner.  There's already a page that redirects to this one, so I don't think creating a new page for the company and then turning this page into a redirect would be a viable option.  About her: I found her listed as a contributor in Prague Leaders Magazine, January 2011 where she interviewed Eva Zamrazilova (p 58-59).  There's a picture of Kralova on p 52.  She was quoted twice in a book titled ""Becoming a Fashion Designer"".  The book seems to be a series of questions asked of multiple people in fashion design, so it's not about her, but about entering the profession.  Published copy ; draft copy .  Her website press page had a Rock and Tonic interview , 11 Aug 2019.  She talks about herself and about the Fish_Fish project covered in Arsutoria #451 (see below for link).  I also found a blog post - not hers, someone who met her and tried on some of her designs.  There are links on the talk page that were removed from the source listing in the article at one point; WP:NONENGLISH was cited as the reason.  http://www.webnoviny.sk/lifestyle/zuzana-kralova-modneho-guru-nachadz/231171-clanok.html - 2010 interview http://diva.aktuality.sk/clanok/26922/zuzana-kralova-madrid-to-je-sloboda-v-mode/ - same interview http://www.informuji.cz/clanky/336-modni-navrharka-zuzana-kralova-predstavila-novou-kolekci-masculinity-in-transition/ - covers a showing of the collection ""Masculinity in Transition"" 24 Sept 2010.  End paragraph is a brief bio of Zuzana Králová.  http://www.designcabinet.cz/doporucujeme/kralova-zuzana - exact same as last paragraph on informuji link above with the exception of the last two sentences.  http://www.starscom.cz/en/designeri-a-znacky/zuzana-kralova/ - is actually in English, though there is a Czech version as well.  It's the blurb for the 2013 competition https://web.archive.org/web/20160304194422/http://www.elconfidencial.com/ultima-hora-en-vivo/2013-09-18/desfilar-y-vender-un-sueno-hecho-realidad-para-los-alumnos-de-ied-moda-lab-madrid_45423/ - only has part of one sentence mentioning her as a finalist in Prague Fashion Week 2013.  Internet Archive was no help; the Foto DNG magazine has been removed.  However, it is one of the titles on her company's about page.  I also looked in the Mercedes-Benz Prague Fashion Week archives ( https://www.mbpfw.com/en/gallery/ ) and didn't see her listed under ""Suzana"", ""Zuzana"" or ""Kralova"", or even ""Pyrates"", which was a Swiss-based start up she presented with at Telekom Deutsche's 2016 Fashion Fusion.  (That link downloads a file to your computer, so I'm not putting it here. Google should get you there as it did me if you're really interested, but I'm not finding anything else on it, so without SIGCOV it's moot, really. Other designers in the group, for those looking for more info and maybe luckier than me: Omar Benomar, Marie Lietaro, Regina Polanco. category: Digitally Enhanced Fashion. website listed as pyrates.ch, but this is the company: https://www.pyratex.com/new-about-us )  That said, I did find her in the 2013 program listing for 22 September .  About the company : first to sign on with a company that was using Microsoft's XBox Kinect to get people's sizes via the camera's body scan.  Small mention in 26 Feb 2014 CincoDias45 article .  S4Fashion interview , undated as far as I can tell.  Arsutoria #451 - Sustainability issue (ISSN 2531-920) - p 106, about reclaiming food waste fish skins for use as fabric.  Fashion coverage : Cool Korea #41 May 2018: issuu page numbers - p 19; Cover, p 26-27; print page numbers - p 48; cover, p 81-88 The Prince magazine No 4 January 2018: p 15 Cool Korea #37 January 2018 - issuu page numbers - cover, p 18-19; print page numbers: cover, p 59-66 Made Now Vol 22 : Faces.  November / December 2017: p 43 Afi Vol 2, Issue 1 : The Parachute.  p 78-83 This Bitch magazine Issue 1 , 4th & 5th picture down after the cover.  They misspelled it as ""Kralove"".  Their WordPress is set to private.  Fashion show at Matadero Madrid 2016 ; also listed on Product Fresco and Vanidad Magazine , though the latter doesn't name the designers.  Luna De Oriente a Occidente 28 December 2017 and 5 Dec 2017 - but this appears to be a blog?  That's how they're listed on Facebook , anyway, and I'm not finding much else to go on.  Crazy Mary magazine No 2 , 3 June 2014: p 121-129.  Fashion coverage I can't verify due to paywall : Keyi magazine August 2019 issue.  Scorpio Jin Vol 13 Issue C, September 2017.  ""Pink Supernova"".  Solstice Australia / Cool Australia magazine Spring 2018, Issue 11, p 24, 26, 28, 30 BeauNu magazine November 2017 (same model and one image same as in ""New Woman"" magazine; no date given so unable to verify - name returns too many results) Cool Korea Beach No 38 February 2018.  Her page has the cover for the regular issue 38, but the pages separately show the magazine title as ""Cool Korea Beach"".  The regular issue is available in part on issuu, but the beach supplement is not.  Promo New York Fashion magazine issue #50: part 1 , part 2 Elle UK September 2014 Vogue UK November 2013 Strobox Vol 3 October 2013 Non-independent sources about the company : Loblanc interview 24 Sep 2018 (in Spanish) Design book/company promo material Not Just a Label - sales site?  Bohemicca coleccion - press release, 7 December 2017 promotional magazine self-published through yumpu.com (in Spanish) There are some images on her press coverage page that I can't find corresponding external sources for.  They aren't on the same continent as me, so maybe someone in Europe or Australia would have better luck.  But some of them give too many results; for example, ""Tele Magazine"" gets results from ""Cambridge Community Television"" to a Sunday show in France to the Wikipedia page on Snooky Serna .  Others, like ""Avenue Illustrated"", I can find the website for but I can't find the specific issue referenced on her press page (Number 53, for one, in that case).  Still others, like Pigeons & Peacocks, would definitely show presence (as that's a publication for the London School of Fashion ), but I can't verify the coverage.  The write up was done by Charlie Craggs , but I'm not having luck finding even a defunct link for it.  OIM20 ( talk ) 02:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Due to the source analysis above by OIM20 .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Whatever (podcast): Previously referenced to various fringe right-wing sources, tabloid gossip sites and non-RSes.  After I asked on the talk page over a week ago for three solid RSes showing notability, a frequent editor tried to remove the single RS reference.  On a WP:BEFORE , there doesn't appear to be anything in solid mainstream RSes that discusses this topic such as to show it meets WP:GNG or any specific notability guideline.  PROD removed with no action to remedy these issues.  David Gerard ( talk ) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet , Websites ,  and United States of America .  David Gerard ( talk ) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Calling this a podcast is pretty much incorrect; it's more of a never-ending live stream and it seems these moments get picked out because...the show is six hours long and the guests are lethargic by the end and the regulars somehow call that a 'gotcha moment' to mock their invited guests.  Just by its length, lack of topic clarity and and its guest pool made up of mostly unknowns, it can't easily hit WP:GNG because you have to be in that specific interest field and have the endurance to last six hours to call it notable, and very few are going to make that commitment to a show that can't even be bothered to stay on its topic of dating.  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - as the original page creator, there was a reason why I kept it in the WP:DRAFTSPACE ; there was simply too little sourcing in May and I made the bet that this will eventually pass WP:GNG .  It hasn't yet.  It.  I see that EytanMelech ( talk · contribs ), who was the individual who moved this article to the WP:MAINSPACE , has not been notified of this WP:AFD .  — Knightof theswords 20:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was aware of it.  I had plenty of sources that I assumed were RS, but it seems as though Gerard and others disagree on that account.  If those sources do not count, then I wholeheartedly second the article for deletion.  The podcast is past its peak and I highly doubt that the sources reporting on it will ever be the ones Wikipedia allows cited.  EytanMelech ( talk ) 20:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - if there are decent sources, I can't find them.  I can't even find that many garbage sources, tbh.  Grayfell ( talk ) 07:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm only able to find tabloid and unreliable sources like the NY Post, Breitbart, and the Daily Wire.  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 01:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"938749233: Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs ) 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  Does not meet WP:NNUMBER and the only source is a random census count.  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 03:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Would be pretty surprised if this doesn't SNOW.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NNUMBER as a number with no discovered interesting properties.  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : ""One number found in a census count"" doesn't get you an article, no matter how hard you try.  This isn't notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all of the above.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 20:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A look at the actual page in question does not find this number — only the consecutive numbers 938, 749, and 233 on one row (the first one labeled ""Persons under 18 years"").  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW delete Completely unnotable, I would PROD this article if I could but now that we are having this AfD we should SNOW delete.  Air on White ( talk ) 04:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Someone should take a look through the author's list of contributions and see whether there is anything at all that suggests that they are WP:HERE .  -- JBL ( talk ) 20:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Weird, pointless.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Muki (duo): I could find one review for an album of theirs [20] but thats it.  No profiles of the group are extant as far as I can tell Mach61 ( talk ) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England .  Mach61 ( talk ) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per nom.  Geardona ( talk to me? ) 18:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  No sources used and I also couldn't see anything better out there.  Editing84 ( talk ) 09:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"The Healthy Mummy: It appears to have been created over a re-direct for an Australian school.  It's also a complete advert.  KJP1 ( talk ) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  KJP1 ( talk ) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , Websites ,  and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I updated the Healthy Mummy page and updated its history.  Regarding the school page I never realised it was still in my sandbox until I went to try create a new article was advised by another member in the chat to do what I did regarding moving it out of the sandbox and creating a new article.  Regarding sandbox history probably not the correct way to do things due to a new user error but no ulterior motive.  Wozza369 ( talk ) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Leaning delete.  The page definitely is in poor shape, but I do note that it is not just a website, and that ""Healthy Mummy"" seems to have published multiple books.  It is, in fact, a business and the founder is described as an entrepreneur and WP:NCORP are the appropriate guidelines here.  At this stage I don't thing it meets WP:SIRS but will leave it a bit longer to complete searches or see what others find.  Regarding the weird history, however, it appears that the editor who created this also created the school article in their sandbox.  They copied the school article into place (and it looks in good shape on first glance), but then they blanked the sandbox and created this, but moved the sandbox to the new page, thus preserving the sandbox history in this article's history.  Not the best, and clearly confusing, but ultimately nothing to see there.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have updated the page and the history.  Regarding my ""weird history"" I was not aware that the school page was still in my sandbox until I went to create a new article.  I was advised in the chat by another member how to remove it from my sandbox and create a new article - which is what I did, perhaps incorrectly.  I don't even know how to move sandbox to a new page (obviously I did so unknowingly), however no ulterior motive or malice intended just newbie error.  Wozza369 ( talk ) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine on the article's origins, but it is still highly promotional.  ""Healthy Mummy empowers mums to create a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their families through small, sustainable changes"" / ""The Healthy Mummy offers an integrated suite of recipes, fitness programs, and nutrition products for mothers with young children."" / ""make healthy living even easier and more convenient for busy women and mums"".  All in Wikipedia's voice, with the last sourced to two interviews with the CEO, and even then not really supported.  It reads like an advert.  KJP1 ( talk ) 04:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : The sources talking about the financing are fine, but we need more.  This [25] gives context on how the website is used, [26] and [27] seem to cover the website and the founder.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete On the basis the topic is a company, GNG/ WP:NCORP applies and requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they simply regurgitate announcements, relying entirely on information provided by the company or execs, there is no ""Independent Content"", fails ORGIND.  The two references posted by Oaktree b above all rely entirely on interviews with the founder or stuff she posted on social media, also failing both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.  HighKing ++ 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - It is going to have to be delete.  I cannot find sources that meet WP:SIRS at a level of significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - as per above.  And it’s an advert.  KJP1 ( talk ) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Technically, as the nominator that already counts as a delete ! vote, so this is a duplicate.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies - this is the second AfD/Review of AfD mistake I’ve made.  I’m just not very familiar with the process.  I wasn’t sure, as a re-list, whether my original nomination counted.  KJP1 ( talk ) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'm sure any quality issues are unintentional, we all try the best we can, but it just shows it's pretty much impossible to write an acceptable article with the sourcing that exists for this subject.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wellington Phoenix FC–Western United FC rivalry: The mere fact that two teams play each other does not constitute a rivalry.  Only one of the sources provided on the page actually calls it a rivalry, and that source appears to be a blog as opposed to a reputable source.  Alza08 ( talk ) 08:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and New Zealand .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - it is a 'rivalry' - other sources refer to it as such, see e.g. this - but there is no significant coverage of the rivalry that I can see.  It's probably not a notable one, given other sources such as this talk about games between the clubs without referring to a rivalry.  Giant Snowman 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Agree with GiantSnowman's summary.  Jenks24 ( talk ) 08:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , as above.  Relationship between the clubs is unusual in that Western Utd appear to have signed a lot of Wellington's players (maybe using expansion team rules to get them more easily? Not sure) and that caused annoyance between fans.  But that situation can be mentioned briefly on the teams' pages, very unlikely to be something that will endure, no mutual local interest and does not have significant coverage as a result (the Stuff link above specifically states ""Western started out as the Phoenix’s bitter rivals after poaching coach Mark Rudan, and signing long-serving captain Andrew Durante, Max Burgess and Filip Kurto for their inaugural season in 2019-20. But that rivalry was short-lived as Rudan was sacked at the end of last season and now coaches Western Sydney Wanderers, and none of those three players play for them any more either"" ).  Crowsus ( talk ) 10:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Night Owl: Nationbuilder's Manual: Most sources are puff pieces, the rest are passing mentions with little SIGCOV.  Article created by COI user Amylamentillo , same name as the author of this book.  SparklyNights ( t ) 02:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Products , Engineering ,  and Philippines .  SparklyNights ( t ) 02:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete PROMO, agree that most of the sourcing isn't helpful.  I can't find critical reviews of the book.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  HueMan1 ( talk ) 12:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per WP:PROMO and MOS:FLOWERY .  There is a lot of promotional language on the article.  Ganmatthew ( talk • contribs ) 12:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:PROMO .  SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Grace Junot: Not seeing notability required under ACTOR, no sourcing found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Thailand .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"TC Business School: There are no independent sources and generally does not meet WP:GNG criteria.  FromCzech ( talk ) 05:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Schools ,  and Czech Republic .  FromCzech ( talk ) 05:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete - this is a self promoting directory entry, not an encyclopedia article.  No sources to be found to convert this to an encyclopedia article.  Speedy deletion as PROMO -only is completely appropriate.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 13:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kim Ho-gun: Simione001 ( talk ) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 09:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORT toobigtokale ( talk ) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 19:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Fails WP:GNG .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ahmed Malallah (footballer, born 1990): Vyvagaba ( talk ) 11:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Arab Emirates .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why, is there something wrong with the seven Arabic sources currently in the article?  You have to write more than just ""notability.""  SportingFlyer T · C 13:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry I didn't give enough info, I thought it's obvious.  One of the sources is the player profile from a blog, and the rest are match scores that have players listed.  Vyvagaba ( talk ) 14:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hassan Houbeib: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Africa .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A regular national team player who plays in a league that gets pretty much zero regular coverage.  He has no chance of SIGCOV even though he is clearly notable for Mauritanian football.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Zero regular coverage"" and ""no chance"", you mean coverage in English, right?  I wouldn't know how to conduct a meaningful search in his alphabet, but he featured at the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations just a month ago.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His appearance at 2024 AFCON speaks to my point, I think.  The Mauritanian and Iraqi leagues don't receive much coverage from trustworthy media sources—French, English, or Arabic—and individual Mauritanian players in the local league and more ""obscure,"" for lack of a better word, leagues receive even less.  My point is that a strict interpretation of WP:SIGCOV , without taking larger context and performance into account, skews coverage on Wikipedia away from non-Western players, venturing into WP:BIAS territory.  Because Houbeib has appeared more than a dozen times for a national team and appeared in a major continental tournament recently that was broadcast around the world, to me, his notability is established.  Would I like to see more significant coverage in classical media sources?  Yes, of course.  But in this case, I don't think it's required to keep the article.  This isn't a third-division semi-pro player who represented his country once at under-19 level.  This is a regular player for a national team that qualified for and played in a continental tournament.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was just made aware of this AfD in another discussion circling around the possibility of inherent notability due to national team caps.  If anything, this provides some precedent for what I'm saying.  I acknowledge, though, that 15 national team caps is a bit low for inherent notability, given the precedent established in the linked AfD.  That said, though, appearance in the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations reasonably adds to this player's notability.  I would be willing to change my vote to ""draftify"" if we can reach some kind of consensus about this.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to clarify: the cap tally is now 21 .  I also believe that we are now far, far into WP:BIAS territory.  There is a difference between a performing team like Mauritania and insignificant countries (within football) such as Belize and Nepal.  But, alas: sources.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Although I don't fully agree that there is a difference between national teams, as they each have fundamental value in world football, I agree with your sentiment and overall point here.  Houbeib continues to appear for a national team that recently performed in a continental tournament.  This is well into the realm of WP:BIAS .  Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA ( talk ) 10:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which guideline states this? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , if even the editors advocating to keep this article acknowledge there is not and will not be IRS SIGCOV then clearly a standalone article is not warranted. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - coverage found here (signing), here (signing), here (contract extension), and probably many more Arabic-language sources. All I did was search the player's Arabic name (الحسن سالم احويبيب) and some immediate results came back. I can't read or understand Arabic so my search ended after these three articles— but I'm sure there's way more. Then, we need to consider that the bar for Mauritanian footballers' coverage is lower than for Western players, as there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general.  Lastly, this guy has made 20+ caps for a prominent African national team, and has competed at a MAJOR tournament.  The evidence of coverage existing, the threshold being at a certain level, and the prominence of the player all bring me to the conclusion that article needs to be kept & improved.  I'd even suggest a page move to fix currently incorrect page title.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 01:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman and The Herald : Sources found.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 01:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You should ping JoelleJay .  I simply relisted.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources are the definition of routine, trivial transactional coverage, not to mention non-independent since almost everything in them is quoted from the club.  And the first two are essentially identical!  Why would you link to those sources as evidence of SIGCOV if you didn't even read them??  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that these sources don't appear enough.  Giant Snowman 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman and JoelleJay : Y'all have your bar set way too high for coverage of this player.  You must remember that the subject is a Mauritanian footballer—not English, German, but Mauritanian .  Also, playing at a major tournament like AFCON definitely means that Arabic-language sources exist... deleting this article would start a slippery slope in which hundreds non-Western articles would get deleted simply due to a lack of easily-findable coverage by editors that exclusively use Latin-alphabet keyboards.  Take some time to do a proper Arabic-language search instead of bashing this article and not giving it much thought.  In my opinion, the surface-level presence of Arabic-language sources shows that relative to the depth of all coverage of Mauritania-related topics, this player has some kind of notability.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even more digging shows plenty of stuff about him popping up.  this , this , and notably this .  Yes, there is a routine feel to the coverage, but there's just a point where you have to understand that the bar is not as high as it would be for a player playing in Western Europe.  The fact that there's just this many articles on a relatively obscure Mauritanian footballer says something.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If this article is deleted, we could probably delete 50% of all articles about footballers from Arabic-language countries where media coverage is harder to find.  That's not a good thing.  I understand there are deletionists, but this isn't an article that should be deleted, especially considering how prominent this player is in African football.  (Yes, competing at two AFCONs is quite prominent, I think).  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general is literally why more athletes from Western countries are notable.  If a subject doesn't get IRS SIGCOV then by definition it is not notable!  What you are arguing is for us to reinstate presumptions of coverage--or even inherent notability--based on the subject reaching some arbitrary, subjective level of achievement, but such presumptions have been repeatedly and near-unanimously rejected.  Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 54#Renewed proposal for association football (soccer) Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 55#Should we soften the phrase ""Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.""?  Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 52#Proposed Notability criteria track and field athletes (see WP:NTRACK) The community has rejected participation-based notability criteria even when a single appearance in some league or tournament empirically predicts SIGCOV 100% of the time ; there is thus 0% chance of us accepting any criterion whose SIGCOV predictive power isn't supported by any evidence at all.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2022 RfC made it clear the requirement for SPORTCRIT SIGCOV applies to all athletes, regardless of location or time.  We do not change our bar for coverage based on where the subject is from.  Conferring notability to some geographical subset of subjects via the exact same routine, trivial, and non-independent sources we dismiss for subjects everywhere else in the world is patronizing and would only encourage applying those same standards to progressively less encyclopedic tiers of Western subjects.  And presuming actual SIGCOV does exist based only on the presence of such low-quality non-GNG sources is exactly what was deprecated through wide consensus two years ago.  The 4th source you link is identical to source #3, #5 is trivial coverage of the same topic, and literally the only secondary independent coverage of Houbeib in #6 is Al-Zawraa player, Mauritanian Al-Hassan Ahouibib, joined the team's training today, Monday, after the end of his vacation, which was granted to him with the cancellation of last season.  The rest is taken directly from the club.  This is the case for all of the sources you've linked: a couple sentences of routine transactional announcements interspersed with ""the club said [blahblahblah]"" and more general updates on the club as a whole.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think this article aught to be deleted, I urge you to start nominating every single other similar player article that has ""less"" notability than this guy.  You'll find that there's much more coverage of this guy than some other players who survived AfD in the past or that have articles that happen to exist despite probably failing GNG/SPORTCRIT.  I stand firmly in my belief that we're being too harsh here and that the coverage is enough.  Also, how did you brush by these sentences?  1. Al-Hassan Ahwaibib is considered one of the reasons for the strength of Al-Zawraa’s defense during the past season, due to its consistent level during the tournament.  2. Huwaibib plays as a libero.  He played great matches with Al-Zawraa last season, and succeeded in convincing coach Ayoub Odisho to renew with the team and lead the defense line...  These seem like notable secondary independent coverage of the subject.  That's three different sources offering secondary coverage.  Who says there isn't more?  I can't properly do an Arabic-language search and this is what I found easily.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 04:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you can find significant, Arabic-language coverage, then great. , I'll happily re-consider.  Giant Snowman 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You will find that I have been extremely consistent in supporting deletion of hundreds of subjects with this level of coverage.  We are slowly working through the backlog of poorly-sourced articles, so just because many still exist doesn't mean their standards of coverage are endorsed.  Those are among the routine, trivial sentences that I referenced above.  We would not consider someone in the 5th tier of English football to meet GNG with such sources, we should not lower our standards just because you think footballers in certain regions deserve articles.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I can't close this as Keep if there is no SIGCOV because the decision would be immediately taken to WP:Deletion review where the closure would be overturned.  The possibility of Draftifying was raised, would this be an acceptable outcome until better sourcing can be located, perhaps in Arabic media sources?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Sources are trivial and routine.  If the subject does not receive significant coverage, there is nothing that can be done.  Additionally, the argument pointing to the existence of other articles related to players from Arabic-speaking countries is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS .  Industrial Insect (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing but routine transfer and signing news popping up.  There are many many places online where somone can view the statistics and team history of a soccer player; Wikipedia needn't be one of them.  Mach61 — Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm concerned that someone would say that Mauritius is an Arabic-speaking country.  There's probably more Arabic spoken in many western countries than Mauritius!  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz : Why do you keep mentioning Mauritius ?  We're talking about a Mauritanian player.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 09:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops - Mauritanian not Mauritian.  Well, I should stop searching the Mauritian media!  Aren't I the fool!  Nfitz ( talk ) 11:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there's nothing in WP:ROUTINE that says that articles about transfers are routine coverage; the example given there is ""sports score"" and ""sports matches"".  If one wants to play by the ""rules"" that no longer make an international player (let alone with 20+ caps for his nation), one needs to not exaggerate the other ""rules"".  Nfitz ( talk ) 19:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if transactional announcements weren't overwhelmingly considered routine by editors at AfD, as you well know , the sources above also fail independence by simply repeating what club officials have said, and fail SIGCOV by being trivial.  Do you have any evidence of actual IRS SIGCOV or are you really claiming that the sources above that even other keep ! voters acknowledge is routine and non-significant actually meet GNG?  JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The bottom line is what's in policy and guidelines - not what a few editors have pushed.  I don't believe the claims of lack of independence are correct - how is this not independent?  I'll admit photographs of him playing in major Canadian newspapers don't count for anything - other than my surprise.  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz , the issue is that these short articles are primary sources (see WP:NEWSPRIMARY ), and primary sources do not establish notability.  Unlike secondary sources, they contain no original analysis or synthesis of existing primary sources Mach61 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see User talk:Mach61 , how the that is an primary source.  Also, can you please explain why Rimsport and Cridem are not independent.  Nfitz ( talk ) 04:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz May you please stop trying to preform a Gish gallop and actually address my argument.  I said nothing about independence, and I explained why I thought those sources were primary.  Mach61 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow - so rude.  Why?  I do not understand why you think that Rimsport and Cridem are primary sources.  I don't see where you've explained why they are primary sources - you've simply stated they are.  They don't look primary to me.  Nfitz ( talk ) 16:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz Most every source you've brought so far is primary because they are original materials that are close to an event .  As explained at WP:NEWSPRIMARY , a newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events .  I called what you are doing a Gish gallop because you are not actually adressing the reasoning behind the arguments I have made, but are merely stating them to be incorrect without elaboration.  Cheers, Mach61 20:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Arguments?  What arguments?  You simply said it was primary, without even trying to explain why.  And why pretend I've provided multiple sources, when I provided one, that despite multiple polite requests, you won't even discuss.  This is not okay - you can't just make stuff up in AFD, User:Mach61 .  Nfitz ( talk ) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please explain (or retract) User:Mach61 ?  Nfitz ( talk ) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No 🗿 Mach61 23:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage Do you seriously need the policy to spell out ""routine news coverage of announcements such as sports transaction announcements , ...""?  Someone else quoting/relaying information from primary non-independent sources does not make that information secondary and independent.  What you link now was not among the ""sources above"" that I referenced in my comment.  It is still clearly routine transactional news of dubious independence--more than likely it is purely derived from the club's press release.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The policy mention sports scores and sports matches.  And that's the test for having an article about a match; not even for using it as a source.  The article hardly reads like a press release, as it includes too much context.  I don't think you can use a hypothesis of it being a reprint of a press release that you can't find as the basis for anything here.  And really - 20 international caps - is this the hill to have a borderline debate about?  Given the lack of online Mauritanian news, we should probably defer this until there's a good database of Mauritanian news.  Nfitz ( talk ) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not quoting ROUTINE.  I am quoting WP:NOTNEWS policy.  Newspapers report on every transfer announcement with similar depth and little independent secondary contribution, with almost all facts derived from the club's press release.  That is the definition of ""routine news coverage of announcements ... [and] sports"".  We have multiple people advising that Maurit anian news doesn't provide SIGCOV of this topic in general.  We don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise, and we had global consensus to deprecate any presumption that such coverage exists based on number of matches or tournament appearances.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I follow that logic to the end, doesn't it mean not mentioning any transfers of players in most articles - unless like something tragic happens during the transfer.  Nfitz ( talk ) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kim Song-gi: Simione001 ( talk ) 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not enough information here to be worth keeping.  Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dilip Thadeshwar: Sources in the article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BLPs require strong sourcing.  Source eval: Comments Source Facebook  1. https://m.facebook.com/dellip.thadeshwar/ Name mention in database record  2. ^ Srihari, Gudipoodi (29 November 2001).  ""Unlikely flick from SVK"".  The Hindu.  Archived from the original on 30 May 2022.  Retrieved 4 June 2022.  Name mention, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth  3. ^ ""SV Krishna Reddy to direct 'Jaabili'"".  Idlebrain.com.  25 July 2001.  Archived from the original on 1 June 2022.  Retrieved 4 June 2022.  Promo about film, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject dirtectly and indepth  4. ^ ""NRI girl for NRI's film Joke Falls!"".  Viggy.  BEFORE found nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No coverage found for this person.  Sources used in the article aren't the best, facebook and two others that are a trivial mention and a film review.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , Advertising ,  and Maharashtra .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete .  Could not find any in depth sources.  I am one of the main contributors.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 19:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:NACTOR for his significant roles (main/lead) in multiple notable productions, that received coverage. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mirko Siakkou-Flodin: The article sources consist of an online CV, and a short blog article that does not mention him but does mention a different artist (Mo Flow-den), perhaps that is a pseudonym?  An online BEFORE finds only user-submitted content or other blogs, but no substantial, independent in-depth coverage one would expect for a notable artist.  Bringing it here for the community to decide.  Netherzone ( talk ) 19:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Visual arts , Germany ,  and Greece .  Netherzone ( talk ) 19:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Nothing in WP:LIBRARY .  All web and news results are trying to sell me art or are social media/blogs.  Jfire ( talk ) 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mantra Lingua: NN company that fails WP:NORG .  Possible that their product has more notability than the company.  UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and United Kingdom .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Been on the cat:nn list since 2010 and never been updated.  References are woeful.  Fails WP:NCORP .  scope_creep Talk 18:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jarolím Antal: - Altenmann >talk 03:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians ,  and Slovakia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete expression of notability not given in article and quick searches through the tools did not find sources/citations/etc.  that come close to a typical WP:PROF, Author, or GNG.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with only 1 source and nothing else found, I vote for deletion.  Rustypenguin ( talk ) 09:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Big News Network: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP standard.  Aronitz ( talk ) 17:00, 30 November 2023 (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/2023 November 30 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , Companies , Websites , United Arab Emirates ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Keep- This needs to be re-written but it is well sourced with reliable sources.  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete WP:G11 Kinopiko talk 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] on the contrary this article can be rewritten, the sources provided prove it is notable, G11 States: ""If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view , this is preferable to deletion."" 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draft Doesn't meet WP:NCORP .  Either moved to draft or delete for now.  B-Factor ( talk ) 07:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 13:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Rusty4321 talk contribs 16:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  While it looks like there is a consensus to Delete this article both the nomination and the unhelpful ""Delete per nom"" opinions come from editors with low edit counts so I'd like to see more opinions from more experienced editors, especially regarding the claim that this is a fake news mill.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I think that even if it is indeed fake news mill (which is not at all clear: here BNN states We have provided evidence that disproves the allegations and wish to reiterate that we have no involvement in the subject matter of your previous report, which appears to be the focus of your new report. ), it doesn't automatically make it unworthy of a dedicated article on Wikipedia.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously it operates a number of fake news websites.  BBC News : ANI's news reports have found space in many mainstream Indian news outlets and publishers.  Its content was further reproduced on more than 500 fake media websites across 95 countries, the researchers found.  Websites identified by the report as fake media outlets include those owned by Big News Network , which describes itself as a ""leading provider of news headlines with over 400 distinct categories of latest news"".  I quoted WP:NCORP as the guideline that this private news agency clearly fails.  Would you mind sharing in-depth non-routine references that meets WP:CORPDEPTH standard?  All I could find are brief quotes in media quoting EU DisinfoLab's report(s).  In its current form, the article is being used to give credibility to a list of fake news this agency operates.  Aronitz ( talk ) 11:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : What does being fake news have to do with notability?  We have articles about everything here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just pointed out a fact.  We shouldn't give credibility/SEO value to a list of fake news websites this agency operates, especially when there is hardly any in-depth coverage about this company.  Aronitz ( talk ) 11:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I dithered on this because of the EU Disinfo lab report(s) but they also do not provide sufficient detailed information about this company.  It seems very unsual to me that there are a distinct lack of third parties writing about a news company of this size.  HighKing ++ 18:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCORP .  Uhai ( talk ) 04:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"WXXW-LP: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Puttshack: No coverage past PR agencies and routine announcement.  Award is not major duffbeerforme ( talk ) 03:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that the page was deleted last week at RfD as it was not found suitable as a redirect to Oakbrook Center .  Jay 💬 06:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Lots of press surrounding location openings but nothing that really covers WP:CORPDEPTH .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Award winning company which can be redirected to Topgolf .  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 18:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How are they related? Topgolf founders are partners in starting Puttshack. Topgolf has only a See also entry for Puttshack currently. Jay 💬 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jay : , nothing in WP:NCORP allows for notability simply for winning an award. Are there any references meeting WP:ORGCRIT that you found. Let me know as I may have missed some in my search. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CNMall41 , I think you meant to ping Jax 0677 .  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did.  Thanks for the courtesy ping.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 02:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The Forbes article outlines big plans for expansion, but at the moment it seems to be still TOOSOON to be notable.-- Gronk Oz ( talk ) 08:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for clearly failing WP:CORPDEPTH .  The only keep vote frankly does not make sense and should be ignored ( keep the page as it could be redirected to an unrelated company).  -- C avarrone 12:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mike Liberty: Pretty self-explanatory.  Never held elected office, no significant media coverage.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 05:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Finance ,  and New Hampshire .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom J2m5 ( talk ) 08:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete candidate for office who looking at the article very clearly fails WP:GNG .  SportingFlyer T · C 02:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Blaine Hogan: Three episodes of Prison Break does not a notable actor make.  Novemberjazz 16:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , Theatre , Illinois , Indiana ,  and Minnesota .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vo-Na Imoru: Mccapra ( talk ) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions .  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sierra Leone-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mccapra , The chief of a large town as Voggu, and a dipplomat of an entire country to Yugoslavia is certainly notable enough to be on WIkipedia even if the only sources are in books that are easily verifiable on the internet.  -Masssly ( talk ) 16:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] well the standard for biographies is WP:BASIC and that isn’t met here.  Diplomats are not automatically notable and indeed most aren’t.  Mccapra ( talk ) 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can see that some ambassadorial positions are quite likely to be inherently notable (eg permanent members of the UN security council), that said, we're not discussing a posting of that nature here.  In the absence of sources, and my own searches revealed no SIGCOV, I cannot think of grounds where we might assume that satisfactory sources could exist which would demonstrate anything more than the quotidian activities of a diplomat.  Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 06:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Diplomats are not inherently notable.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 03:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vimankallu: No reliable source.  Hongsy ( talk ) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka .  Hongsy ( talk ) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Haven't found anything other than its listing in the GNS Ceylon list as a populated place.  [25] — and two settlements with that name are listed.  Unable to locate an online gazetteer for Northern Province.  The co-ordinates I've added from the gazetteer point to the similarly named Veemankallu — the name of a lake but also a settlement and school.  Because of uncertainty over the name I'm going to recommend delete.  Rupples ( talk ) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Larika Russell: Central American and Caribbean Games medals and ITF junior titles do not satisfy WP:NTENNIS .  More importantly, I could not find anything to suggest that WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG could be met.  Uno TV and D10 only mention Russell trivially.  Likewise, the best that I could find in ProQuest was EFE and El Nuevo Día , which mention her once.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Tennis ,  and Bahamas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This one should have been dead on arrival.  No idea how it got created like this.  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 07:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Aviv Productions: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Mach61 ( talk ) 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions .  gidonb ( talk ) 14:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Such companies usually stay behind the scenes, as they should.  This company is succesful especially with Israeli artists but that doesn't make it notable.  I included the debate in the Israeli queue so others who take interest can share their opinions.  gidonb ( talk ) 15:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Non- WP:INDEPENDENT sources.  Definitely feels like WP:COI due to the excessive listing of its staff team.  TLA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Towerlands Tram Road: DuckDuckGo is no better.  Google Books search turns up at most two possible secondary sources : Wham, The Lost Railway Lines of Ayrshire and Stansfield, Ayrshire & Renfrewshire's Lost Railways .   Paterson, History of the Counties of Ayr and Wigton, pts.  1-2: Kyle does not seem to include anything relevant.  Google News Archive turns up a number of primary sources: articles in the Glasgow Herald .  No Google Scholar hits.  Current content is exclusively original research .  Bernanke's Crossbow ( talk ) 06:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions .  Bernanke's Crossbow ( talk ) 06:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  Bernanke's Crossbow ( talk ) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Bernanke's Crossbow ( talk ) 06:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Use of published maps - is this classes as original research?  Rosser Gruffydd 13:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Whey you attribute claims to maps that are not explicitly depicted on them, that is absolutely original research.  Instances of this are omnipresent in the article.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 22:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete What we have is so utterly full of OR and speculation that it's hardly clear what is fact and what is the author's personal thoughts and theories.  Even if there were a notable topic here this would merit a healthy dose of TNT.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 22:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of MexicanaClick destinations: Fails WP:NOT , specifically WP:NOTCATALOGUE .  This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a (now defunct) company as of a particular date in October 2007.  Also fails WP:CORP , since the only source cited is the defunct company's website.  WP:BEFORE is optional, particularly where the main failing of the article is not only notability (though it does fail this per WP:CORP ) but I did do a brief search and found nothing that would remedy the issue - just the usual aggregator sites, ticket-sales sites, fan-sites, and industry/specialist media outlets of dubious independence (see WP:ORGIND and WP:AUD ).  FOARP ( talk ) 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists ,  and Mexico .  FOARP ( talk ) 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Textbook WP:IINFO material.   Also, the RFC cited above seems valid.   -- Jayron 32 14:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nominator and Jayron32.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 01:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Corpus Mortale: Sources are all primary, and the band has sold under 1000 albums in 30 years.  Very Average Editor ( talk ) 06:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Denmark .  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Katie McBeath: Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Sports ,  and Ohio .  Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kitson Cécile: Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sources like [27] or [28] are in passing.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 20:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Henry Hereford: Tacyarg ( talk ) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , United Kingdom ,  and England .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor.  Multiple credits in major film and tv shows.  2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 ( talk ) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure what you mean by ""employer"".  Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines.  There is no reason this page would be deleted.  Thefilmsorcerer ( talk ) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG or NACTOR.  A 21st-century actor and yet yields no results in Google News tells a lot.  General searches also did not produce anything of use.  Other than 1-2, the used refs aren't about him rather the films/shows he's starred in.  X ( talk ) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NACTOR .  His roles are all of the single-name supporting cast, so insignificant they don't even have a full name, or are throwaway characters .  Bearian ( talk ) 18:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"1 Park Avenue: The first source is not significant coverage.  The second source is not independent.  The third is dead and even the archive is broken.  See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Park Avenue (about a different building), which concluded neither was notable.  * Pppery * it has begun... 15:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hey man im josh : Shouldn't this be in United Arab Emirates not Saudi Arabia?  * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep, definitely should be @ Pppery .  Thanks for catching this mistake, I must have misclicked in the drop down for middle eastern countries.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Not finding significant coverage in reliable independent sources via Wikipedia Library (where I would expect to see coverage about developments like this one), although it is mentioned in articles about 1 Dubai and Jumeirah Garden City .  IMO, doesn't warrant a redirect, either, given that there are many other properties around the world with the same name that are possibly more ""notable"" in the Wikipedia sense.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 14:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , isn't notable enough to pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 09:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba: Note that article was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, which has a long history of propaganda and fabrication in Falklands-related topics.  Kahastok talk 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories , History , Military , United Kingdom ,  and Argentina .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete having tried to fix this, yes this seems a nothing story, based on dodgy sources, and or.  Slatersteven ( talk ) 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources.  An alleged piece in the New Statesman which is not used as a source.  A claim from a Psychoanalyst.  A mysterious letter.  Certainly extraordinary sources - so extraordinary that they are incredible.  Somewhere I read it was a proposed bombing of Buenos Aires, but that's not in Cordoba province.  Cobbling together the British admission that some ships sailed with  nuclear weapons but surely these are nuclear depth charges not air launched bombs.  I suspect it's all pure fantasy but regardless it should be deleted due to lack of reliable sources Lyndaship ( talk ) 18:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as hoax .  The 31 nuclear weapons were WE.177 nuclear depth charges.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article as it stands, neutral about whether sources exist for a better one.  Sorry for length, I want to be thorough here.  This is a mess.  A bunch of this is distraction linking.  Stuff about nuclear depth charges and the like, that has nothing to do with the core claim: that the British put a Polaris sub with actual nuclear missiles off Ascension Island just in case they decided to nuke Córdoba (the city, not just the province).  The 2005 Guardian article can also probably be discarded.  It's just reporting on claims from Ali Magoudi's book and there's no reason to give him any weight; for one thing, he claims the British wanted to nuke Buenos Aries, which is a different city entirely.  But are there sources such that the core claim -- or, at least, the core theory -- rises to notability?  Well, I think this New York Times is just repeating quotes from The New Statesman (the El Pais article currently cited does the same thing, but worse).  Full disclosure: I don't have a copy of the original New Statesman article.  Regardless, at some point, someone did get Terence Lewin and Henry Leach to call it total nonsense, so that's a cut above most conspiracy theories.  This bylined UPI article has a little more context, including that Tam Dalyell made such claims before the New Statesman and that Labour had demanded an independent investigation (which, if it happened, no one reported on; political parties everywhere demand investigations into everything all the time ).  After all that died down, Paul Rogers revived the allegations.  You can read the draft version of Rogers' article here (if you turn your head sideways), but as far as I can tell, the only published version was in Lobster and that's not gonna do as a source.  Finally, this white paper from the RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior spends a couple of pages (pp. 9–11) on it all, including the New Statesman article and Rogers's take, eventually concluding that the whole thing is totally implausible and unsupported by evidence.  That's pretty thin gruel, but it miiiiight support a brief article outlining the allegation and the conclusion that, no, no one actually told a sub commander to get into position to drop a nuke on Argentina.  But I don't think it would be at this name, and I don't think what we've got here is worth trying to salvage into that.  Lubal ( talk ) 21:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article's content is totally wrong-headed, and seems a conspiracy theory type article.  As noted in the British official history, a number of nuclear depth charges were on board ships rushed to the South Atlantic for the Falklands War.  This was part of their standard armament during the Cold War, and they were removed during the war.  This has all long been public, but this article presents it as a great secret.  As noted by Lubal the allegations that the British Government separately considered a nuclear attack on mainland Argentina might be worth an article, but would need to be reworked from the ground up.  Nick-D ( talk ) 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as probable hoax or fanciful as well as in line with other reasons give above.  Donner60 ( talk ) 04:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've just spent my Saturday quickly developing an article what I think is a vastly better article on this topic, which is at British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War .  Nick-D ( talk ) 10:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or turn into redirect to Nick-D's new article.  My initial reaction was 'conspiracy theory' as I wasn't familiar with the detail and I'm probably susceptible to arguments (per proposer) that the Spanish Wikipedia is unreliable.  However, having read through Nick-D's alternative, I can see there's some substance: a political debate, operational challenges, Cold War propaganda which we can't dismiss.  Nick's version is, indeed, vastly better, so let's redirect to that.  Wiki-Ed ( talk ) 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War#Allegations which deals with this exact subject in a much better way.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 13:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FTR I find it difficult to see a case to redirect, because I don't think this is a plausible search term in its own right, and because the article is only six days old so there is unlikely to be any significant issue with link rot.  Kahastok talk 09:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kumarikunda Shaktipeeth: Promotional and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Hinduism ,  and Bangladesh .  UtherSRG (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   None of the citations show notability.   Citations [1] and [2] do not even mention the subject of this article.   Citation [3] is Wikisource.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"KHIZ-LD: It appears to have only ever really been a repeater of other networks or stations, with neither the adequate sourcing nor any sort of local content or coverage that would get it anywhere near actual notability; the article also tends to attract unsourced edits of dubious quality, another reason why our old overpresumption of ""notability"" (based on an essay , which seemed to have these all-diginet stations slip through the cracks pre-2021, rather than GNG) was a bit of an error in hindsight.  (This is another station that was part of the failed bulk nomination of HC2/Innovate station articles that intermingled stations like this one with facilities that have slightly more substantial histories; the history here isn't quite as threadbare as some of the newer DTV America stations that went from application to license surrender in about a decade, but it isn't much better.)  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a strange one.  This facility went on the air in 1979, as a note.  The move to channel 33 in 1987 does have coverage in the Daily Press including a front-page story.  But that's because it was displaced from channel 64 by KVVT and it tried to buy a channel from the translator system.  But TBN translators have come to AfD before ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K17ET ), and there is no SIGCOV after that.  GNG coverage just will not exist for this facility.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 05:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K04QR-D so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Pentaapeirogonal tiling: I cannot find mention of it in either of the sources, nor the external links.  A search for more sources turns up no mentions in any reliable sources.  Admittedly the topic is difficult to search for since it is unlikely to be called the ""Pentaapeirogonal tiling"".  It's more likely to be referred to by symbol or diagram, which are difficult to search for.  It is however unlikely that this receives any significant note, because it doesn't appear to have any unique properties among the uniform tilings of the hyperbolic plane.  All the properties in the article are pretty trivially derived from its Coxeter-Dynkin diagram.  It would be better served as a single entry in a list of uniform tilings if any of these properties could even be sourced.  AquitaneHungerForce ( talk ) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Merge with Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane .  Seems this is related with uniform tilings so probably can be moved there.  killer bee 05:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, do not merge .  There are literally infinitely many uniform hyperbolic tilings and there is no evidence that this one has any independent notability.  Everything in this article is generic properties of all such tilings, original research, or both.  This tiling is literally never mentioned in either of our article's two supposed references, nor even in either of its two external links.  No other sources are available: the word ""Pentaapeirogonal"" does not have any hits in Google Scholar and web searching finds only copied Wikipedia content, so it appears to be a neologism .  Without sourced content there is nothing to merge.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The naming ""Pentaapeirogonal tiling"" is consistent with a naming scheme used by Jonathan Bowers and Richard Klitzing, which both self-publish a lot of info on uniform polytopes.  My guess is that either Tom Ruen got it from them, or they from Tom Ruen.  I don't think that changes the substance of your comment though.  Without a reliable source it falls under the policy  of neologisms.  AquitaneHungerForce ( talk ) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I completely agree with David Eppstein.  jraimbau ( talk ) 09:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Uniform tilings in hyperbolic plane : per nom and K6bee9 .  This is an excellent stub, but unlike Tetrapentagonal tiling , Pentapentagonal tiling or Pentahexagonal tiling , notability of the term isn't enough for a separate article.  Owen× ☎ 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to Delete per David Eppstein , after a closer look at the references.  Owen× ☎ 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We cannot merge anything without sources for the content we merge.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are absolutely right.  It seems the references were bulk-copied from the other tiling articles, typos and all - Chaim Goodman-Stra u ss is consistently misspelled as ""Strass"" in all 160+ tiling articles that reference Conway et al.  .  I fixed some of those; probably a job more suited for a bot.  We should probably check all those pages to see which are actually covered by the book.  Changing to Delete .  Owen× ☎ 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ OwenX : Have you heard of WP:AWB ?  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 21:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good idea; thank you!  Owen× ☎ 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done; 176 pages fixed.  Owen× ☎ 22:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks!  Sadly, it is likely to be much more difficult to determine which of those 176 pages legitimately reference some content to that book and which are like this one, a reference that does not actually cover any article content.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, do not merge — there aren't any sources that can support an article and nothing in the page as it stands can be merged anywhere, per basic policy.  A merge, even to a line in a table somewhere, would violate WP:V and WP:NOR .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per David Eppstein killer bee 04:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rick Goldring: As always, the notability test for a mayor is not passed just by verifying his existence, and requires significant reliable source coverage supporting a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.  But there's no such content here at all, and in fact the article is putting significantly more emphasis on an unsuccessful candidacy for higher office than it is on his mayoralty itself -- but that's also not a notability claim either, and the article is referenced to a primary source table of election results and a small smattering of local-interest coverage nowhere near sufficient to claim that he would pass NPOL #2 on that basis.  Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt the article from having to have considerably more substance and better referencing for it than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Not seeing the notability, and there's no claim of it other the mayorality by default, which doesn't cut it.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:NPOL #2.  As Bearcat mentioned, there's not really a significant claim to notability here except for just being a mayor of a city.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Names of India in its official languages: An alternative to deletion might be a merge to Names for India .  Pepper Beast (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India .  Pepper Beast (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge This seems to be reasonable information to have in that article.  Reywas92 Talk 02:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not reasonable, and in fact against the spirit of WP:NOINDICSCRIPT .  Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 04:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; Names for India already exists, and unlike this article it at least tries to be more than a laundry list of dictionary entries.  And no, not merge, delete.  See WP:INDICSCRIPTS as to why a merge is unwarranted.  We don't need to enumerate the name of every Indian topic in every one of its many scripts, and we have a policy in place specifically to guard against such tedium.  Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 04:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree it is more of an enumeration of dictionary entries rather than an article.  Imranqazi90 ( talk ) Delete per nomination.  Sk1728 ( talk ) 10:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Frédéric Genta: The reasons for that deletion remain in this version.  The author portrays Genta as a politician, but there's no evidence they are an elected official, merely a civil servant - a chief digital officer .  As the previous AfD said, CDOs are unlikely to be notable.  As for the sources, they are press releases, interviews or mere mentions.  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Technology ,  and Europe .  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Monaco has a population of 39,000, and he is a minor civil servant.  Clearly fails WP:GNG .  Edwardx ( talk ) 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : He doesn't appear be (or was) an elected official, just a high ranking person in the ministry [16] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b he is an elected official and his department has 100 employees per THIS and other articles I have presented in my KEEP argument below.  The article states ""The creation of the position of Frédéric Genta. Its mission, with its team of 100 people: to develop a digital administration, make Monaco a smart city and a smart country, by promoting e-education, e-health, and e-security, and accelerate the environmental transition.""  Further, check these 2 official Government appointment docs 1 , 2 Rustypenguin ( talk ) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rustypenguin, those sources confirm that he has been appointed by the Prince, for a two-year period, to do a job, rather than being a democratically elected politician.  In Wikipedia, we don't write biographies about people who are merely doing their job.  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : He's featured in media quite a bit [17] , [18] , but always giving interviews or talking about digitial initiatives within the government.  I don't see a FR wiki article about him, which I'd expect as Monaco is mostly a French-speaking country.  He appears to be the face of the digital initiatives of the government, a spokesperson more than anything.  Somewhat promo, I don't see GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : He is an appointed politician and as such he meets WP:POLITICIAN .  Check these links for further verification 1 , 2 and 3 .  Politicians do not need to be elected to considered a politician , so the nominators reasoning is not valid.  In addition, there are several news articles that would prove his notability, such as Monaco Tribune - Significant coverage, Reliable Source Harvard Business Journal - Not an interview, only has some quotations, but 50% of content is journalist written.  Reliable Source gouv.mc - Article about his government appointment.  Reliable Source.  monacolife.net - Good coverage.  Reliable Source.  Rustypenguin ( talk ) 20:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We have a specific guideline on notability of politicians ( WP:NPOL ) and he doesn't meet that criteria.  He is a government official, not a member of the legislature .  For sources to contribute towards notability, they need to be independent of the source.  The Harvard article is for alumni to promote themselves; the gouv.mc article is from his employer; the monacolife.net article is attributed at the bottom to ""Monaco Life with press release"" - press releases are not independent.  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 13:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not a cabinet minister, so no WP:NPOL passage.  I'm not seeing WP:GNG in the sources in the article nor what I found in a search.  The sources provided above are not convincing either; for example, the participant above claims that this source provides WP:SIGCOV of the subject, but it simply does not.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He has a lot of coverage.   Meets WP:BASIC .   He has coverage on Le Figaro and Le Monde which are 2 of the largest French publications.  Additionally, he is also here and here .   Per WP:BASIC, even if a subject does not have significant coverage in one publication, multiple publications can be combined to show notability.  Maxcreator ( talk ) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maxcreator : as three of the four sources you've introduced are subscriber-only, can you clarify whether any of them - and if so which - are about Genta, rather than articles about the digitalisation of Monaco that mention him or quote him?  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 09:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While Mr. Genta might not qualify under  ( WP:NPOL ) criteria he definetely qualifies under ( WP:BASIC ) There are multiple independent sources available, and some of them listed in the article, as well as additional not listed.  I quickly checked those sources and they are reliable (leading french-speaking media organizations), independent of each other since they are competitors , and independent of Mr Genta.  This should be enough to fulfill the basic criteria.  A quick google search retrieved articles about the work done by his office as well, including some from the Monaco government, as some recent interviews at BFM Business [19] , a national TV focus on business in France and an interview at France Info [20] .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamalejo ( talk • contribs ) 18:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NPOL , and I don't see a single source that's not either press release churnalism or an interview.  The Le Figaro article, for instance, isn't coverage of him - it's just a quote, and I don't really believe WP:BASIC applies to articles where people just get quotes - it's a very flimsy argument for keeping an article because it necessarily assumes WP:GNG isn't met.  This is very promotional, the sources are only really on him when it's a press release, and reads sort of like a CV, which is a huge red flag for me for a BLP.  SportingFlyer T · C 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What is the specific element in this article that makes it ""promotional""?   The person in question leads an office within the Monaco government that is at the cabinet level and coordinates across ministries within the [Council of Government|Council_of_Government] as such, it is a notable position.  Mr Genta role seems similar to the USA CIO currently filled by Clare_Martorana , her article is similar in simplicity and the references included are mainly related to her appointment.  Also, very similar in content and references, the previous USA CIO Suzette_Kent .  These examples are appointed, inter-secretary cabinet positions that are considered notable.  I don't see why the decision should be different in this case.  Chamalejo ( talk ) 05:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure either of those people are notable either, but the career section is written sort of like an extended CV.  SportingFlyer T · C 06:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - subject is a government official with enough reliable coverage such as 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 .  Bradelykooper ( talk ) 09:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Interviews don't count towards notability, and the other coverage is just reporting on him getting a role (like a press release) or just quotes him (not SIGCOV).  I stand by my delete after that source review.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1- None of these are press releases.  I do not see that any say press release on it or that an identical press release exists that it was copied from.  They are news stories.  2- None are 100% interviews.One is partially interview and partially original commentary.  2 have a few quotations and the other 3 have no quotations at all.  Bradelykooper ( talk ) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [21] is routine business news that would have been generated from something like a press release.  Others are articles where a newspaper calls him up and gets a quote on a topic from him, which is not significant coverage - you don't get a Wikipedia article because newspapers call you for quotations.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most news originates from press releases.  However, when media outlets do not publish these releases verbatim and instead report on them, the content is transformed into a news article.  This is a common practice for initiating news; companies announce new products, mergers, and other significant developments, prompting publications to write about these topics.  As long as the press release is not published in its entirety as originally provided, it is considered a news article, not a press release.  I do not know why you are trying so hard to discredit a notable government appointed official.  I also note that another voter has brought up WP:BASIC , which states: ""If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;"" Bradelykooper ( talk ) 18:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bradelykooper : We are not discrediting the individual.  What we are doing here is assessing the extent to which the subject meets the criteria that the Wikipedia community has come up with over years of refinement to determine whether or not there should be an entry about him in an encyclopedia.  I think you may have overlooked the part of WP:BASIC that says that to count towards notability, the sources need to be WP:SECONDARY , meaning providing thought and reflection - analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources - rather than just regurgitating a news release or quoting what Genta says.  Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 20:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 22:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vaisravanath Raman Namboothiri: Orphaned for a decade.  Pepper Beast (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Hinduism ,  and Kerala .  Pepper Beast (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 15:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lapor Polisi: Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Lots of promo, database listings.  Bringing it to AfD instead of CSD or PROD because of contested deletions in this area.  // Timothy :: talk 12:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 14:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria for an encyclopedia.  (Note-- I have the creator's talk page watch listed from UTRS encounter.) --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 17:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zsófia von Habsburg: WP:NOTINHERITED , WP:BLPFAMILY - relationships do not confer notability.  D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 13:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Textbook example of complete lack of real notability.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility , Austria ,  and Hungary .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It would be good if someone mentioned why the article's ten sources aren't sufficient to establish notability.  I can see that at least one of them is a blog and this likely unsuitable, but just stating ""Not notable"" isn't helpful.  Cortador ( talk ) 20:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not helpful for you to simply state ""they are notable"".  There's more to notability than to be mentioned in a news article you know.  I believe they don't pass WP:GNG , it should be easy for you to demonstrate they do if they do.  First source is femcafe.hu https://www.femcafe.hu/cikkek/sztarok/iv-karoly-utolso-magyar-kiraly-dedunokaja-habsburg-zsofia-hercegno-22-eves-fotok It's not significant coverage, practically a genealogical entry rather than an article.  https://index.hu/fomo/2022/08/10/habsburg-zsofia-ildiko-interju-soskut// Mostly a puff piece and nothing really to establish notability independent of their grandfather, Sources for her as an equestrian https://www.fei.org/athlete/10087039/HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN-Zsofia https://livejumping.com/ap/event/275/rider/13641 Her performance in equestrian is not of any huge encyclopedic significance.  https://nlc.hu/szabadido/20220717/habsburg-zsofia-es-ildiko/ An interview with them mostly as Otto's grandchildren than as noteworthy people independent of their family ties.  Oh they even say in the article ""We are a completely average family"".  https://monarchy.blog.hu/2022/11/28/bal_magyar_hercegnovel Monarchy blog post about some fancy dress ball.  Attendance at a ball is hardly grounds for notability.  https://www.journaldesfemmes.fr/people/actus/2868135-bal-des-debutantes-2022-photos-soiree/2868153-l-archiduchesse-sophia-de-habsbourg-lorraine-et-le-prince-leopold-de-baden A photo from the ball not significant coverage.  https://histoiresroyales.fr/archiduchesse-sophia-de-habsbourg-cavalier-prince-leopold-de-bade-bal-des-debutantes-2022/ Another monarchy fansite post about attendance at a ball.  https://index.hu/fomo/2022/12/07/parizs-debutansbal-habsburg-zsofia-hercegno-arisztokracia/ A third article about the ball.  D1551D3N7 ( talk ) 21:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You will be pleased to hear that I didn't declare this person notable.  That's just something you made up.  Cortador ( talk ) 20:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not notable enough.  No WP:SIGCOV to prove the subject’s own notability.  Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 07:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and the two related nominations.   None of the sources demonstrate notability; this is a rich (but unremarkable) 20-year-old whose hobbies include horse-riding and attending parties.   There is nothing else here.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"David Concar: Sources are purely mentions of his appointments.  Fails WP:NBIO .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bilateral relations , Tanzania ,  and United Kingdom .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable, not seeing significant coverage to meet WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 06:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"MiniMax (company): Fails to meet notability with significant coverage about the company.  Whpq ( talk ) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Routine funding coverage, isn't terribly useful.  Company is still new, might not have enough coverage yet in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All I can find are the funding items from Reuters and the ""China Money Network"" , which doesn't feel RS-ish.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree that these are routine coverage, and a couple also sound like a press release.  Maybe consider to DRAFT the page and wait for more coverage.  Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This was in DRAFT but the author decided to move it to article space without using AFC.  -- Whpq ( talk ) 20:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutrality : It seems that the quotation is not enough, and more information and reports need to be collected ~ Thank you for pointing out the problem ~ Carleyeta ( talk ) 14:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify – Somewhat routine coverage, this feels a bit like WP:TOOSOON .  TLA (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Darren Clarke (snooker player): My WP:BEFORE search of web and newspapers.com sources found lots of passing mentions of results and of a disciplinary incident in 1999, but nothing that I considered really contributed to notability.  BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 12:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cue sports ,  and England .  BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 12:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete no suggestion of meeting GNG.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 14:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as stated above Montgomery15 ( talk ) 19:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not seem to have had a career or the level of coverage that would meet notability requirements.  Dunarc ( talk ) 23:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bill Smyth (broadcaster): There's a picture of Bill Smyth from the Belfast Telegraph about the 40th anniversary but most other mentions are from self-published sites, i.e. forums, and don't back up these claims.  Kazamzam ( talk ) 17:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Northern Ireland .  Kazamzam ( talk ) 17:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  I searched and was unable to find any meaningful secondary coverage focused on the article subject.  Left guide ( talk ) 21:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: there does not appear to be anything much available to justify this article.  ww2censor ( talk ) 14:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sukaina Khan: No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc.  Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability.  Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles.  As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lead roles/Main cast in Tevar , Fasiq , Teri Berukhi , Fitna , to name just a few.  merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable .  But nobody said that!  SIGNIFICANT roles (lead or not, but in the present case, various lead roles).  No further comment.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history.  I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She is notable actress and she started working as child actress in supporting roles.  Now she does lead roles as well and she does modeling as well recently she is working drama Sultanat on Hum TV. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 06:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) ) [1] [ reply ] References ^ ""Suqaynah Khan making waves"" .  Magazine - The Weekly .  I acknowledge that she is an actress and has appeared in TV dramas, which naturally garners some media coverage.  However, this interview alone ( a primary source) is definitely not  sufficient to establish that she had significant roles.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep as per My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) .  182.182.97.3 ( talk ) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is akin to WP:PERX — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IP blocked.  --— Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing from neutral, independent, reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Found promo material, interviews, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Given the complete lack of discussion since the 2nd relisting, this is less like a 3rd relisting (which, of course, it technically is) and more an extension of the 2nd listing.  It would be good to have some other views because some of what has gone on so far seems a bit disruptive (not pointing fingers).  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I will stipulate the subject exists, but I can't find sufficient sourcing to meet GNG, ANYBIO, or NACTOR.  Keep assertions acquire the BURDEN of presenting RS (or at least proof of RS existing).  Nothing applied or presented here puts us past this bar.  BusterD ( talk ) 21:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep - The nominator mentioned in here that seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few.  Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS .  She is winner of one of the shows mentioned by the nominator, ""Desi Kuriyan"".  So rationale provided as "" No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc "" in this WP:AfD doesn't makes sense when nominator accepted that show she won have received coverage from RS in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination) .  182.182.63.7 ( talk ) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 182.182.63.7 , OK but you still need to backup your claims with evidence from RS.  First, prove that she won the show.  Second, demonstrate that the show itself received sig/ in-depth coverage.  Cheers!  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mondera Chakroborty: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are Independent of the subject.  Most of sources are either passing mentions or primary (e.g. interview).  Acted in two films but not yet released.  Fails every criteria of WP:GNG , WP:NACTOR .  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 22:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Dance ,  and Bangladesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of passing WP:NACTOR .  REDISCOVERBHARAT ( talk ) 14:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Chamod Dilshan: This footballer played some international games but I cannot find any significant coverage of his life or career.  March OfThe Greyhounds 19:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Football , Asia ,  and Sri Lanka .  March OfThe Greyhounds 19:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV .   A Google search only has WP:ROUTINE player profiles and unrelated info about other men with the same name.   Willing to reconsider if significant coverage is found, so please ping me.  Frank Anchor 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 07:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV , but I sincerely believe that senior national team caps should count toward notability.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 04:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Africa Education and Leadership Initiative: No coverage to meet WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Africa , Sudan ,  and Tennessee .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I'm a novice in this area, but I believe that source 2 may now be found at https://sudantribune.com/article39608/ .  Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk ) 01:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  That source doesn't even mention this organization.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable.  I found a Guardian article that give them some coverage.  Their Guidestar profile indicates this is a very small organization: $130,544 in 2014 contributions.  I added archive.org links for the article's 3 refs; they talk about the problem of female educational equality in South Sudan.  Here's the link to the organization itself .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  Greenman ( talk ) 07:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Positive Innovation for the Next Generation: No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:PROMO and WP:ORG with all of the sources failing WP:SIGCOV .  Couldn't find any suitable sources online.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Botswana-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Loved One (album): Two other albums can be considered together with this one: All in the Silence and Kentoverse Imaginatorium ( talk ) 14:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music ,  and Japan .  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 14:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further background from proposer: The artist's page was recently deleted - see deletion discussion .  As in the artist's page, this album has obvious promotional style, and almost all content has been added by the same editors.  For example, the most recent addition is a ""prize"" on ""Song of the year"", discussed here: forum , which strongly suggests this is merely a paid-for award, but it is actually only listed as ""Category Finalists"", not prizewinner.  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 14:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And pinging editors contributing to the artist's deletion discussion: @ Michitaro , Nuraa.sinora , Loriendrew , Kaori Muraji , Tal Essen ,  and Eduardo Augusto : .  Imaginatorium ( talk ) 06:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment To add other articles, you need to tag them with an AFD tag too.  Geschichte ( talk ) 15:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTADVERT .  The article is full of blatant exaggerations.  It has not won the International Songwriting Competition (honorable mention) nor the Song of the Year award (finalist).  Only linked sources are paid sources or primary sources.  I couldn't find other sources to show the notability of the album.  -- Broc ( talk ) 17:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . It's clear, here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kento Masuda and Japanese AFD ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/増田顕人_20220315 , that all claims of importance have not stood up to scrutiny and searches find no independent reliable sources for anything related. Adumbrativus ( talk ) 10:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – non–notable album (does not meet WP:NALBUM ) with highly dubious or blatant false claims, of an artist whose article was deleted via AFD.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏ (ring-ring) 14:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the exact same reasons as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentoverse .  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Not notable album produced by not notable artist.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 22:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not meet the standards of WP:NALBUM , especially now that the artist has been deemed non-notable.  Michitaro ( talk ) 04:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nintendo Switch 2(Focus): I'm not sure what the ""Focus"" is, but ""Nintendo Switch 2(Focus)"" is missing a space.  This is not a casual type-o someone would make.  Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify .  It's indeed too soon, and right now, the ""Successor console"" section of the Nintendo Switch article is sufficient.  Cortador ( talk ) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's already a draft, in better shape, at Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console .  Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per WP:CRYSTALBALL , it's not even enough for a viable article right now and the name is not believable as a redirect.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per CRYSTAL and TOOSOON.  Probably SNOW too, since this has already been discussed before.  It's not even announced yet.  Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per WP:CRYSTALBALL .  All we have is a supposed ""leak"" right now.  Leaks are not reliable in the slightest.  Suggest a WP:SNOW close.  ― Blaze Wolf Talk blaze__wolf 17:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Pure speculation, no need to move to drafts since we have Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console .  WindTempos ( talk • contribs ) 10:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete yeah DELET IT QuantumFoam66 ( talk ) 19:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Can we WP:SNOW close this?  It pains to have this false info published in the mainspace, but there's so little there that it's impossible to clean up.  Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No reason to keep this article, the draft mentioned above by Sergecross73 is way better; in my opinion, WP:FUTURE and WP:SNOW can close this really fast.  MK at your service.  12:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Luke Watson (distance runner): No major achievements or medals won.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 20:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , United States of America ,  and Minnesota .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 20:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  Kablammo ( talk ) 12:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rashid Ali Ghazipuri: Looks like a promotional page.  I didn't find anything when I did WP:BEFORE .  Gazal world ( talk ) 20:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Poetry , India ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not notable, was unable to find anything WP:BEFORE .  Reads like a resume/promo page.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:GNG , not notable enough for an article.  -- Wesoree ( t · c ) 14:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have removed most of the sources from the article as being unreliable, non-independent and/or not mentioning the subject.  I have serious doubts about the reliability and independence of the one remaining source, and can find no others.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 11:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , sounds it could be promotional.  No notability.  Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jada Newton: I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , Caribbean ,  and Virginia .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 21:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Excluding non-independent coverage from her college and conference, there is no significant coverage available per my BEFORE search.  Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 14:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.   Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG .  Frank Anchor 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Indian Film Festival Japan : Fails WP:GNG .  TLA (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Events , Japan ,  and India .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No significant notability and no sources.  Article has no net-benefical contribution.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rusdiansyah : Does not pass the current incarnation of WP:NSPORT .  I have found a couple mentions of his coaching ( [8] [9] ), but searching his name brings up only mentions and blog posts.  Mbdfar ( talk ) 20:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Indonesia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Places in Virginia with names involving ""Dale"" : Fails WP:NLIST by a wide, wide margin.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dalete This is one of the most pointless articles I've ever seen, and the best example of WP:NOT I'll have for a long time.  Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Can anyone say WP:INDISCRIMINATE ?  -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 07:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 09:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for so many reason, including WP:NLIST as nom says.  WikiVirus C (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete although kudos for ""Dale as part of another word"".  Not even seeing the need for this list.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete But with my compliments for being one of the funnier list concepts out there.  Can we SNOW close this one? -- Licks-rocks ( talk ) 15:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Virginia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is actually not quite as silly and random a concept for a list as it may seem at first glance.  The idea seems to be that while there is no place called ""Dale, Virginia"", there are places in Virginia that may occasionally be incorrectly called ""Dale"" (e.g. Dale City, Virginia ) as well as a person called Virginia Dale .  There is a ""disambiguation page"" ( scare quotes very much intentional) at Dale, Virginia .  The page histories are kind of a mess—this page was initially at the title Dale, Virginia before being moved to the current title, which turned Dale, Virginia into a redirect.  Then that redirect was turned into the current ""disambiguation page"" and here we are.  There also used to be an article called Places in West Virginia with names involving ""Dale"" before it was deleted back in 2013 (see WP:Articles for deletion/Places in West Virginia with names involving ""Dale"" ).  At any rate, this list was intended as a navigational/disambiguation one and doesn't do that properly (for reasons that are amply discussed at Talk:Dale, Virginia ) so it has no valid raison d'être .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  Pranesh Ravikumar ( talk ) 10:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This list masquerading as an article is a clear-cut case of WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Phoenix Pick : User:Shahidm, the founder of this company, created this.  US-Verified ( talk ) 23:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maryland .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete sources available are not compelling.  Graywalls ( talk ) 04:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I see two sources that are directly connected to the company and the third is a press release so none of them can be used.  The founder wrote this so we have WP:COI .  - Imcdc Contact 14:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mark Komade : Database sources confirm that he played at semi-pro level in Germany but little else is known about him.  Best sources I can find are Ghanaweb , a trivial mention, Modern Ghana , a brief quote from him with no independent analysis, and Eurosport , which is just a database listing that wrongly lists him as Dutch.  No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Ghana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 03:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jo Lamble : Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR .  Coverage is mainly of her commenting as a psychologist in the media.  Rather than WP:SIGCOV of her as the subject.  LibStar ( talk ) 03:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  Grahame ( talk ) 07:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Subject also seems to run a question and answer column in Australian newspapers ""Clinical psychologist Jo Lamble answers your questions"".  Not finding any actual coverage right now, but there's a lot to wade through.  — siro χ o 05:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - being quoted in the media as a subject matter expert is not the same as coverage about the individual that would indicate notability.  Not seeing any evidence online that she meets WP:GNG or any other relevant guideline (such as WP:NACADEMIC ).  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 18:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Aaron Shanley : Does not seem to be notable.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 01:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom .  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 01:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD , ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  We really need reliable sources for BLPs.  Bearian ( talk ) 01:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of UEFA Super Cup broadcasters : The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability.  Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists ,  and Europe .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"The Musical: Welcome to the Night of Your Life : They didn't seem to understand what my point was or that the articles they create should meet WP:NALBUMS .  While the group who made it is barely notable in English-speaking markets (most of their coverage, last I looked several years back when multiple editors including myself redirected most of their single articles, appears to be from Brazilian pop music blogs), I can find no worthwhile coverage of this album.  Its two sources at present are Apple Music and some sort of NFT/blockchain community the album was originally released on.  Plainly not notable.  Ss 112 14:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore the redirect .  I found this article which explains the NFT connection, but that's all, and that article looks like an opinion piece with an explicit conflict of interest disclosure so I wouldn't necessarily call it definitely reliable.  And if that's all the coverage this has gotten then it's easily non-notable.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 17:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt : Author can continue improving an earlier attempt to create the article which was draftified last month: Draft:The Musical: Welcome to the Night of Your Life .  Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NALBUM, no sources in the article or BEFORE meet IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Title is not a good redirect.  // Timothy :: talk 21:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Veronika Podgoršek : Seems to just run her own practice and do self-promotional things.  Mason ( talk ) 02:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women ,  and Slovenia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No notability apparent anywhere.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 05:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete Definitely not under WP:PROF -- has some assertion of notability under GNG and WP:NBASIC but the sources are extremely weak (this was the only one that was actually about her and it is not in depth [49] ).   I have next-to-no linguistic ability to help with this and happy to be persuaded otherwise, but on the face of it, seems to be a too-soon, not enough.   -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Non-English sources indicate WP:GNG . -- A09 ( talk ) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you describe the sources for those who are English speakers?  That would be helpful, as my google translating is definitely not capturing anything remotely related to nuance.  Mason ( talk ) 16:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Please specify sources that establish GNG since other editors disagree with the assessment of Keep.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since the good non-English sources mentioned were never shown.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"NextView Ventures : Most of them are essentially namechecks in terms of depth of coverage.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies ,  and Massachusetts .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , California ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : references 1 (WSJ) and 25 (Boston Globe) are reliable and non-trivial, so WP:SIGCOV is met.   This makes two independent, reliable, secondary sources.   However, most of those pieces are fluff so I wouldn't be devastated by a delete.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy link to WSJ article via The Wikipedia Library/ProQuest: https://www-proquest-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/2072224429 .  I'd agree on the fluff and agree to disagree on IND for this one and DEPTH on the other, but will reserve soliciting comments from RSN.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 02:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have to agree with Alpha3031 here.  Wcquidditch WeirdNAnnoyed says the articles are ""reliable and non-trivial"" so SIGCOV is met and then goes on to say that the articles are ""independent"".  Perhaps Wcquidditch WeirdNAnnoyed is only considering the ""functional independence"" aspect of WP:ORGIND because both articles fail the ""intellectual independence"" aspect.  The WSJ article is a fluff piece where the author goes to their offices, interviews the founders and partners, regurgitates company ""mission"", methodology and other information (as told by the company exec) and has no ""Independent Content"".  Similarly, the Boston Globe article is another puff profile which also relies entirely on information provided by the company and an interview with one of the founders.  No ""Independent Content"".  Both articles fail ORGIND.  HighKing ++ 12:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HighKing .  You mean User:WeirdNAnnoyed, not Wcquidditch!  Rupples ( talk ) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Needs more to pass WP:NCORP , specifically with regard to WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH .  I'll accept the WSJ article as counting towards NCORP notability requirements (thanks User talk:Alpha3031 for the link), though quite a bit is interview quotes with the company founders.  Disgree that the Boston Globe (Boston.com) amounts to SIGCOV as little is independent coverage of NextView — that article discusses seed investing in general and another Boston company.  The rest of the sources appear to be based on funding and investment announcements put out by the company with little independent editorial comment.  Rupples ( talk ) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed.  Meets WP:GNG per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  In-depth coverage in Tech Crunch : Loizos, Connie (December 15, 2016).  ""NextView Ventures is looking to raise at least $50 million for a third fund"" .  Loizos, Connie (August 2, 2017).  ""NextView Ventures just sealed up its third fund with $50 million"" .  Mascarenhas, Natasha (November 13, 2020).  ""NextView Ventures closes its fourth fund with $89 million"" .  Mascarenhas, Natasha (April 20, 2020).  ""NextView Ventures is launching a remote accelerator for startups"" .  Mascarenhas, Natasha (October 11, 2022).  ""NextView Ventures' new $200 million fund comes with a slice of San Francisco"" .  In-depth coverage in Wall Street Journal : Bullish On Boston, NextView Ventures Closes $21M Debut Fund NextView Captures $40M for Second Fund VC in 2015: Rob Go of NextView Ventures NextView Looks to Be Entrepreneurs' First Call for Seed In-depth coverage in Business Insider : Shontell, Alyson.  ""Boston-Based VC Firm NextView Ventures Raises New $21 Million Fund"" .  Business Insider .  ""NextView Ventures' Rob Go Tells The Gadgets"" .  In-depth coverage in Fortune : ""Exclusive: NextView Ventures raises first fund"" .  Fortune .  In-depth coverage in Boston Business Journal : ""NextView Ventures Closes Inaugural $21 Million Fund Days After its First Exit"" .  ""NextView Ventures raises $8M of $25M first fund"" .  ""Beisel, Go and Hower's Nextview makes early VC mark"" .  ""NextView Ventures closes on 1st micro-VC fund"" .  ""Boston seed investor NextView closes fourth fund at $100M"" .  ""Boston seed investor NextView closes fourth fund at $100M"" .  In-depth coverage in VentureBeat : ""NextView Ventures raises $40M fund after exits to Twitter, Yahoo, & Groupon"" .  July 17, 2014.  In-depth coverage in Boston Globe : ""New seed stage investors are finding fertile ground in Internet start-ups - The Boston Globe"" .  January 24, 2012.  Archived from the original on January 24, 2012 .  Retrieved October 21, 2023 .  In-depth coverage in Axios : ""Boston's NextView Ventures raises third seed fund"" .  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NextView Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Klasmer ( talk ) 22:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment GNG/NCORP provides better examples on which to consider sources including ones with non-Independent Content such as regurgitated PR and Announcements and ""interviews"" which make up the references provided by Klasmer above.  HighKing ++ 10:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: An additional assessment of sources brought up in this discussion would be very helpful.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I'm being shut out of a number of the new sources put up by User:Klasmer above so I'm withdrawing my ! delete vote as there may or may not be sufficient coverage to satisfy NCORP within those I can't access.  I note however, that Klasmer has only stated the sources fulfil the GNG and has made no mention of NCORP's criteria.  Rupples ( talk ) 02:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm.  The latter two WSJ articles seem to be from Dow Jones Institutional News again, thus available from ProQuest 2063287815 for ""VC in 2015"" and 2072224429 for ""First Call"".  The other two are not on ProQuest or EBSCO, nor Gale that I could tell, but ""Bullish On Boston"" seems to be available as a Google AMP according to archive.is .  Not sure about the second one, ""NextView Captures $40M"" though.  Klasmer , was there anything specific in there beyond the funding announcement?  Also, I was assuming, but was there anything other than the WSJ articles that you couldn't access, Rupples ?  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  The sources listed above are regurgitated PR and Announcements of funding, or relies on information/quotes provided by the company/execs.  None of the sources listed above contain ""Independent Content"" as per WP:ORGIND requirement and none contains in-depth information *about the company* as per CORPDEPTH.  All it shows is that the company has a functioning marketing dept. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 17:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on the souces put up by Klasmer.  TechCrunch - first two written by editor-in-chief, Connie Loizos, based on a SEC filing and company blog are independently written.  The other three by Natasha M. are based on partners' statements with little independent editorial.  Together, could be argued there's sufficient to count towards notability, but marginal.   @ Alpha3031 The WSJ.  Lizette Chapman, I'm getting a single sentence on NextView, Russ Garland 3 sentences, but I'm unsure whether I'm seeing the full articles and perhaps there's more behind the log-in.  The VC in 2015: Rob Go of NextView Ventures on Managing Exuberance article isn't about the company.  The NextView Looks .  . .  I'm accepting as counting towards notability.  Business Insider & Fortune, no in-depth coverage of the company.  Boston Business Journal  (i) regurgitation of the Fortune article  (ii) not in-depth  (iii) about Thred-up, an investment, not NextV.  (iv) based entirely on partners' quotes,  (v) &  (vi) same article, unable to access .  Venture Beat, not in-depth coverage.  Boston Globe, not in-depth, largely about seed investing in general.  Axiom, a single sentence & partner's quote, not in-depth.  Rupples ( talk ) 19:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey — got around the Boston Business Journal block for no.  (v).  There's a bit of editorial but hardly in-depth.  WSJ  (i) same.  That leaves just the WSJ  (ii).  Unless proved differently, going to assume it's similar depth of coverage to WSJ  (i).  Applying NCORP guidelines ORGDEPTH and ORGIND to what's sufficient, indepth, independent coverage in reliable sources I still don't see enough here so reinstating delete .  Rupples ( talk ) 23:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NCORP.  The sources in the article fails and those listed above are mentions and routine business news, I don't see anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NCORP specifically WP:SERIESA and WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND .  Raising all the money in the world does not equate to impact until it's actually invested somewhere and has generated interesting enough results that journalists will write about the outcomes and specifically how the venture fund had a role beyond being a passive investor.  lizthegrey ( talk ) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Alina Maria de Roumanie : Achievements: organizing events, getting married, having two children, attending a baptism, two funerals and a wine festival.  Biruitorul Talk 05:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Royalty and nobility ,  and Romania .  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : she does WP:NOTINHERIT her husband's notability, and does not meet WP:GNG in her own right.  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with redirect to Nicholas Medforth-Mills where further details can be added. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Public relations specialist isn't notable alone and being descended from famous people isn't helping notability.  There is some coverage in RS, about having a baby for example, but it's more for the celebrity gossip crowd, not really helping notability here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One small point, if I may: the subject herself isn’t descended from famous people; her husband is.  Biruitorul Talk 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, that's even less notable then.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:NOTINHERIT , Tried find source on Google but nothing tangible Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 14:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Non State Actors Panel of Barbados : My own search was unable to find any significant coverage that would establish notability .  Whpq ( talk ) 02:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Barbados .  Whpq ( talk ) 02:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only primary sourced, no evidence of notability.  * Pppery * it has begun... 02:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note prior AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non State Actors (NSA) Panel of Barbados (closed as no consensus due to zero participation).  * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete was unable to find anything that wasn't just a post on social media or a primary source.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Khan Shein Kunwar : Clearly does not meet notability guidelines; the only source is a dead link.  — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs ) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India .  — Ingenuity ( talk • contribs ) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] added the reliable source about the author.  https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/detail/faaslon-ka-safar-khan-sheen-kunwar-ebooks/ Nurain 2007 ( talk ) 04:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Uttar Pradesh ,  and West Bengal .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] added the reliable source about the author.  https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/detail/faaslon-ka-safar-khan-sheen-kunwar-ebooks/ Nurain 2007 ( talk ) 04:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not meeting notability for authors; the one source used in the article isn't helpful.  I can't find any sort of discussion in a RS.  This was deleted on the 8th of May.  I'd likely SALT as well.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If I had to remove all the unsourced content on the page, only the title would be left on the page.  Fails WP:GNG , WP:BIO , WP:SIGCOV .  RangersRus ( talk ) 12:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do not Delete .  I have added the reliable source ( https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/detail/faaslon-ka-safar-khan-sheen-kunwar-ebooks/ ) of the content present in the page and about the author.  Also adding the other details based on the guideline.  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.",delete
"Loveland River House incident : No lasting coverage, no real major effects.  Lettlre ( talk ) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events ,  and Colorado .  Lettlre ( talk ) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Reads more like a play-by-play than a wikipedia article.  Sad event, but I don't see any coverage of the event even 10 yrs after, let alone nothing today.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is actually covered for a few pages in this random late 90s book on religious conversion, of all things, however it isn't a reliable source.  Mentioned for a few sentences (not sigcov) in a 2014 article by the Fort Collins Coloradoan .  Other than that, nothing, so delete PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dillanos Coffee Roasters : Sources are promotional interviews, press releases, and a non-notable award.  💥 Casualty • Hop along.  • 20:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Washington .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete 3 sources are X, 2 are interviews.  Not enough coverage.  Yolandagonzales ( talk ) 20:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Outside the references present in the article, via my cursory searches, the subject doesn't appear to have adequate independent sig coverage.  X ( talk ) 08:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Nom and user ""X"".  There are around 33.3 million ""small"" businesses in the United States .  Wikipedia does not need to have an article on them all (or any) because the company (owners are or other ""connected"" individuals) desires one.  ""Interviews"" (agree with ""promotional"" per Nom), press releases, interviews (per Yolandagonzales ) and other primary sources do not advance notability .  I could not find multiple independent , significant coverage , per policies and guidelines on sourcing to agree with a stand alone article .  -- Otr500 ( talk ) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Naing Lin Tun : The MNL is not independent and is only a passing mention and Tribun News is just an image caption from an under-19 fixture.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Myanmar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  per nom.  Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Infant Jesus School, Thiruvambady : I couldn't find any reliable sources for the article.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , India ,  and Kerala .  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"C.D. Girls Inter College : Only primary sources provided, no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and India .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/C.D.Girls_Inter_College .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There are no sources cited on the page, which in and of itself would yield a delete vote.  When considering the prior AfD from 2016, that was before the 2017 RfC where WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES switched from assuming notability for post-secondary education to assuming not notability.  If sources showing notability are found, I would be happy to change my vote.  Editchecker123 ( talk ) 02:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the small amount of referenced content to Rura#Education , where there seems to be plenty of room.  Agree that there is nothing here to support a full article; disagree that this content is so unencyclopedic that it should be cast out entirely.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to suggest Merge option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - there is not really much to merge.  I guess maybe the pictures?  - Indefensible ( talk ) 15:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I hate to leave even a sentence of referenced encyclopedic information behind, but I would have no substantial objection to a redirect-without-merging.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dolphitech AS : WP:BEFORE turns up only a few press release style articles, can't find any significant, independent coverage.  Most sources in article are directory-style routine coverage or press releases.  Article is somewhat promotional, as well.  Bestagon ⬡ 13:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and Norway .  Bestagon ⬡ 13:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking the time to review my article.  I noted your kind feedback and have already added a number of book citations in order to present a wider selection or sources.  I tried my best to limit any type of 'promotional' style, but would warmly welcome your guidance or direct edits to improve or remove any inappropriate content.  Szchanghong ( talk ) 14:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The book source that you added appears to be an academic article that was written by a Dolpitech staff member, but doesn't directly discuss the company.  I also removed an internal sharepoint link that wasn't accessible to the public from the article.  I'd encourage you to review this for the kind of coverage that I would like to see for a corporation.  Bestagon ⬡ 14:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks again!  I will work harder to identify significant, reliable and secondary sources.  The link you provided is very clear.  Szchanghong ( talk ) 14:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if the article is kept, it should be moved to Dolphitech per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCORP .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you!  In the hopes that the edits are accepted, I have moved the current content over to the page Dolphitech .  Please advise if there is anything else I can / need to do to keep things in line, and thank you for the kind guidance once again!  Szchanghong ( talk ) 14:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I think I messed it up - please kindly assist in the speedy deletion of the page I created and I can use the proper MOVE option 9which I am now researching) with my apologies.  Szchanghong ( talk ) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not move articles that are in the process of an AFD discussion.  It messes up the tool that closes the discussion.  L iz Read!  Talk!  15:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm so sorry - thank you for checking on my work!  Szchanghong ( talk ) 16:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - References must meet the standard of WP:ORGCRIT .  Outside of some industry publications, there is nothing that meets that standard.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 23:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep vote in here.  A lot of editing has occurred since its nomination and I want to be sure the changes have been assessed.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Thanks, Liz.  I took a look at the edits made since the AfD started and still do not see anything that would qualify under WP:ORGCRIT .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this is the sort of subject that Wikipedia should have more coverage on, although the article probably needs some clean up.  Nothing exemplary but has coverage such as this article https://ffi-publikasjoner.archive.knowledgearc.net//handle/20.500.12242/1162 on the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment website and mentions in a number of scientific reports.  They appear to be doing interesting work in the field of nondestructive testing .  Yes, rather niche and uninteresting to most people, but important nonetheless.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That reference does not meet WP:ORGCRIT .  Can you point out the ones that do?  There is not guideline to keep a page just because ""Wikipedia should have more coverage of it.""  In order for that to happen, we need to have the sources that meet guidelines. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  We need more opinions and assessments here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : , Based on the request for more opinions and assessments, here is a more in-depth references assessment.  As Dolphitech AS is a company, we must show it meets WP:NCORP by way of WP:ORGCRIT .  The assessment is based on the guidelines under WP:SIRS .  Most of this is churnalism based on press releases or company supplied information.  1. Business Weekly , routine announcement with information being supplied by the company.  It is an announcement of it opening a new location.  The wording is even promotional, which indicates churnalism of a press release – “Established in 2009 in Gjøvik, Norway, Dolphitech was formed from a desire to push the limits of non-destructive testing. Driven by a multi skilled R & D team of experts from academia and industry, the company is constantly exploring the capability and application of cutting-edge ultrasonics, bringing proven solutions to market that are easy to deploy and simple to operate.” – Also, this is churnalism (see assessment of reference #9 below).  2. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing via ScienceDirect , an academic paper which has a single mention of one of the company’s products.  Nothing about the company itself so not significant coverage.  3. Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt , another academic paper.  This one talks about comparison of two of the company’s DolphiCam and that they come from the company.  Nothing in-depth about the company itself.  4. Windpower Engineering & Development , Churnalism.  This is from a press release which can found (in whole, or “churnalized”) here and here  .  5. Composites , more churnalism and not independent.  In addition to being a routine announcement, the author of this piece is employed by the company which shows it was likely a press release or that they supplied all of the information for the publication.  6. Manualslib , this is a user manual for one of its products.  I do not see how this could be used for notability.  7. Unable to access.  This is a sharepoint document titled “THOR Release Notes” which indicates it is not independent.  8. Reinforced Plastics via ScienceDirect , another academic paper.  This one states at the top “Jan Olav Endrerud of DolphiTech describes the development of such as system.”  Not independent and the article itself is about its DolphiCam and not the company.  9. BINDT , more churnalism or a routine announcement for the company opening a location in the UK.  Note that this is the exact same information as reference #1 above.  10. The Epi Centre , same churnalism as #1 and #9.  Same information about a routine announcement, same date range, and information likely supplied as a press release or solely from the company.  11. Unternehmensregister , I will concede that I have no idea what this site is or what it is representing for the article.  However, there is no content and not in English so I cannot navigate.  On its face, I see nothing about the company.  12. CR.gov , a PDF with a listing of a bunch of companies, simply verifying the existence of this company.  Nothing in-depth.  13. Dolphitech , this is the company’s “contact” page of its website.  Not independent.  14. Book , a book excerpt which on its face appears to be significant.  However, it does not talk about the company, just the project.  In addition, the authors of the except have email address listed which are to the company (not independent and not significant about the company).  15. Book , another book but this is NOT about the company.  I cannot even find where it talks about the product.  16. Indian Defence Review , More churnalism and routine announcement.  Reads like a press release and is even marked being writing by “IDR News Network.”  For those who believe that the article on the company should be kept because of the product, that should never be the case.  Notability is not inherent.  If a product is notable, it should stand on its own.  Same for the company.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ajay Raju : Doesn't seem to be known for holding any academic or law journal positions, involvement in notable cases, etc.  Reliable sources are mainly smaller local outlets (in the Philadelphia area).  Bridget (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law ,  and Pennsylvania .  Bridget (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Lawyer that has his own law firm isn't notable.  Being a ""boutique"" firm is fancy wording for specialist law firm, nothing notable.  The reads as a biographical profile suited for somewhere else, not for wikipedia.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article that reads more of family and a simple biography (blog).  Lacks context which doesn't show importance per subject notability guidelines.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  01:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete promotional article which does not state why the subject is notable, per rationale above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chekidalum ( talk • contribs ) 11:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Diamonds are For Cocktails : Deleted at AfD in 2022, but recreated recently.  However, the sources are no better – they are all primary interviews with the author or PR websites (or both) and don't pass RS.  The only claim of notability is a supposed endorsement from a Fox News reporter, but I can't find any direct proof of this, only reports of it  by Zarah herself or in other non-RS sources.  Richard3120 ( talk ) 17:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  Richard3120 ( talk ) 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No hits at Kirkus, Booklist, or PW; I can't find even one review for NBOOK.  The Fox News quote appears to be a back cover endorsement type of thing rather than a published review, and thus can't contribute to NBOOK (I also couln't find an actual source for it).  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 02:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already at AFD before, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only links to buy the book are what I find, no sort of reviews.  This is likely PROMO.  Being featured on a billboard isn't notable, neither is much of anything else listed here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mobiliya : Orphaned for a decade.  Pepper Beast (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Texas .  Pepper Beast (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - After searching, found only news releases, a few passing mentions, social media, etc.  Nothing in-depth to establish notability .  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 11:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , could not find anything to establish notability either.  Persent101 ( talk ) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Abshir Muse Said : Said looks notable but when this was at AfC and at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Abshir_Muse_Said we realized some of the sources didn't even mention him and the text is conflated with that of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed .  Likely UPE editing as well and repeated recreation, so bringing it here for consensus.  Star Mississippi 03:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople ,  and Somalia .  Star Mississippi 03:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Further example of lifted text here (thanks @ Wikishovel ).  Star Mississippi 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator note , for the purposes of disclosure, noting I have blocked the creator from mainspace for the same content issues on other articles.  They are still able and welcome to participate here.  Star Mississippi 03:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  There may be a good case for WP:TNT here, given the faultiness of some of the sources.  But the content needs to be supported in reliable sources, as with his notability, which seems not to be the case here.  GuardianH ( talk ) 06:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Flowery terms, the potential for using sources that don't talk about this person and the blocked UPE tells me this isn't ready for the mainspace.  If someone was so inclined, they could start from scratch then send it for AfC review first, but this mess isn't worth saving.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  A search did not find sources to back up notability.  Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 17:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note from creator flagging for closing admin, the creator has commented on the Talk .  Want to be sure their input is seen.  Star Mississippi 00:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Chamak Damak : Donald D23 talk to me 15:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS, much less sig/in-depth coverage as required by GNG and it clearly fails WP:NTV also.  Nominator beat me to AfD'd this one.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Clearly fails WP: Notability (television) and WP:GNG .  Doesn't provide substantial material to be notable on Google search as well.  Sameeerrr ( talk ) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC) striking vote of confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rachel Klein (director) : Plenty of name drops, nothing more.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Theatre ,  and New York .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   There are a lot of Broadway directors who do not have Wikipedia articles.  A NY-based director/choreographer who has never worked on Broadway and never won (or, apparently, been nominated for) an Obie or Lortel Award (never mind Drama Desk, Critics' Circle, or Drama League Award) is not one of the more notable directors in New York.  I also note that the ""bluelinked"" references to Around the World in Eighty Days are misleading, as the musical does not have a Wikipedia article and, indeed, the particular production directed by Klein is claimed to have been at a different theatre in the page that is linked.  See WP:MILL .  -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 14:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For Around the World in Eighty Days I bluelinked to the section heading on the novel's page for ""Adaptions and Influences,"" which discusses the specific Mark Brown production.  Moving forward, should I not make section links like these?  Re: the Around the World in Eighty Days theater, good catch––checking it out, I see this theater has been called ""The New Theater at 45th Street,"" the ""Davenport Theater,"" and the ""AMT Theater"" within the past ten years.  I made that correction for accuracy.  This is detailed on the AMT Theater page.  Re: noteworthy, I was taking a cue from other Off-Broadway and Off-Off Broadway NYC theater director pages like May Adrales , Erin B. Mee , Richard Kimmel , Carl Schmehl , Jeff Whiting , and others who don't have Obie/Lortel/Drama Desk/Critics Circle/Drama League awards/noms.  TheatreHawk ( talk ) 23:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleted sections about less noteworthy productions, and added sources: Time Out New York, New York Times, New York Post, Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, The Village Voice, Rolling Stone TheatreHawk ( talk ) 22:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Brahmachal : No mention of this kingdom is found in any of the references in this article except the second one.  The second reference relies on romantic pseudo-historical ballads and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.  Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India .  -- Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doesn't this fall under WP:RAJ?  Two of the four sources are from that period.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : Precisely.  Jaunpurzada ( talk ) 14:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom, fails GNG.   I could find nothing that supports the subject (one reference to a mountain named Brahmachal) in JSTOR, ProQuest, ProjectMUSE, Google searching for Brohmachol Rajjo, ব্রহ্মাচল রাজ্য, Brahmachal.  If a language expert finds something with SIGCOV ping me.  // Timothy :: talk 20:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Aarati (TV series) : microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions .  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 15:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - despite the WP:REFBOMB of sources about the trailers in two different languages and the sources pretty much saying exactly the same things as each other, there is no other significant coverage.  There is nothing to say that this requires its own article yet.  At best, WP:TOOSOON and the socking (a massive indication of COI) makes me even more keen to have this deleted for now.  I also note that every source is written by an anonymous correspondent, which can also be a sign of paid promotion.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Délvidék football team : Fram ( talk ) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Hungary ,  and Serbia .  Fram ( talk ) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not listed at Confederation of Independent Football Associations#List of members so redirect not feasible.  Giant Snowman 18:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 2 November 2023 (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 23:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Non-notable football team; not enough sources or demonstrated notability.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 05:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Damien Lagrange : Primefac ( talk ) 12:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union ,  and France .  Primefac ( talk ) 12:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  There may be coverage in French sources that I'm not finding, but unless someone finds anything, delete.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  Article and BEFORE showed nothing but promo, database, and routine sports news, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jiabao Li : All of the sources in the article fall into one of three categories: primary (e.g. artworks on the subject's website) aren't independent from the subject (e.g. there's sources from UT Austin, Endless Health, and ONX Studio, but she has a direct connection to all three of these institutions) is a listing (e.g. her name is mentioned on the finalist lists for some awards, but these do not contain in-depth coverage of the subject) A Google search doesn't reveal any sources that meet all three of these criteria, and a scan of her Google Scholar page doesn't reveal any papers that would establish notability.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SockGPT nonsense.  The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your diligence in maintaining the quality and integrity of Wikipedia content.  Since the nomination for deletion, significant updates and improvements have been made to the page to address these issues.  1. Diverse and Independent Sources : The page now includes references from a wide array of credible, independent sources.  This includes coverage in respected museums, well-regarded news outlets, and recognized conferences.  These sources are not affiliated with Jiabao Li or the institutions she is connected to, providing a neutral perspective on her work and contributions.  2. Notability Beyond Academic Publications : For individuals in the fields of art and design, notability can extend beyond academic publications.  Jiabao Li's contributions have been recognized through exhibitions, public talks, and awards, which are crucial indicators of her impact and recognition in her field.  The updated page now features these aspects, supported by credible sources, underscoring her notability from a comprehensive perspective.  The inclusion of these updates is aimed at ensuring that Jiabao Li's Wikipedia page meets the notability criteria by providing verifiable, independent, and significant coverage.  Her contributions to the fields of design, technology, and environmental advocacy are well-documented and recognized by the broader community, making her a notable figure worthy of a Wikipedia entry.  Agnescooper ( talk ) 00:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) — Agnescooper ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] (",delete
"Karen Balauf Delaney : No significant coverage in reliable, independent source.  Sabih omar 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: initial search indicates coverage in the local suburban newspapers which are WP:RS .  I got better results searching with ""Karen Delaney""+sculpture ,.  I have not had time yet to read them.  [21] [22] -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Visual arts ,  and United States of America .  — Karnataka talk 07:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The first three citations for ""Art Watch"" are the exact same article but in 3 different newspapers (Kennett Times, Unionville Times and Chesco Times), which makes me wonder if they are all based on the same press release, or if these 3 papers are subsidiaries of a larger publishing group, or? ) Either way, they should not be considered as three separate citations to determine notability.  The 4th ref (also Unionville Times) is simply a name check mention of her name.  I'll continue to look online (and at the refs A.B. mentions above.) I noticed that she uses two names, Karen Balauf Delaney, and also simply Karen Delaney.  Netherzone ( talk ) 00:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Art Watch article is a promotional piece written by Lele Galer, and her motivation becomes clear when you check the note at the end, which says, ""Please come meet Karen and see her latest work at Galer Estate Winery this Thursday on Halloween from 5-9pm! Local Art Watch highights (sic, in all 3 versions) one local artist every week. Lele Galer is an artist who has chaired numerous art shows...""  Sabih omar 03:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Created by now-blocked acct and likely fanpage and/or promo.  Insufficient sources, low page views, no real assertion of notability etc. 128.252.210.3 ( talk ) 17:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NBASIC .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not enough to support notability.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Juliana Blou : Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the Tura Magic FC article, coverage is all about her performance with the club (mostly game match descriptions).  [33] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no article for the women's team to redirect to; there's barely an article for the club at large.  - Socccc ( talk ) 17:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  Publications that cover the Namibia Women's Super League haven't provided SIGCOV of Blou.  With today's news that NFA failed to register Tura Magic for Cosafa Champions League before deadline , there probably won't be any imminent coverage either.  - Socccc ( talk ) 17:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Socccc : Damn, that must be incredibly frustrating for the players and coaches.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lists of abbreviations used on British Empire World War I medals : Keith H99 ( talk ) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I had some challenges with the nomination, so I may have inadvertently nominated it more than once.  That I can tell, it's an article that not been nominated prior to today, and has been generally ignored.  The Article is a long list that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, for each and every item.  This duplicates content from other sites, or hosts POV on interpretation, and is best consigned to the trash can, as I perceive it.  Keith H99 ( talk ) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The incorrect information in the article prompted me to take a look at the Silver War Badge article.  This needed reworking, which has been done.  That article could be corrected, I fail to see that as plausible for this article, hence nomination for deletion.  Keith H99 ( talk ) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is a single usable reference in this article, to the National Archives [4] , and that content sensibly is not quoted or summarized (because it can't be).  This reference could be included with a single sentence at Awards and decorations of the British Armed Forces .  All the rest of the article is unsourced, and probably would violate WP:NOTCATALOG if it were sourced by just replicating a complete list of unannotated items found in the original.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Clear violation of WP:NOT .  Whether this is a directory or extract from the table of a textbook, it is not an encyclopaedic article.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Anumta Qureshi : No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc.  Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history.  I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Anumta is best know for her role Huma in Suno Chanda 1 and Suno Chanda 2.  She did supporting roles as well and has also done major roles in dramas.  This source it is mentioned when she started her career and her dramas. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 06:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) ) [1] [ reply ] References ^ ""Lollywood newbie Anumta Qureshi lights up internet with new bold photos"" .  24 News HD .  July 29, 2022.  Could you share some reputable sources that can confirm she held significant roles?  I'd prefer not to rely on sources known for publishing sensational clickbait to garner traffic.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 08:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] *:: Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway .  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 17:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Enough, Saqib .  More of this casting aspersions will result in a block.  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz ,  I've retracted my comment.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey Liz, I think Saqib did this in response to one of my comments, so I apologize for any role I had in provoking this.  I've replied to him clarifying what my advice was (i.e. talk more generally, and don't single out editors).  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 14:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in the article are name mentions, promo, interviews, nothing meeting WP:SIRS, BEFORE found similar, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth meeting SIGCOV.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , while I was here, I took a look at this article and the sourcing is.. .  poor... to put it lightly.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wenche-Lin Hess : Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics ,  and Norway .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I could only find passing mention in one book, which mentions she finished 16th in a competition (the book discusses the athlete she knocked out, so very brief) Kingsif ( talk ) 00:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I added an article about her return to competition in 2019.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Zero independent sources containing SIGCOV.  The newest source is just a couple passing mentions in an article about her partner's return to sport.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NOLY and more broadly WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage.  LibStar ( talk ) 06:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"James Rollins Barker : Ambassadors are not inherently notable nor does WP:NPOL apply.  No coverage to meet WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Bilateral relations , Mauritius , Somalia , Tanzania , Greece ,  and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per Nomination.  Fails WP:GNG , WP:NPOL .  Charsaddian ( talk ) 07:30, 8 April 2023 (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 06:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG and I could not find any sources with a Gsearch Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Szervác : Namecruft that fails WP:NNAME , WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG .  No reliable sources outside of databases, and even then not many are reliable.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NNAME and the targeted links don't even have en-wikipedia articles (two Commons pages and a Hungarian wikipedia link with no actual article).  So no evidence of notability or need for this page.  LizardJr8 ( talk ) 05:30, 14 February 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 10:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does not meet WP:NNAME .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Embassy of the United States, Kolonia : Sources 1 and 2 are primary, and sources 3 and 4 are not even about the embassy.  fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Oceania ,  and United States of America .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Thandeka Ndlovu : As always, television characters do not automatically get their own standalone biographies as topics independent of the show they were in just because they ""existed"" -- fictional characters can qualify for articles that demonstrate and properly source some genuine analysis of their real-world impact , but do not get standalone articles if you just write a fansite-style ""biography"" listing a few in-universe facts about their fictional lives sourced nowhere at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Africa .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there are a number of real people with the same name, some of whom are possibly notable, but this fictional character isn’t.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete .  Fails WP:GNG , bad case of WP:FANCRUFT .  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which speedy deletion criterion applies?  Jclemens ( talk ) 02:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of the most popular given names of Kazakh women of Kazakhstan : Strongly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  Names are even in Cyrillic, so not readable for most readers of an encyclopedia that uses a Latin alphabet.  I am also nominating: List of the most popular given names of Kazakh men of Kazakhstan ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Geschichte ( talk ) 16:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Kazakhstan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All of the names are redlinks and these topics do not show any signs of notability.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Would be a pain to continually update as well.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No sign of notability.  BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:DIR .  In 2024, everyone knows: we are not a directory like this list.  Bearian ( talk ) 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Phoenix Engine : ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 03:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom.  Blitzfan51 speak to the manager 19:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Harsh Beniwal : The references on the page and what I find online all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with bylines indicating they are press pieces or have no editorial oversight.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers ,  and India .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 05:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello Everyone I would like to participate in this discussion on wether to keep this article or not, Firstly I have created this article Harsh Beniwal because he is a popular youtuber in India, and his YouTube channel have more than 16 Million subscribers (including his second channel) and also his views are more than 1.8 Billion , which is a huge number I think and he also worked in a Superhit Indian film Student of the Year 2 .  I also believe that he has not proper coverage in Indian News Media, but I think that he may be notable for wikipedia.  Thank you WikiAnchor10 ( talk ) 06:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no have any reliable source, some source are gossip material Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Deleted in previous AFDs so Soft Deletion is not an option here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not much coverage in reliable sources and views/subscribers don't really contribute to notability.  His award and his film roles are minor.  Mooonswimmer 14:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (and salt).   Still fails WP:GNG .  Edwardx ( talk ) 23:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG acting roles were minor fails WP:NACTOR .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Thinvent : Pepper Beast (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and India .  Pepper Beast (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All I could find apart from the company's own site was a Crunchbase entry (not RS) and a couple of product reviews.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ANI News and Globalnewswire are the only sources found, both are PR pieces.  Delete for lack of sourcing, no coverage in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 18:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Abhijit Das Bobby : Subject was never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and article relies majorly on sources that do not satisfy SIGCOV and  INDEPENDENT, hence, fails GNG.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 10:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and West Bengal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete A7 or G11.  Mccapra ( talk ) 12:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nominator sums it up, not notable.  Lynch44 ( talk ) 17:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't have time right now to follow up but I tagged this article for CSD G4 because it's been deleted at least twice in previous AFD discussions.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz Oh, that's true, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijit Das (Bobby) .  Contested by the author of the page.  It's great we're here, I don't think re-requesting speedy deletion after it was contested would be a nice move.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . ""Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"".  — TheWikiholic ( talk ) 13:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The person fails WP:NPOL , like previous AfDs, this article is being created because of the general election 2024 in India.  Many similar articles have already been deleted.  Similar AfDs include: Kompella_Madhavi_Latha , Neeraj Tripathi .  Grab Up - Talk 10:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Apex Moon : Let'srun ( talk ) 16:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United States of America .  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the same reasons as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apex Sun Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as it exists, the article has six references, four of them are YouTube, the other two are from World Chase Tag.  I've had a look for other sources but I can't find anything that is even close to independent significant coverage.  I don't think this article passes WP:GNG WP:NSPORT or WP:ORG .  Knitsey ( talk ) 16:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"J. Luke Bennecke : Possible self-promotion by author?  Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 19:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , Engineering , Transportation , California ,  and Nevada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very likely PROMO, all sourcing I find seems to be book signings or on BookTrib, which isn't RS.  No critical reviews of their novels found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable and likely written for money by BheekAam along with other articles .  The book won Feathered Quill awards but I'm not sure they're sufficient to qualify for notability as an author; here's more info about Feather Quill: [70] [71] See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Daro for another article by the same editor.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance Fury (2nd nomination) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable and few RS citations or recognition.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 21:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only one source, with no sigcov and the feathered quill award doesn't exactly seem prestigious enough to satisfy any alternative criteria.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  22:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG and his only award is not notability-lending.  Appears to wear many hats, but isn't notable in any of them.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 11:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; poorly executed UPE, if they are notable WP:TNT but I don't think they are anyway.  ☆ Bri ( talk ) 18:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only one source provided, and certainly promotional.  HarukaAmaranth 春 香 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable and few RS citations or recognition. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Oyabun (rapper) : - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , United States of America ,  and New York .  UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Simply releasing music in 2023 isn't article-worthy.  No charted singles, no sort of media coverage in RS.  ""We have a person that went to school and releases music"" is what the article tells us, that's just not enough for GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : We are not SoundCloud, we dont list every single person who’s ever released music.  They gotta be notable at some point and this artist is not.  Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC with no charting songs or albums plus artist has been inactive for five years.  (Special mention to the shameless Kurt Cobain namedropping.) sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 19:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with immediate effect, Topic doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER guidelines.  Every reference is a dead link.  At least 2 or more reliable sources which are independent of each other are required for musicians (Especially Living people) WP:BLP .  Both talking about the subject ""indept"" is required to keep this article In the mainspace , which could than later be improved by editors but further than that.  No WP: Significant Coverage established.  Frankymulls ( talk ) 14:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Songshan Airport (disambiguation) : Lightoil ( talk ) 12:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree the actual airport is the primary topic, and page views [12] are clearly consistent with this as well.  Adumbrativus ( talk ) 05:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:ONEOTHER ; there is a clear primary topic per the pageviews and only one other topic makes the disambiguation page unnecessary.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 17:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"The Paranormal Journey:Into the Unknown : The article has a heavy promotional tone, but even beyond that, it does not appear to be notable at all.  Despite the lofty claims that is ""took the media by storm"", the only coverage included in the article is from local news coverage from the area the production was from, and several non-reliable sources.  Searches turned up no kind of coverage in actual reliable sources, or any kind of reviews.  The four episodes listed also seem to be the only four that were produced and released, so it seems doubtful that any new coverage will come in the future.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Paranormal ,  and Kentucky .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No coverage that enables it to pass GNG, it's WP:TOOSOON for mainspace article, it appears to have been cancelled in 2017 after 4 episodes.  - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 18:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only one of the sources cited (the first one) appears to be independent RS.   Too much junk comes up when I try to find more secondary coverage.   One name-check in local media does not suffice for passing WP:GNG .   And while I know it's not a guideline for deletion, the article is incompetently-written and barely grammatical, clearly not the work of someone here to build an encyclopedia ; likely a SPA as the nom suggested.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  Thornburg, Kate (2018-05-08).  ""Amazon Prime Paranormal Show Films at Winchester Café"" .  The News-Gazette .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-25 .  Retrieved 2023-11-25 .  The article notes: ""... Season 3 of the Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown. The Amazon Prime original program is hosted by Gavin Kelly and Paula Purcell and filmed overnight on April 28, 2018 at the Para Café. The show premiered as a new original series on October 31, 2017 and is a non-staged, non-scripted program with no camera tricks, just real paranormal investigations following Kelly and Purcell as they investigate haunted asylums, jails, battlefields, and museums along with many other locations around the country. Kelly and Purcell look for the most haunted locations in the United States to investigate and collect evidence using video, photography, and EVP’s (electronic voice phenomenon). They specifically work to debunk so-called hauntings and to collect the data needed to prove whether or not the locations they visit are truly haunted or not. Their investigative process combined with Purcell’s research into the history of the locations, the team’s scientific methods, and completely unscripted format make the program stand out amid the plethora of seemingly similar shows that have gained in popularity in recent years. "" Carver, Hannah (2018-06-07).  ""Is Benton Farm haunted? Paranormal investigators say maybe; show to air on Amazon TV next year"" .  NKyTribune .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-25 .  Retrieved 2023-11-25 .  The article notes: ""Delving into the some of the world’s most mysterious phenomena, the crew from “The Paranormal Journey:  Into the Unknown” will feature the Benton Farmhouse in its season three. The show, which first aired on Amazon TV on Halloween of 2017, features Gavin Kelly, Paula Purcell, and their team. Together they work to explore reportedly haunted locations, seeking proof of the existence of life after death. ... The second season of “The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown” will air this fall.  The episode at Benton Farms is scheduled for the third season, which comes out October 31, 2019.""  Longworth, Michele (2017-10-26).  ""Quest for the paranormal at the Massac County Courthouse"" .  Metropolis Planet .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-25 .  Retrieved 2023-11-25 .  The article notes: ""Paducah paranormal investigators’ show premieres Oct. 31 on Amazon Prime. ... After their brief visit, the two decided they wanted to go back to film an episode of their show Paranormal Journey Into the Unknown. ... Both Kelly and Purcell have taped six episodes of their show, which will air on Amazon Prime beginning Tuesday, Oct. 31. According to Kelly, the original series on Amazon Prime is “testing the waters.”  Netflix has already indicated if their show receives good ratings on Amazon, Netflix might also pick up their shows.""  Hughes, Pat (2017-09-06).  ""Hartford City's haunted will be in new Amazon series"" .  Hartford City News Times .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-25 .  Retrieved 2023-11-25 .  The article notes: ""Paranormal host Gavin Kelly and historian Paula Purcell are teaming up for Amazon’s Prime’s new paranormal television series “Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown.”  The series’ second season is set to air in February and will feature Hartford City’s Monroe House, the old Hartford City Jail and the Speak Easy in different segments of the show.""  Camp, Jodi (2019-04-11).  ""Amazon TV series paranormal team investigates Octagon Hall"" .  Franklin Favorite .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-25 .  Retrieved 2023-11-25 – via Newspapers.com .  The article notes: ""Last month, the paranormal show “The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown” through Amazon, visited Octagon Hall, the historical and paranormal antebellum house in Simpson County. ... The shows season one is already available on Amazon with season two coming out at the end of 2019 and season three available in March 2020.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm really not convinced by these sources, because they are, like the one I mentioned in my nomination, from extremely local papers just reporting on the areas the show filmed in.  Not only that, a lot of these contain information that seems wildly inaccurate, referring to seasons and episodes that as far as I can find, never actually existed.  (Honestly, I can't even find any evidence that the show was ever actually shown on ""Amazon Prime"", as stated in several of the articles here, and not just available to purchase via Amazon's digital store as they are now).  The niche coverage of these publications, and the fact that several of them are reporting on episodes that were never actually made, make me extremely dubious that these would satisfy the notability requirements for this show.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Doing a quick comparison, only one of the locations mentioned in the local papers above was actually made into an episode of the show.  It seems like these two went to a bunch of places to film footage, told the local papers about their lofty (and seemingly exaggerated)  plans of creating a multi-season series that would feature their town/county, and got a little write up about these supposed future episodes in the local papers that never actually happened.  It seems a lot of the information the papers were reporting on were just what the duo that made the series told them, which has proven to be largely be untrue.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears they were still filming episodes when the series was cancelled, or the distribution deal fell through, or something happened that made it impossible to continue.  The fact we can't find any industry coverage containing details about the show means it wasn't considered notable.  - LuckyLouie ( talk ) 19:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The sources consistently say that The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown was shown on Amazon Prime .  This Amazon Prime search archive.today for the show clearly lists The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown as an Amazon Prime show.  It aired for one season and had four episodes.  The Paranormal Journey has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in Indiana and Kentucky newspapers.  The News-Gazette provided detailed analysis about the show, ""Their investigative process combined with Purcell's research into the history of the locations, the team’s scientific methods, and completely unscripted format make the program stand out amid the plethora of seemingly similar shows that have gained in popularity in recent years.""  The show meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline through the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The notability guideline does not exclude sources that are based out of cities where the show did filming.  The notability guideline does not say that the show's cancellation (and whether sources covered the cancellation) takes away from the show's notability.  The sources are not inaccurate.  They discuss how the show filmed future episodes and was planning to air future seasons.  That those episodes did not air makes the information in the articles overtaken by later events rather than factually inaccurate.  Cunard ( talk ) 23:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - That Prime Search is what I meant though - its not a ""Amazon Prime Show"" in the sense that it was produced by Amazon Prime the way The Boys (TV series) is.   It is just available for digital purchase on the Amazon Prime service the way that every other show and movie available on VOD for purchase or rental through Amazon is.  That's a bit of a different beast.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 03:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Amazon Prime search lists the show, while The News-Gazette calls it an ""Amazon Prime original program"".  No source or anything I've found contradicts this statement.  Cunard ( talk ) 04:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not notable enough to have gotten a mention on the news websites of Hollywood Reporter , Variety , or Deadline from 2016 to present.  Not on the List of ended Amazon Prime Video original programming (because it's not an Amazon show).  This is a limited web series using Amazon Prime Direct as a distributor to sell to the public and using Wikipedia for search engine promotion (see WP:NOTADVERTISING ).  Links to review articles can go on its IMDb page in the External Reviews section there.  I have no objection to the article being updated and republished someday if the show returns and generates the needed noteworthiness for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  5Q5 | ✉ 14:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not require a television series ""to have gotten a mention on the news websites of Hollywood Reporter , Variety , or Deadline "".  Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not require a television series to be an Amazon show or to appear on List of ended Amazon Prime Video original programming .  Although this doesn't matter for notability, no sources or evidence has been provided verifying that the show is ""using Amazon Prime Direct as a distributor"" rather than being an ""Amazon Prime original program"" (source: the 2018 The News-Gazette article) Cunard ( talk ) 00:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The phrase ""Amazon Prime original program"" merely refers to any program offered first on Amazon's streaming service, whether produced by Amazon Studios or from an outside source.  Amazon owns IMDb .  Amazon Studios is not listed as one of the producers of The Paranormal Journey:Into the Unknown on IMDb because it is not an Amazon production and if it was, the media coverage would be national and much more than local.  5Q5 | ✉ 12:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The points of WP:NFOE , the specific notability guideline for movies, are all indiviually not met: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.  - Such did not turn up.  Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.  - Dates range only from 2017-2019.  The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release - Dates range only from 2017-2019.  The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.  - Such did not turn up.  The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.  - Such did not turn up.  The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.  - Such did not turn up.  The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.  - Such did not turn up.  The film is ""taught"" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.  - Such did not turn up.  Finally, as for the other notability guidelines, the sources are clearly WP:ROUTINE .  They only talk about the release of the movie.  There are no high-profile reviews or retrospectives.  They are of local interest, written in relation to the movie filming coming to their town/county and so perhaps not even qualify as WP:INDEPENDENT .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 17:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Helmes AS : It's been several years but there are still not several independent reliable sources satisfying WP:CORP .  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Estonia .  AllyD ( talk ) 08:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is all I can find [33] , about some unsavory business dealings they were involved with.  Nothing upon which we can build an article.  Article as it reads now is PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A peacockery-laden article about a company, created by a single-day account a couple of months after a previous instance was deleted at AfD.  Searches find announcement-based coverage of new contracts, acquisitions of similar firms in Lithuania and Belarus, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH .  Neither these nor involvement in the case mentioned above is sufficient to demonstrate notability ; the previous AfD consensus should stand.  AllyD ( talk ) 11:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article itself is blatantly promotional, and the cited sources are promotional pieces, entry on database, and company's own websites.  While the company was mentioned in some websites and articles, none of those are in-depth coverage sufficient in proving its notability.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 21:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : blatantly promotional, non-notable, and unsourced.  DrowssapSMM ( talk ) 21:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jordan Murch : He is mentioned in a number of news articles, like this one , but they are either local/routine coverage or interviews.  I'm not seeing enough significant coverage.  He has played a fair number of games in his career but most were at semi-pro level.  March OfThe Greyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Football , United Kingdom ,  and Scotland .  March OfThe Greyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  I just found mentions of him in an archive search.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG —only appeared at rather low levels of semi-pro football with no distinguishing characteristics to supersede that fact.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 22:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Fails WP:GNG .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"White Springs Television : PROD was declined in 2022 with the  rationale that the channel was verified to have existed but existence does not equate to notability.  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Florida ,  and Oregon .  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There are no references in the article, just a few external links at the bottom.  Running through the first few pages of Google doesn't provide anything resembling a reliable source.  Small references to WSTV affiliation in relevant TV station pages are enough for the purposes of Wikipedia.  DJ Cane (he/him) ( Talk ) 23:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  – The Grid ( talk ) 17:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jorge Laguna : My own searches yielded Info7 , Medio Tiempo and Diario de Morelos but these are just squad list mentions and don't show WP:SIGCOV of Laguna.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Mexico .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Fails WP:GNG .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Valley Lake Ranchos, California : This location is a subdivision, not a community.   The user who contested the PROD added a couple of references, which is appreciated, but these are just routine mentions of legal matters.   The consensus on subdivisions and other informal settlements is that they are subject to WP:GNG , and that bar is not met in this case because the sources cited are routine and not in-depth, and GNIS (which was originally the only cited source) does not establish notability.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header.   Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.  — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for bringing this to AfD – definitely worth further discussion rather than simply PROD.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Undeveloped land with a history of failed development plans does not meet guidelines, I can't see anything that indicates this is more than just that.  NGEO points to GNG and this fails.  Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth .  // Timothy :: talk 13:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This locale lacks any significant notability whatsoever.  TH1980 ( talk ) 04:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Angna (TV series) : Donald D23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Yes it fails to meet GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews.  Some ROTM coverage like this isn't sufficient.  The article is based on several unreliable sources.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels.  Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit.  So for other dramas we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but are fair enough for a Pakistani drama.  Muneebll ( talk ) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance.  In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum.  Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article.  Donald D23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And until we have coverage in multiple sources, we can't create an article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : while this could be redirected to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Long_format/Soaps , there seems to be coverage showing it's notable: https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1159511 ; https://www.bolnews.com/entertainment/2022/06/angna-handles-trauma-delicately-but-leaves-loose-ends/ and so on.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , HIP is content farm website.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As explained above, this series doesn't have coverage outside of the originating media organization, pretty much limiting any hope of GNG or other notability.  I can't find sources about this we'd use either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of 100th episodes : Mccapra ( talk ) 20:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists .  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOR and WP:LISTCRUFT .  Indiscriminate trivia.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 21:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please elaborate further on ways it can be more encylopedic OLI 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Ajf773: simply not encyclopaedic.  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please elaborate further on ways it can be more encylopedic OLI 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you missundrestand what it means.  This isnt a cross categorization.  A list of television episodes that are a 100th episode which is closer to the list of episodes titled pilot.  OLI 15:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It isn't a notable cross categorisation even in the slightest.  Where are the sources that discuss this group of episodes as a whole?  This is no more notable than, say, a list of 50th episodes or a list of 200th episodes of random TV series.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many shows make a point of having a  one hundreth episode as opossed to fifty or two hundred OLI 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is a list for spin offs.  There is also a article for the topic OLI 22:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A godawful spin-off of the American television in (year) articles, where these 'century milestone' episodes are noted and sourced appropriately to the year of airing...and these aren't.  Presumably this was supposed to be a list of 100th episode articles where we do have one, before we decided episode articles should be better sourced to meet GNG than one Metacritic rating and AV Club review.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That second part of that doesnt make sense.  The article is based off of List of television spin-offs I am working on the article.  Could you please provide actual feedback to help improve it?  OLI 03:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have begun adressing your concern and begun adding sources OLI 16:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What would help is realizing television history didn't start suddenly in 1998; this article is heavily bent towards recent series and this article can't hope to capture so many 100th episodes of so many series.  You not only can't catalog every one, but there has to be some filters (for instance, daily news and talk series, daytime, late night...the 100th episode of a reality series isn't celebrated because it's randomly in the middle of some season/production cycle).  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Im going to catalouge older ones I simply started by adding ones I know had 100 episodes OLI 14:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree that this is not notable per WP:NOR and WP:LISTCRUFT Donald D23 talk to me 18:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How about it is converted into a catagory and will include several pages.  I think this would be a good compramise OLI 19:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete LISTCRUFT, and an overall nonsense topic (will we now make 50th episode lists? 150 episodes?).  AryKun ( talk ) 04:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this was answered by another person.  So if your going to make useless additions to the conversation here is what he said :::: Many shows make a point of having a one hundreth episode as opossed to fifty or two hundred OLI 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [ reply ] ""Many shows make a point of having a one hundredth episode"" No, shows celebrate their 50th and 200th episodes as well, if they ever get to that point.  My concern is not whether shows celebrate these episodes, it's whether RS discuss series with 100 episodes as a group (they don't) and whether this milestone is significant enough for list (it's not).  This milestone only appears significant in the context of American syndicated shows; if you started adding daily soaps from, say, India to the list, you would soon have several thousand shows with no relevance even in the places they aired clogging up this article.  Also, I agree that the concept of a 100th episode is notable, which is why we have an article on it.  We don't need a list trying to just SYNTH together every series which has ever run for 100 episodes.  AryKun ( talk ) 10:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  100th episode of what exactly?  What is the scope of this article?  What are the criteria for inclusion?  Where has the topic been talked about as a whole?  It's so vague; the list has little or no meaning.  Rupples ( talk ) 16:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CARCARWORKI ( talk ) 20:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of people of Korean descent : This list probably doesn't even include 1% of all Koreans who have Wikipedia pages.  (And a few people listed here don't even HAVE articles.)  Mucube ( talk • contribs ) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists .  Mucube ( talk • contribs ) 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Impossibly broad topic.  Support deleting other similar topic lists.  Ethnicity is rarely a defining trait.  Why?  I Ask ( talk ) 19:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Way too broad, not a defining trait.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Too broad. -- Gen. Quon [Talk] 21:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Korea .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 22:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Would have to be a more focused list, ""Korean singers"" or what have you.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree it is too broad.  ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 07:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Too wide a subject.  Needs more selective criteria.  Rupples ( talk ) 00:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree it is too broad.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Ekstraklasa broadcasters : The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans.  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Also, sources are entirely primary, are basically news announcement and does not help to assert notability.  Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Football , Lists ,  and Poland .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2023–24 Nottingham Forest Women F.C. season : For this to be kept, it would need to meet WP:GNG in its own right but I can't see anything about this season so far that has received significant coverage from WP:RS that are independent of the subject (see WP:IS ).  Currently, there is no evidence of GNG being met whatsoever.  Top tier seasons like 2023–24 Manchester United W.F.C. season are generally notable because the events are covered in detail by RS like the BBC.  I can't see Nottingham Forest Women getting the same level of coverage.  If season articles at this level are decided to be inherently notable following this AfD, this would then mean we potentially should have such articles on all Championship teams as well as National League Premier teams - but I would like to see evidence of notability first before we plunge into mass creation.  Currently, we only have season articles for WSL teams.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Football ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , on the basis it appears to be an WP:UNDUE level of detail about football results, teams and team changes, for this semi-professional football team, based solely on the club website.  I can't find any news coverage online about this season's matches.  Sionk ( talk ) 17:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While I should declare an interest as a fan and contributor (who has made a huge effort to improve the quality of the main club page, see the update history), FA Full-Time is a decent source of information for match information at this level of the women’s game.  I also plan to introduce a transfers section to improve the page quality.  On a general note, I object to the idea that creation of articles at this level of the women’s game to lack notability.  Information about the game is improving and gatekeeping that knowledge is a barrier to growth.  Hailnolly ( talk ) 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FA Full Time is not significant coverage, it's just a collection of statistics about the league nor do I see any special attention being given to Nottingham Forest over other teams in the division.  Per WP:IS , it is also not independent of the subject as the FA manages the league in question.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I totally accept the point about WP:IS.  Hailnolly ( talk ) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there doesn't look to be significant enough coverage to pass WP:GNG .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Fork Junction, West Virginia : Searching is drowned out by a ""Glen Fork Junction"" that is either the same as or is related to Glen Fork, West Virginia (elsewhere in the state), but I'm finding no significant coverage or coverage that indicates a WP:GEOLAND pass for a ""Fork Junction"" in Lincoln County.  Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Virginia .  Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1990) : Simione001 ( talk ) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete – Article has been unsourced for years, so does corresponding Korean Wikipedia.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Considering the long-standing sourcing issue, perhaps deletion is the best option.  Waqar 💬 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Fails WP:GNG , and has been a WP:STUB since 2012.  Only has one source.  — Mjks28 ( talk ) 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sajad Azizi : Sports2021 ( talk ) 18:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran .  Sports2021 ( talk ) 18:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  He does not meet any of the notability criteria WP:BIO , WP:NBIO , WP:NBLP .  Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bin There Dump That : No source that is interdependent of the company and speaks about the company.  Appears to be a promo job created immediately auto-confirmed status is attained Velella Velella Talk 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  Velella Velella Talk 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Darko Pavlović : In my searches, I found a blog post in BB Glas , but it's about a goalkeeper who turned 17 in 2021 so clearly not the same guy.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Serbia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , doesn't meet any guideline and is not eligible for Wikipedia.  Geschichte ( talk ) 21:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of ESPN Latin America announcers : Let'srun ( talk ) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television , Lists ,  and Latin America .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per failing WP:LISTN .  Via ESPN Desportés, there were a few good in-depth pieces about their announcers.  Thing is.. .  it's WP:PRIMARY .  I've found nothing otherwise pertaining to the secondary sourcing of this WP:NAVIGATION .  The category article, works just as well.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and Conyo14.  Unsourced and WP:OR excuse of a WP:LISTCRUFT list.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no references which is required on Wikipedia.  Catfurball ( talk ) 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Armoured fist : The two rationales were: Armoured fist is a symbol used by some armoured formations, but its notability is already reflected in those articles.  It does not constitute a cavalry or an armoured doctrine or tactic despite the suggestion in the article — User:Mrg3105 13:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Article has had no references since its creation 19 years ago.  It is little more than a stub and not WP:NPOV — User:LicenceToCrenellate 08:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC) – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 17:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Pure original research.  Non-encyclopedic content, unsourced.  // Timothy :: talk 19:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Sun Bowl broadcasters : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , American football ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it has a storied history on CBS, see [53] , [54] , [55] .  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 16:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies.  This is not about the notability of the games itself.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN .  WP:NOTTVGUIDE —""An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc.""—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content.  Dmoore5556 ( talk ) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG .  Cbl62 ( talk ) 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of sources from RS.  Let'srun ( talk ) 16:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Unicode/Versions : This was copied into mainspace from a draft, complete with AfC comments and tags.  Author has repeatedly recreated/moved this page under different names, so there might be some satellite messes to clean up (judging from their contributions ).  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Technology ,  and Software .  JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Beyond clear violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG BrigadierG ( talk ) 00:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Definitely covered by WP:NOTCHANGELOG Mason ( talk ) 01:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clear cut violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG Steven Walling • talk 00:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Just a clear violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG .  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 01:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Nothing has changed since I declined it citing Wikipedia is not a changelog , except that the originator is continuing to be tendentious .   It still violates Wikipedia is not a changelog .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fall under WP:NOT .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I could see how some kind of sourced and prose-based history of the development of Unicode could plausibly be encyclopedic.  This is not that.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Interesting information for sure, but Wikipedia is not a changelog per above, although this is snow at this point.  Utopes ( talk / cont ) 05:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : more AfC-dodging from this user; I previously draftified the exact same content.  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 22:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Veloren : Ultimately, I don't think any adequate sourcing has cropped up since the result of the last AfD, and so do not believe there is sufficient notability.  I've provided an assessment of most of the sources in the article below.  I've omitted sources that are unambiguously not GNG compliant (subject website is used more than once, for example).  A general Google search doesn't present anything useful, and a news search only gives me 3 results for https://www.gamingonlinux.com which - as best I can tell - is user generated and WP:VG/RS states it's unreliable (granted the linked  discussion is pretty bare).  It's got 1 GNG compliant source, best I can tell, and it doesn't have nearly enough pull.  Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirdog Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://veloren.net/ Subject website ~ ✘ No https://larepublica.pe/videojuegos/2022/02/12/los-mejores-videojuegos-gratuitos-que-puedes-descargar-en-tu-computadora Trivially mentioned in a list of free games ✘ No https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/minecraft-die-besten-alternativen-2022,3378793.html Trivially mentioned in a list of free games ✘ No https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/veloren User generated Database entry with no commentary or anaylsis ✘ No https://snapcraft.io/veloren Store page entry to download subject ✘ No https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren/-/releases/v0.14.0 Subject source code repository User generated ✘ No https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2020/06/interviewed-veloren-an-upcoming-foss-multiplayer-voxel-rpg/ Interview with developer of subject Listed as unreliable at WP:VG/RS + user-generated ✘ No https://blog.desdelinux.net/veloren-videojuego-codigo-abierto-inspirado-cube-world/ Despite having ""blog"" in the title, their editorial ethics as listed at [67] appear to be sound.  Cannot find on-wiki discussion, and a cursory Google search doesn't show anything concerning.  ✔ Yes https://jugandoenlinux.com/index.php/homepage/exploracion/1315-veloren-estrena-su-version-0-10 Appears to be a hobbyist website with no attempts or reputation for fact checking ~ ✘ No https://www.mmosquare.com/games/reviews/veloren Database of games website, no idea who adds content - nor is it listed - and the review reeks promotional without any intent for any kind of neutral commentary ✘ No https://www.kdeblog.com/veloren-un-juego-rpg-combinacion-de-zelda-y-minecraft.html All content (or atleast an overwhelming majority) appears to be written by a single individual, no listed policies regarding fact checking or reliability, calls itself a blog... best assessment is that it's user generated.  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  — Sirdog ( talk ) 02:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  — Sirdog ( talk ) 02:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the issue but why is it G4 if I had made sufficient changes at the beginning?  I created the page this time and everything was manually written with help from a few sources.  What do you suggest, can be done, in this case?  Also, are any of these links reliable enough for inclusion?  https://www.f2pg.com/veloren/ https://flathub.org/apps/net.veloren.veloren https://libregamewiki.org/Veloren https://alternativeto.net/software/veloren/about/ https://gameforge.com/en-US/gmag/veloren/ https://www.classcentral.com/course/youtube-veloren-open-source-self-hosted-endless-world-adventure-game-like-roblox-and-minecraft-192926 https://lutris.net/games/veloren/ https://snapcraft.io/veloren https://news.ycombinator.com/item? id=30667022 Please note that I'm relatively very new to Wikipedia editing therefore I need your help in understanding certain things so as to smoothly navigate my editing journey.  If you suggest what else should/must be done, it would be very helpful.  Thanks PRIYANSHU 02:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanshu1rai ( talk • contribs ) Hello, Priyanshu1rai !  You may have misread me above, but I was stating this is not a G4.  I'm happy to answer any questions you have about editing, notability, etc.  Feel free to reach out on my talk page or at the Teahouse .  Doing so here would be inappropriate.  My analysis of the sources you provided above is as follows for the purposes of this discussion: https://www.f2pg.com/veloren/ - N Is a simple overview of the game on a website dedicated to listing free games.  For sources to prove notability, they need to provide significant coverage and commentary.  https://flathub.org/apps/net.veloren.veloren - N Appears to be a platform to download the game.  https://libregamewiki.org/Veloren - N A wiki is comprised of user generated content and is ineligible to show notability, as it isn't reliable .  https://alternativeto.net/software/veloren/about/ - N Same general issue as www.f2pg.com.  https://gameforge.com/en-US/gmag/veloren/ - N Same general issue as www.f2pg.com.  https://www.classcentral.com/course/youtube-veloren-open-source-self-hosted-endless-world-adventure-game-like-roblox-and-minecraft-192926 - N A free online course on how to run the game by a YouTuber is not reliable https://lutris.net/games/veloren/ - N Same general issue as www.f2pg.com. .  https://snapcraft.io/veloren - N I evaluated the source in the table above.  https://news.ycombinator.com/item? id=30667022 - N Appears to be a user generated forum.  — Sirdog ( talk ) 03:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete based on both source tables above.  Nothing for notability, despite being ref-bombed.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veloren and WP:TOOSOON .  There are a head-spinning amount of sources thrown around, but nothing reliable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article has ample sources that do not generally demonstrate a reliable and independent origin, being drawn largely from blogs, download sites and primary sources.  This can be frustrating when a lot of work has been put in to compile sources from across the Internet on a topic, but the coverage falls short of the standard needed to establish that the subject matter is notable.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 13:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Vrxces.  SWinxy ( talk ) 21:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"PayTabs : Given WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the general surface level, uncritical tone of the article I'm skeptical this is quality coverage.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , Technology ,  and Saudi Arabia .  BrigadierG ( talk ) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thankyou for your input, I have asked the brand to place proper link.  This will be done in 1-2 days.  180.151.24.178 ( talk ) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If ""the brand"" want to contribute anything, they should limit themselves to suggesting edits on the article Talk page, with full disclosure .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Obvious WP:UPE but evaluating on a notability level, it fails WP:NCORP .  Yes, NEWSORGINDIA applies to some of the referencing but even outside of that the references are weak.  For instance, this reference in the Arab News seems good on its face until you see it is basically WP:CHURNALISM from this press release .  Nothing I can find would meet WP:NCORP .  I am also anticipating IPs and SPAs coming with keep votes.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the links are OK now, if there is any specific media mention that needs to be deleted or replaced, please let us know.  We will get it done Prince-rkt ( talk ) 07:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] > We Are you a paid editor?  If so, why have you not disclosed your affiliation under WP:COI ?  BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No I am not a paid editor, I am an employee of PayTabs and have created the page with limited expertise.  Therefore you can let me know the limitations or problem areas.  180.151.243.205 ( talk ) 08:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As they are your employer, this is still a conflict of interest, even though it was done in good faith.  You might like to build your expertise on Wikipedia by editing articles that are not directly related to your work, but on things that interest you.  In the case of this page, you would be well advised to contribute through the talk page rather than editing the article directly.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  G4 and enforce AFC or some other process.  Probably could have just drafified tbh, the title is already salted.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gol Transportes Aéreos destinations : Also fails the 2018 RFC on whether these articles were appropriate content for Wikipedia .   EDIT: A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close .  Even if the above-described issues were overcome somehow (and I don't think they can be) this is still an article falling within the remit of WP:CORP since it is entirely about a commercial enterprise.  However, the sources in the article are: Gol's own website.  Not independent.  Aeroin.net, which is a borderline blog (see their about page ) and at absolute best still fails WP:AUD as it's specialist media.  Voepass's website.  Not independent.  Panrotas.com, which lacks any information that would allow you to assess their reliability ( see their blank ""about"" page ) and appears to be a blog.  Even if it weren't, it still fails WP:AUD .  aeronauticapy.com, which appears to be another potential blog/specialist media, especially as their ""about"" page says they use amateur authors .  My WP:BEFORE search found nothing that would fix this, just WP:RUNOFTHEMILL press-releases and announcements about services opening/closing.  Notably numerous flights listed here are not even provided by this airline.  FOARP ( talk ) 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists ,  and Brazil .  FOARP ( talk ) 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Delete (but bundle henceforth): I fail to see why this particular airline destination list (or the other two listed in RfD today) is any more or less notable and encyclopedic than any of the numerous other airline destination lists that still exist despite that 2018 RfC, including many for defunct airlines.  If the intention is really to delete all airline destination lists, then let's do it in a single RfD.  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFF .  FOARP ( talk ) 19:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per FOARP, and especially per the RfC outcome.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Keep : whereas Gol and Voepass websites are not independent, Panrotas, Aeroin, and Aeronauticapy are.  They are not blogs but airline news websites, widely used for indepndent airline news in Brazil and in Paraguay.  Their information is more precise and in depth if compared with mainstream media when dealing with airline related subjects.  There has been major changes in Gol services due to the end of the operation agreeement with Voepass.  Changes will be updated as soon as possible.  ( Brunoptsem ( talk ) 02:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] There are significant reasons to doubt whether these are reliable sources which I mention in the nomination and which you have not rebutted, but even if they are reliable and independent, how do these sites pass WP:CORP ?  Additionally, you have not mentioned the WP:NOT issues with this article which by themselves are sufficient grounds for deletion - just how exactly is an exhaustive listing of all products/services of a commercial enterprise at a particular date encyclopaedic content?  What about the 2018 RFC?  FOARP ( talk ) 07:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question The nominator's statement (and the rebuttal above) says that the article (and the other airline destinations articles they have nominated) should be deleted because they violate WP:NOT , WP:NOTTRAVEL , and WP:NOTCATALOGUE .   Since NOTTRAVEL and NOTCATALOGUE are subsets of NOT, is the nominator saying that a different section of that policy applies?    The way that item #2 (Travel guides) of the ""Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal"" section of NOT seems to be a stretch that a list of destinations is being used as a travel guide, since flight numbers, schedules, fares, or booking information is not being included.    And I really don't know which part of NOTCATALOG is being applied here.   Can this be clarified?  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 16:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be honest I think all these references to WP:NOT miss the point.  There's an established consensus (based on the RfC on this precise topic ) that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles that only list airline destinations.  As with anything on Wikipedia, there can be exceptions, but then the burden is on those wanting to keep a given airline destinations list to argue why we should disregard the consensus in this case – and not on those proposing its deletion.  (Or try to change the consensus, which would likely involve another RfC.)  Tserton ( talk ) 18:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you seen the other 2018 RFC that was launched in the immediate aftermath that overwhelmingly concluded that WP:NOTDIR (another synonym for WP:NOTCATALOG ) should not include a statement that lists of transportation service destinations are outside the scope of Wikipedia?   A critical reading of that second RFC could raise questions about how accurate the finding that the first RFC established that there is a clear consensus to remove all these articles.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 21:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That motion failed on the specific (lack of) any wording that was provided for the amendment.  The close did not note any contradiction of the original RFC (nor did the AN discussion).  The discussion focused mainly on lists of railway stations, which is hardly the same as a list of services provided by a single company.  FOARP ( talk ) 06:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  Neither the purpose nor the outcome of the discussion was to reconsider the freshly established consensus.  The proposal was simply to elevate the consensus into codified policy, and that's what was rejected.  But that doesn't invalidate the RfC, nor does a (necessarily subjective) critical reading of it.  Tserton ( talk ) 06:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi RecycledPixels , thanks for your questions.  WP:NOTTRAVEL applies because this is essentially a travel guide (it shows where you can travel with this company).  WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies particularly because this is a listing of ""...products and services..."" (i.e., a business directory).  These are just two of the WP:NOT headings that this article falls under - there are others (e.g., simple listings without contextual information, advertising).  As Tserton pointed out, there is an RFC on this exact topic, the consensus of which remains standing (the only addition to which from a later AN discussion is that deletion of these articles has to be done in orderly fashion via AFD), that this kind of article is not appropriate content for Wikipedia.  FOARP ( talk ) 19:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So if I read this article and discover that Gol Transportes Aéreos flies to Buenos Aires and to Córdoba, Argentina, I can use that information to plan my trip?   Of course not.   NOTTRAVEL refers to trivial information like telephone numbers and street addresses of specific notable features, like how to get to the Eiffel Tower from the Louvre, or what the best hotel in the area is.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 21:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, you mean you can't use the information on this page to plan a trip?  Because I think you can - it tells you directly how to get from Buenos Aires to Cordoba: fly Gol Transportes Aéreos!  I would also like to know what your thoughts are on the business directory/catalogue nature of this article, as WP:NOTTRAVEL was not the only WP:NOT failure of this article?  FOARP ( talk ) 09:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question 2 .   Sorry to throw in more threads here, but I also have a question about the nomination statement that this stand-alone list needs to be able to survive WP:CORP .    Wouldn't WP:NLIST (subsection of WP:N ) be a more appropriate notability guideline, since these lists are spin-off articles about destinations of the airline, rather than about the company itself, which has already presumably established its notability?   And NLIST would be an exceptionally low hurdle to cross, since it seems to only require ""The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.""  So reliable independent sources that list the destinations of any airlines seems to establish notability of ""List of Destination of X Airlines"" types of articles.    Or maybe I'm getting that wrong.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 00:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi RP, it is exactly because these are spin-offs of WP:CORP articles that WP:CORP should apply to them also.  They are entirely about the activities of a business, so the same issues of self-promotion/run-of-the-mill coverage apply.  This applies on top of, not instead of, WP:LISTN .  The alternative would be allowing destination-lists that aren’t just not notable on their own grounds, but even lists for airlines that aren’t notable under WP:CORP , and even articles with no references at all beyond perhaps the website of the company.  FOARP ( talk ) 06:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS - if there were any further doubt on WP:CORP applying here, the very first sentence of WP:CORP is ""This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service (my emphasis).  This page is manifestly dedicated solely to the air transport service provided by Gol Transportes Aéreos, a commercial organisation, and hence falls within the scope of WP:CORP .  FOARP ( talk ) 08:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per WP:NCORP , WP:NOTTRAVEL , and WP:NOTDATABASE .  We are here to provide encyclopedic coverage of this airline; this doesn't include an exhaustive list, that lacks explanations referenced to independent sources, of the destinations they serve.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 07:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since there are simultanoeus RfDs involving different lists of airline destinations I propose to center the discussion in a single page. -- Jetstreamer Talk 21:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nominator.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 23:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This kind of information belongs in an airline's website, not in Wikipedia.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 02:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Third Vote : The sourcing in the article appears to be diverse from a first glance, but upon a closer examination it's clear that the only sources tied to one person actually talk about 'Third Vote'.  The rest of the sources are inserted into the article in a WP:SYNTH fashion.  For example, the first citation in the article suggests that the journal 'Electoral Studies' covers the topic of the article, but it does not mention 'Third Vote' anywhere.  This article appears to have been created by a WP:COI account who is refspamming one person's (Andranik Tangian) work across Wikipedia.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 19:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SIGCOV .  Advocacy is the opposite of an encyclopedia.  Some articles, but they are primary for the most part.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Naomi Shah : Fails WP:BIO , WP:SIGCOV .  scope_creep Talk 08:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Entertainment , Finance , Science , Technology ,  and Oregon .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources.  Mooonswimmer 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Individual has significant coverage.  Corrugateboard ( talk ) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Winning a science fair and meeting the President is fine, but it's the coverage about the person we're looking for.  The best there is, is a Forbes contributor piece [49] , rest are PR pieces from VentureBeat.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As stated by others above, not close to WP:N .  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 18:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Obiageli Olorunsola : Also lacks WP:SIGCOV .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Badminton ,  and Nigeria .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 22:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I can't find any detailed coverage Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Midnight Shift Records : ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 10:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music ,  and Singapore .  ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 10:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; Mixmag seems unreliable, the CNN source wasn't SIGCOV.  Little else pops up Mach61 ( talk ) 14:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 08:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NCORP .  This is the only source I found but does not count towards notability.  Delete per nom.  Tails Wx 13:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Matches on night shifts, nothing for a record label found.  Sourcing used now in the article isn't helpful, discogs in particular isn't a RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"2030 European Men's Handball Championship : Event is still 6 years away.  Dratify can also be applicable.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:TOOSOON GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 17:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete way WP:TOOSOON .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  There was an indiscriminate creation of articles about upcoming sports events.  Svartner ( talk ) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per above.  Боки ☎ ✎ 17:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kimberly Crowe : No sourcing other than primary sources.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , WP:NOTLINKEDIN .  — siro χ o 01:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New Hampshire .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBASIC .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can only find promotional materials provided by her.  Her book is published by a vanity press, and the ""Speakers Playhouse"" article is provided by a publicity agent.  Lamona ( talk ) 01:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not notable  -- Devoke water 18:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Killface (2018 film) : Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Africa and Canada .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no reliable source coverage in real media shown at all — and if anybody's got the skills to find the kind of sourcing needed to salvage a badly-sourced Canadian film, it would be me, but I can't find anything notability-building that's been overlooked either.  Also, ""Best Student Film at the Vegas Movie Awards"" is not a notability-making award under WP:NFILM either — even if you're going for ""won an award"" as your film's notability claim, the award still has to be a notable award that gets media coverage , which that isn't.  As near as I can tell, it appears to be one of those fly-by-night fake film festivals that doesn't really screen films for the general public at all, and instead exists as an ""award mill"" where any self-promoting wannabe can buy themselves an ""award"" so that they can talk up their film as an ""award winner"" — literally the only things I can find on the web that talk about the Vegas Film Awards at all are press releases self-published by the ""winning"" filmmakers, and that does not a notable award make.  Note also Patrick Lualua Jr , another recent creation by the same editor about this film's director.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Per norm.  Does not meet WP:NFILM .  Only sources are IMDb which are not WP:RS .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 22:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Bearcat has said all that needs to be said, nothing to add, can't find anything other than listings either, definitely doesn't pass any notability criteria at all.  Tehonk ( talk ) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per norm  -- Devoke water 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Cho Yong-nam : Simione001 ( talk ) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"WHCQ-LD : Most recent edits were by User:Whcq , which proves WP:COI .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Many of the same ( GNG and COI ) issues with the articles for co-owned WPRQ-LD and WEBU-LD apply here too.",delete
"List of Big East men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters : Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans.  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Of the sources per WP:RS ; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY , some including primary sources are dead links.  one that isn't offering much isn't offering much to assert notability.  Besides being by a banned sock.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Basketball ,  and Lists .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT , failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE , WP:PRIMARY , WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on the policy of WP:NOTDATABASE .  Fails WP:LISTN and probable WP:LISTCRUFT .  Bgv.  ( talk ) 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Aradhya Malhotra : The case for notability seems to be founded on Malhotra's nomination for the Forbes 30 Under 30 list in 2016.  One would think this would be quite a strong indicia that he is notable.  However, for whatever reason, the only available sources are mostly primary sources being interviews of ( [24] [25] [26] [27] ) or articles written by the subject ( [28] [29] ) or about the games and not the subject at all ( [30] ).  Some sources have independence and reliability issues: the Forbes sources are naturally fawning, one is an interview for Malhotra's former college, and another is a podcast interview with a ""friend"".  Further, neither his studio, Skyless Game Studios, nor the games made by that studio, have barely any coverage nor seem to attract their own notability.  A WP:BEFORE for sources seems to yield articles with the same problems.  The article also seems to have been created by Mr. Malhotra.  Appreciate your thoughts.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  as per nom Worldiswide ( talk ) 06:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Moderate nationalism : Is there any appetite for deletion on this, or perhaps any other, basis?  Yr Enw ( talk ) 08:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there’s no doubt the term is in use to mean approximately similar things but stitching together some disparate uses of a term isn’t the basis for an encyclopedia article.  Mccapra ( talk ) 08:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Reverse Engineering for Beginners : Has carried a Notability tag since July 2018, but independent sourcing has not been found.  Prod tag was removed by the book's author, so here we are at AFD.  MrOllie ( talk ) 03:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Engineering ,  and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  To my mind NBOOK and GNG are almost the same here: we need multiple reliable in-depth independent sources about the book, most likely published reviews.  We don't have any and I couldn't find any.  Even if we take a laxer view of NBOOK, the article's claim that this is ""recommended by several universities"" does not pass #4 (that is only for books that are, themselves, the object of study in courses at multiple schools, not for books used as textbooks of courses about something else).  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We're interested in whether secondary attention has been paid to the book, and that's not being shown.  Andy Dingley ( talk ) 10:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : NBOOK and SIGCOV not met.  3 reviews condition also not fulfilled.  The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"G&Y : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sources provided are all non-independent – clearly this did exist (see archived copy of ref 1 and first external link), but I can't find anything at all online to support a notability claim.  I can't see a good redirect based on the article contents either.  I wouldn't be particularly surprised if someone was to find print coverage somewhere, but with what's available to me I can't find anything.  Tollens ( talk ) 09:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kota Yanagisawa : The only half-decent source found is Livedoor , a blog post, which falls short of being WP:SIGCOV of Yanagisawa and, in any case, WP:SPORTBASIC and SIGCOV require multiple good sources for a pass.  Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have any acceptable sources.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 17:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Litblog : No evidence for notability separate from the blog article.  DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Internet .  DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not even an unsourced claim to notability.  Ten years with a ""does not cite any sources"" tag is enough.  Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 19:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This could be a decent article if someone would make the effort to add some inline citations.   The two articles from the Guardian and the Village Voice piece (all in the ""external links"" section) should be enough to establish notability.   I agree that the article is full of OR and needs to be cut down quite a bit, but with some effort there could be a reasonable article here.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect Does not cite any sources.  The two articles mentioned talk about it only a bit and at best this is right for a redirect, if someone can name a logical direction.  Archrogue ( talk ) 18:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I thought about draftifying, but articles should be based on sources, not looking for sources to a text already written by someone else - no one will do that either.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Astrid Chevallier : Not notable.  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women ,  and France .  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I couldn't find any good sources that show notability.  The article itself has a lot of sources, but they are basically all low quality and/or primary.  Cortador ( talk ) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete already deleted from French wiki consensus was not notable.  Orange sticker ( talk ) 09:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sudden Death (band) : Unsourced since 2007 but failed an AFD in 2008 due to no consensus.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music .  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I also couldn't find any coverage from a sources that wasn't a primary source, or one that would meet reliability standards.  With that in mind I agree that it doesn not appear to meet WP:GNG or 1-8 of WP:NMUSIC , and given the requirement for verification in a reliable source, I don't think it meets 9-12 either.  Shaws username ( talk ) 20:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD , ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 13:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Weberton : I can't find any evidence that Weberton (not to be confused with the hundreds of players called 'Weverton') passes WP:SPORTBASIC #5.  Japanese Wikipedia lists the clubs that he played for but I can't find any decent non-database coverage, even when searching in conjunction with his former clubs.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Brazil .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – per nom.  Idiosincrático ( talk ) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – According to ogol.com.br [6] he had no notable spells at any club.  It includes a spell at Corinthians, but I didn't find anything about it.  Svartner ( talk ) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Online, WP:CIRCULAR and no WP:SIGCOV for WP:ATHLETE at the moment.  TLA tlak 02:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sencer Sarı : At first glance it appears to be well sourced however, after investigating all of the sources, it seems they are all either primary sources (his own website, his schools, thesis, disertation, shows, papers, etc.) His H-index on Google Scholar is virtually zero so fails notable academic, and an exhaustive web search doesn't find anything in the way of significant coverage we would usually find for an artist, such as notable exhibitions, reviews, museum collections, etc.  Thus failing NARTIST and also WP:GNG .  Please see the source assessment table linked below.  The only source that is viable and would count as SIGCOV is the one for Fokus magazine.  The only other source of interest is the interview on Green Belarus, but it's a primary source of him talking about himself with no in-depth editorial input.  I'm guessing that this may be an autobiography or a connected contributor's creation (and edited by several WP:SPAs ).  Bringing it here for the community to decide.  Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  ""Court Case #2012/253-331"" (in Turkish) (58118 www.bik.gov.tr) court case documet ✘ No https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sencer-Sari user submitted bio/CV on Research Gate ~ primary source (nor are citations listed) ✘ No 7/3/1992-2/10/2017 tarih aralığında kayıtlanan 1/1/2003-2/10/2017 tarih aralığında mezun olan öğrenciler ÇÖMÜ list of students who graduated from the school he attended ✘ No https://avesis.comu.edu.tr/yonetilen-tez/539e3916-764e-4d17-af65-94b4b98a8797/dusuk-dereceli-750-1020-c-kromatli-sirlar his own Master's thesis primary source ✘ No https://www.academia.edu/8312559 a paper he wrote, posted on Academia.edu primary source ✘ No http://sencersari.com/wrd/? page_id=886 his own website ?  primary source ✘ No Artvisit 1 International designer & artist works.  WorldCat (in Turkish).  pp. 530–531.  ISBN 9944-312-01-0.  OCLC 75243672.  seems to be an art exhibit catalog ?  unverifiable, as ISBN is dead, OCLC points to WorldCat ?  Unknown http://nha.bg/uploads/ckeditor/AVTOREFERAT-senger-sary.pdf his own PhD Thesis primary source ✘ No http://nha.bg/uploads/ckeditor/AVTOREFERAT-senger-sary.pdf List of artists registered with Turkey Name check - just lists his name ✘ No https://sab.yildiz.edu.tr/haberler/Araştırma-Görevlimiz-Burak-BOYRAZ-%22Ekim-Buluşması-2%22-Sergisinde/92 name listed as workshop attendee name check only ✘ No https://rayp.adalet.gov.tr/resimler/494/dosya/bilirkisilistesi-1407202004-09-202009-24.pdf List of ""regional experts"" but can't find his name ✘ No https://art.edu.ge/aceng/index.php? do=cat&category=3-4-2 School where he teaches does not mention his name at all ✘ No https://www.academia.edu/8312440 a paper he wrote ~ Academia.com (not sure if this was published) primary source ✘ No https://greenbelarus.info/articles/22-10-2021/rabotat-s-uranom-srodni-religii-kak-professor-keramiki-polyubil-radioaktivnoe Interview seems like a web-magazine or blog ""Green Belarus"" Interview (primary source) ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20150402140551/http://www.zucder.org.tr/imgs/dergi43.pdf Fokus Magazine ✔ Yes https://vuzf.bg/novini/263 ?  Photo of him and photo caption ✘ No http://sencersari.com/wrd/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/vuzf.jpg primary source Certificate proving he had a show and gave a seminar about it ✘ No http://sencersari.com/wrd/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/vienna.jpg letter on his own website that he gave a lecture and workshop at a ceramic studio ~ primary source ✘ No https://www.academia.edu/8312440 his own paper on Academic.edu primary source ✘ No NK4267 . U487 Kayıt no: 4048.  Anadolu Üniversitesi (NK4267 .U487 Registration number: 4048. Anadolu University) ?  ? ? ?  Unknown https://www.vda.lt/lt/studiju_programos/bakalauro-ir-vientisuju-studiju-programos/keramika/keramika-bakalauro-studijos-vilnius/vizituojantys-menininkai/sencer-sari his bio/CV at his own institution ✘ No Altın Testi Seramik Yarışması.  İzmir Rotary.  2006 Rotary Club exhibit announcement press release, primary source ✘ No https://serfed.com/tr/content.php? content_id=68 ?  ?  dead link of Rotary Club show ✘ No İsli Pişirim Etkinliği"" Seramik Sergisi davetiyesi"" (Press release) (in Turkish).  İzmir Adnan Franko Art Gallery.  press release primary source, press release ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20150222201706/http://www.antoloji.com/etkinlik/? etkinlik=3067 press release/calendar listing for a show ✘ No https://www.sondakika.com/dunya/ seems to be a news site doesn't mention him at all ✘ No http://v3.arkitera.com/arsgratiaartis.php? action=displayNewsItem&ID=20725 ?  ? ?  dead link ?  Unknown http://sencersari.com/wrd/? page_id=144 his own website primary source ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20150402194614/http://www.ilkezgi.com/sergiler/icalrepeat.detail/2014/10/20/2561/-/sencer-sari-porselen-heykel-sergisi-denizden-gelenler? tmpl=component event listing (calendar listing) ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20160305174555/http://yabangee.com/2014/11/starting-saturday-istanbul-art-fair-feat-yabangees-gabrielle-reeves/ doesn't mention him at all ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20141021090016/http://sanat-magazin.com/2014/10/20/20-ekim-2014-pazartesi-sergi-ve-etkinlikler/ event listing (calendar listing) ✘ No https://www.diena.lv/raksts/kd/maksla/augusta-daugavpili-norisinasies-v-starptautiskais-keramikas-makslas-simpozijs-14176973 doesn't mention him at all ✘ No 5th International Ceramic Art Symposium Ceramic Laboratory in Daugavpils, Latvia.  ? ? ?  seems to be the name of a show he ws in ?  Unknown http://sencersari.com/wrd/? page_id=2101 his own website ~ primary source ✘ No https://www.vda.lt/lt/ his own school no mention of his name ✘ No http://sencersari.com/wrd/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Sencer-decadance.jpg poster for a show he was in ✘ No Art fest alchemy, batumi (13 September 2019).  ""poster"".  instahu.  ?  poster for a show ✘ No https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1512-0899# doesn't mention his name ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Netherzone ( talk ) 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Authors ,  and Visual arts .  Netherzone ( talk ) 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Turkey .  Netherzone ( talk ) 18:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I finally had a chance to review the excellent table assessing references.  I agree that the subject fails notability criteria for WP:NPROF and WP:NARTIST .  The search for a red glaze has been going on for centuries.  Evidently Fiestaware incorporated uranium in its ""china red"" ceramics back in the 1930s.  It is off the market now, but will still set off a  Geiger counter.  But I digress... -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Avature : Note that I have removed various sources noting awards but all of them where from the same organisation giving the award i.e. not independent coverage.  SmartSE ( talk ) 16:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software .  SmartSE ( talk ) 16:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The information that is left in the article seems to be found on their company website, which makes sense for that kind of basic information.  Regarding coverage to demonstrate WP:CORP I found several independent articles that mention Avature as an HR tech company (see references below).  Avature is a well-established company and their article page goes back to 2012.  Based on the above and the WP:ORGCRIT provided, we should keep this page.  1. This year, an industry expert mentions Avature released a new product that debuts them in the training market: https://joshbersin.com/2023/10/avature-enters-training-market-with-focus-on-informal-learning/  2. An announcement that mentions a partnership between Avature and LinkedIn: https://www.hrtech.sg/news/avature-integrates-with-linkedin-recruiter/  3. Dimitri Boylan, the CEO mentioned in the article, was named in the best HR tech influencer list: https://talentculture.com/top-20-best-hr-tech-influencers-of-2022/  4. In 2020 the same industry expert Josh Bersin, mentioned Avature as being adaptable HR Tech software: https://joshbersin.com/2020/10/the-new-world-of-adaptable-hr-software-avature-sets-the-pace/  5. This mention technically fails CORPDEPTH, but it mentions Avature as an HR technology vendor of Delta and Walmart: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/technology/pages/delta-walmart-use-hr-technology-stay-agile-during-pandemic.aspx TechieArg ( talk ) 10:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) — TechieArg ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:NORG .  To the points above, being ""well-established"" isn't what shows notability on Wikipedia.  As for the sources: (1) is a niche WordPress blog that, when taking WP:AUD into consideration, isn't sufficient for notability whether this person's blog is reliable or not.  (2) is a press release, and so is not independent and does not contribute to notability.  (3) is also a press release but notability is not inherited , so if the article showed notability for the individual, that notability does not transfer to any and every company they work for.  However, even if it's wasn't a press release, such lists are specifically listed as an example of trivial coverage .  (4) is the same niche WordPress blog as  1. (5) is indeed trivial coverage.  I wasn't able to find anything online that would show notability either.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Parassala Pachan Payyannur Paramu : PROD contested with a single additional source.  Still seems to fail NFILM and GNG.  UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , India ,  and Kerala .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , we have a significant review in English so I think that we should be assuming that sufficient additional coverage exists in the Malayalam language unless someone can demonstrate that isn't the case.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 16:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there exists a review from a reliable source 23 years after it was released indicating it would surely have received press and reviews when it was released.  It is extremely hard to source reviews for old Malayalam movies that were made before internet became common in the country, and considering the star cast it would have received more than 2 reviews had it released now.  Jupitus Smart 13:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an article from 2014-2021, and no sources could be found in that time or until now.  WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST but it should not be up to someone to show that sources do not exist !  As I mentioned at the RfU before it was restored, the only significant source we have, the review, could have been more than a basic plot narration.  Delete if this is the best we can do with this article.  Jay 💬 17:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  It is for those seeking to retain content to provide verification/sources; assuming they exist isn't what we do here.  Stifle ( talk ) 10:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Michael Weicker : Accepted by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic .  US-Verified ( talk ) 18:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is the second nomination and it runs the risk of being as unaffected as the first, due to a lack of participation.  Well, as far as I understand the situation, his brother is notable and he is not.  The German WP page about him has been removed .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 07:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : This is not notable, and this is the second nomination.  CastJared ( talk ) 08:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found for this individual, there seems to be lots of coverage in the sportosworld world for a person with a similar name, nothing about a film person.  Gsearch in . de sites goes straight to his personal website, then various promo sites, then peters off...  The awards section lists more than a dozen; if the person was this this renown, I'd expect to find coverage of them all over the place; there just isn't any.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Rights holder"" appears to mean ""owns the copyright"", which isn't terribly notable, you can assign it to anyone with the right legal setup.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Marija Stasiulytė : All I found were passing mentions ( 2009 , 2010 , 2011 , 2012 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Lithuania .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Fails in WP:GNG .  Svartner ( talk ) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I concur with the @ GiantSnowman statement.  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Marcelus ( talk ) 12:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gosh, another one of those athlete microstubs?  Delete .  Prodraxis ( talk ) 03:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Embassy of the United States, Kinshasa : The rest is a content fork.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Democratic Republic of the Congo ,  and United States of America .  LibStar ( talk ) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Democratic Republic of the Congo–United States relations .  Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per ample precedent; no redeemable content.  — Biruitorul Talk 20:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 14:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Treehouse Trolls Birthday Day : I can't see how it meets WP:NF , interested to see if others can make a good case for inclusion JMWt ( talk ) 13:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 13:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing but database entries, YouTube, IMDb, and non-notable lists of videotapes for sale.   No discussion in secondary sources that I can find.   Clearly non-notable.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no clear evidence of coverage in secondary sources and as noted above, what there is seems limited to db-like listings.  I'd also throw the almost identical Treehouse Trolls Forest of Fun and Wonder into the mix as well for deletion consideration.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 08:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable.  I have not been able to find anything beyond aforementioned.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 13:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Andrew Marston : Nothing of note.  Links are purely to interviews and programme links.  Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs ) 11:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Radio ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clear vanity article full of minutiae and edited mainly by a user with a WP:COI .  This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to post their CVs.  Flip Format ( talk ) 15:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article is packed with BBC references, but no independent sources are available to establish notability.  Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 20:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Math-U-See : It may have won awards from Home Schooling organsations but I cannot find any firm evidence of that.  Newhaven lad ( talk ) 19:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Mathematics .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: no secondary coverage, just ads Hi!  ( talk ) 10:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  20:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I also cannot find any news coverage on this company.  Bradelykooper ( talk ) 08:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ville Seivo : Only film databases and user generated content.  Printed coverage in foreign language is unlikely, as the subject seems to have played minor roles in not many major works.  However, if they exist, one may list so.  X ( talk ) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers ,  and Finland .  X ( talk ) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Finnart F.C. : – Meena • 10:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland .  – Meena • 10:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Stub article and a number of improvements necessary to bring up to the same level of the other teams in the same league (where there is no consideration of deletion).  Id keep until improvements are made.  Macarism Talk 10:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to West of Scotland Football League#Third Division .  The subject appears to fail the essay WP:NCLUB , and I could not find enough SIGCOV online for this article to meet the GNG.  However, it would be preferable to redirect instead of delete because this team is part of a notable league and is a possible search term.  The Night Watch (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No evidence of notability.  Ping me if multiple IS RS SIGCOV sources are added to the article.  // Timothy :: talk 21:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 21:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No indication of notability.  Nigej ( talk ) 19:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Kuban Airlines destinations : A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close .  This article fails WP:NOT as it is a clear failure of WP:NOTCATALOGUE .  Specifically it is a complete listing of all the services provided by a company.  It is no different, ultimately, to a complete listing of all the outlets of Roy Roger's as of 5th July 1983.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not the Yellow Pages or Skyscanner.  Even if the RFC were set to one side, and the WP:NOT issues dealt with somehow (and I do not believe they can be), this article would still be a failure of WP:CORP , which explicitly requires that articles solely about the services offered by a company are cited to significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources that go beyond mere specialist/industry press and are not simply local or narrow-interest coverage .  This is resolutely not the case for this article, which is cited only to the company website Kuban.aero (now 404), a blog on Travel.ru (a website that sells travel tickets), and Agent.ru (another website that sells tickets).  Given the NOT issues a WP:BEFORE search is not mandatory, but I did one anyway and unsurprisingly there was nothing that would fix this.  The lack of a corresponding RU-language page about the destinations of Kuban Airlines is also indicative of the problem.  Looking at the sourcing for the Kuban Airlines page there is also nothing that would fix this.  FOARP ( talk ) 15:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists ,  and Russia .  FOARP ( talk ) 15:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, and per WP:IINFO , of which these kinds of ephemeral lists of airline destinations are a textbook example.   Also, the RFC above shows there is an existing consensus that these lists should be deleted.   -- Jayron 32 14:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nominator and per Jayron32.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sophisticated Games : Boleyn ( talk ) 08:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games , Companies ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Small board game company.  No refs, nothing i can find on google.  Desertarun ( talk ) 08:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Generative AI tools : Password (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify : The article is unreferenced as as no clarity about the subject, need to update missing information as well as writing tone.  Morekar ( talk ) 09:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Too vague, there is already Large language model#List and hundreds or thousands of ""generative AI tools"" Mr Vili talk 04:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, no RS backing the article, from a quick search I just did.  Cinadon 36 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Mr vili.  Large language model seems to cover this well enough already TappyTurtle ( talk ) 05:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This article is somewhat slopulous and seems to have been written by a GPT.  jp × g 🗯️ 17:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] which, would be quite ironic given the article’s topic, lol TappyTurtle ( talk ) 21:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have noticed a lot of ""whatever and AI"" articles/drafts written by LLMs.  I imagine it's similar to how the first thing everybody 3d prints is some accessories and brackets for their 3d printer, and the first thing everybody makes on a lathe is random lathe attachments, etc etc.. .  jp × g 🗯️ 05:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"IPv10 : It's severely aged, unimplemented and highly unlikely to ever be implemented.  No major or minor player in the industry has even commented the proposal.  Most trackable discussions are about whether the proposal is technically serious or a hoax.  [25] [26] [27] The current article fails to discuss the topic.  It's rather a copy of various pages in WP.  It's not likely to be salvageable.  -- Zac67 ( talk ) 08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: in this edit , Kin kad left the following message IPv6 has serious drawbacks and is not capable of routing the available Range blocks sizes and most IP addresses are un routable/manageable.  followed by a gigantic table.  Because of the giant table and the fact that their edit overwrote Zac67's nomination, I reverted the edit.  Tigraan Click here for my talk page (""private"" contact) 08:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete The article IPv10  for the follow reasons: The article is about a notable subject hence the article is notable Every Theory in this article is notable as it has been Cherry picked out of articles of IPv4 and IPv6.  The article is noteworthy as its addressing a genuine problem with IPv6 and the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.  comment added by Kin kad ( talk • contribs ) 09:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I considered tagging WP:A7 because it has ""no credible indication of notability"", but decided against it because of the topic (it’s not about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event - ""web content"" would be dubious since at its core it is a software/protocol proposal).  That being said, there are no sources, hence no notability, hence zap it.  However, note that even sources that say the proposal is crap could establish notability.  For instance this is in-depth and independent of the subject (but probably not reliable, it’s a random company’s blog).  @ Kin kad : Please stop discussing the merits of the proposal, those are irrelevant.  We are not going to evaluate those for ourselves .  If you want the article to be kept, you need to provide sources that are (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, and (3) describe it at length.  If it’s the best RfC ever but nobody said anything about it, it’s not notable and it does not belong to Wikipedia.  Tigraan Click here for my talk page (""private"" contact) 09:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , needs WP:TNT , as the article will need to frame the discussion as a failed/strawman/hoax proposal.  However, there seems to be at least one 1 reliable scholarly source with sigcov of a strawman proposal [28] .  This one may have sigcov harder to tell [29] .  Here's one with just a mention [30] Here are a couple more scholarly sources, but I'm not very confident on reliability [31] [32] .  May be more appropriate for such an article to be at History of IPv10 given the strange nature of the path this topic has taken.  — siro χ o 09:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: As near as I can tell, IPv10 is a seven year old draft proposal that has gone nowhere.   It is not something that anyone is actively working on or taking seriously or maneuvering towards adoption.   There's no evidence that the proposal is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  — scs ( talk ) 12:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: At best, it's an outline proposal by one person from 2017 that didn't gain any traction, and the current article implies (with no sourcing) that it's a practical protocol that could actually be implemented.  The first paragraph in particular is nonsense.  I've had a look through my archive of networking mailing lists and didn't find any serious discussion of it at all; there are a couple of puzzled mentions of the draft when it was initially published, and only a couple of ""do you remember that odd proposal"" passing mentions since then.  Adam Sampson ( talk ) 16:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Yara Mustafa : Also fails WP:NACTOR .  popo dameron ⁠ talk 23:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Women , Television ,  and Jordan .  popo dameron ⁠ talk 23:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mizanur Rahman Khan : Two obituaries used as sources and looking for sources I did not find any significant coverage that would contribute towards notability.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Journalism , News media ,  and Bangladesh .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete Seemingly non-notable, though some light searching indicates that he was a rather influential journalist/editor at the largest newspaper in Bangladesh.  Would err on the side of delete unless someone (perhaps with better access to Bangladeshi sources than I) could provide evidence of greater notability.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 16:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : He has several references in journalism, writing and research.  And they have depth and significant coverage.  So it can be kept.  -- DelwarHossain ( talk ) 10:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you show some of them here?  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Didn’t find any WP:SIGCOV.  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 03:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  BEFORE found obits, nothing with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk 04:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Thomas Pastor : Sourcing is almost nothing in RS, only hits are on his name for other people.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Buddhism .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm working with this individual to improve the page, I've linked him from the Kwan Um School of Zen Wikipedia page.  What does RS mean?  Thank you for your time!  Binkybonker ( talk ) 16:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will comment on your talk page about your question.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC .  The article has no independent third-party sources, all being either directly affiliated with the individual or being interviews with the individual .  I could not find any independent reliable sources online either; it doesn't help that both ""Thomas Pastor"" and ""Ji Haeng"" are names for many other people, meaning the search results for those names are full of other unrelated individuals.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 17:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To add to the existing evidence The page cites Thomas Pastor as the founder of the Zen Center of Las Vegas.  However, the Zen Center of Las Vegas Wiki page does not list Thomas Pastor as the founder, but an entirely different monk.  Is it one or the other?  is it both?  Taizan Maezumi is cited as the founder of the Zen Center of Las Vegas (linked via Thomas Pastor page) yet Taizan Maezumi does not appear in Thomas Pastor page.  Either these two did not know each other and the practices are different and should not be linked, or it's the same practice and they should be refered.  User:Tinndalos — Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Little evidence of notability .  None of the sources cited is independent of the subject while having extensive discussion of him, except possibly no. 14, which gave me a 404.  (sources 1 and 4 are duplicates, as are 9 and 12.)  Maproom ( talk ) 22:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maproom : Here is an archived copy of that reference, which is just a trivial mention that says the individual's name and what day they would be teaching at the retreat, which means it's not an independent source even if it wasn't a trivial mention.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 03:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments : First, the photograph looks as if it was made with the cooperation of its subject.  The photographer was Sanch1161 , who was also the creator of this article.  Is there perhaps a conflict of interest?  Secondly, the article Thomas Pastor leads the reader to Kwan Um School of Zen , which has a gallery, from which we arrive at articles on Soenghyang , Dae Kwang , Wu Kwang , Bon Yeon and other figures whose notability isn't at all obvious to me -- and also to an article on Wubong , from which we learn such nuggets as ""Zen practice [...] gives us the attainment of truth and a clear direction"" and that the subject ""left his body"" at such and such a time: not, I think, ""encyclopedic"" material. -- Hoary ( talk ) 07:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] {{Keep | [The significance of this page rests mainly on the fact that the subject is the last American to have been named a lineage holder by Suengsahn before his death. Suengsahn was noted for bringing Korean Buddhism to America. Locating suitable citations to support this article are mainly due to the age of the subject matter. The Americans given transmission from Seungsahn tended to be post beat generation poets, artists and professors but their work was vastly pre-internet. I have found additional citations for the subject including a feature in A Love Supreme: The Story of John Coltrane's Signature Album . Elvin Jones. Penguin Books.p. 157, an article about the subject in International Musician (back copy) as well as a feature in NPR’s Desert Companion and have added. The subject has multiple interviews including The Review Journal (largest Las Vegas newspaper est. 1908) as well as the Sun which are respectable, but it will take additional time to source additional journal citations given the pre-internet nature of when he was most active. ] }} MFoskett ( talk ) 22:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) — MFoskett ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] To demonstrate notability, a subject must meet one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:GNG , WP:BASIC , WP:NARTIST , WP:NBAND , et cetera.  Receiving transmission, whatever the circumstances, is not a demonstration of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia.  The sources that were added such as the Desert Companion are interviews which are not independent sources since all of the relevant information in those interviews is from the individual himself.  The article as written and from what I could find online and in  databases like WP:TWL and Newspapers.com / NewspaperArchive does not show notability.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Habeeb Zain Arif : Pepper Beast (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Pepper Beast (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Andhra Pradesh ,  and Telangana .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Has not held any role that would give him a free notability pass under WP:NPOL without WP:GNG -worthy sourcing for it, but this is sourced solely to a YouTube clip that isn't GNG-worthy sourcing.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Agreed with Bearcat Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jaimie McEvoy : The main notability claim here is that he served on the municipal council of a mid-sized suburban city, which is not ""inherently"" notable -- at the local level of office, the notability test is not passed just by verifying that the person exists , but by writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact .  But while this is at least trying to head in that direction with some statements about specific projects he's been involved in as a councillor, it's completely failing to source them properly: the only two footnotes here are the city's self-published list of its council members on its own website and a book he wrote himself circularly cited as verification of its own existence, neither of which are support for notability.  We need to see third-party coverage about his work in sources independent of himself, not stuff he had personal editorial control over.  Nothing here is ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Councillor from fairly small city, nothing to indicate they are among the small number of local politicians to meet notability requirements solely on the basis of involvement in local politics.  Article is also written in a vaguely promotional way and we need to avoid Wikipedia being used as a venue for promotion.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 15:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Health and fitness .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep  1. New Westminster is not a small city by Canadian standards, and even it was, it is part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Translink, and New Westminster politicians usually play important roles on those bodies.  2. Mr McEvoy's book deals with an important episode in local history.  Prescottbush ( talk ) 01:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The test for the notability of municipal politicians doesn't hinge on whether the city is large or small ""by Canadian standards"" — it hinges on whether the city is large or small by worldwide standards.  That is, internationally famous global cities like London, New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto or Tokyo are the only ones whose city councillors get extended any kind of guaranteed notability just for being city councillors per se — in any city outside of that rarefied class ( even a suburb within the metropolitan area of one), a city councillor is only eligible to have an article if the sourcing and substance can show a reason why they're personally a special case of much greater nationalized or internationalized significance than most other city councillors, which this article is not doing at all.  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete even if they somehow passed NPOL which they do not, the sourcing on this article is woefully short of demonstrating we can write a reliable article on them using only secondary sources (list of councillors and one self-written piece is all that's in the article.) SportingFlyer T · C 14:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"StraitsX Singapore Dollar : Sources online are all primary or are noted for not being reliable WP:NCRYPTO Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Singapore .  Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom.  All primary and WP:TOOSOON .  Lethweimaster ( talk ) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"TXT402 : Existed since 2011 with a single primary source.  Searching google requires wrapping ""TXT402"" in quotes as otherwise you get all kinds of incidental results of ""TXT"" and ""402"".  The news and book searches have zero results.  -- ferret ( talk ) 19:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  -- ferret ( talk ) 19:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - ""Non-notable company"" per nom.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 20:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Definitely doesn't seem to meet GNG.  Can't find much information even from webarchive, but I'm unclear if this is a ""company"" at all.  At a glance (and based on the article contents) I think it's just some web forum for selling stolen passwords.  The article reads like (poorly written) marketing too; doesn't seem like the content belongs on Wikipedia at all.  Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 14:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Fails notability.  Created by a single-purpose account that had no other edits.  — Maile ( talk ) 19:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Only one source within article.  Quick search demonstrates nothing of substance.  MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 02:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kaltungo Emirate : """" Gjs238 ( talk ) 19:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Africa . Gjs238 ( talk ) 19:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete regardless of whether the report from the office of the vice president is ""erroneous"" or not, I can find no evidence of notability for this ""Emirate"".  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails WP:SOAPBOX and WP:GNG .  I can't find any evidence online that this traditional state existed, and this page just seems to advocate for that point of view.  It is not encyclopaedic.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Wai Linn Aung : Contested draft.  Star Mississippi 15:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Myanmar .  Star Mississippi 15:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no significant coverage found in English or Burmese.  No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC being met.  The article is too promotional and contains citations to YouTube and Facebook, which are both completely inappropriate.  This should not have been moved back to mainspace but, given that it would just be edit warred back if it were draftified again, I'll have to favour deletion this time.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Due to the article being moved from draftspace without the proper submission process.  Svartner ( talk ) 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 11:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Total Experience : WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  12:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete On initial before I thought this was going to be keep, but on review I can only find one additional reliable use of the term: https://www.techradar.com/opinion/total-experience-a-trend-for-future-business WP:NOTNEO implies at least three sources are needed, and I couldn't find two others, hence my vote.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Plenty of mentions of the term in PR items, nothing beyond that.  [37] is about the best I can find.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Juned Mohmed Patel : PROD was contested .  Recommend Delete - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , India ,  and Gujarat .  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He had served with state wide office and refrence of organisation website put there.  So that he set in WP: POLITICIAN category.He is from Dynasty politically family and have enough Media refrence to prove notable.  He is also family member of MLA Ibrahim Ali Patel BootTPP ( talk ) 05:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD on how to vote in an AfD.  But, since you haven't voted, let me point you to WP:NOTINHERITED .  Also, to meet WP:NPOL , a subject needs to be an MLA, at minimum, themselves.  Failing that, you'll have to show that the subject meets the General Notability guidelines , which require multiple, independent, reliable sources which talk about the subject in-depth.  Hope that helps.  - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:POLITICIAN set here.  He is Authentic, Dynasty Politician belongs from the well-known Political families of Gujarat BootTPP ( talk ) 05:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : without engaging in an evaluation of WP:POLITICIAN, SIGCOV is met based on a collective assessment of references [5] - [10].  Notable Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I get that what does and does not constitute significant coverage can be hazy sometimes, but this and this are so obviously not sigcov that I seriously had to question whether we were looking at the same news articles.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of them can fairly be said to be SIGCOV, my assessment was collective.  Acknowledged that those ones you've linked are mere quotes and / or passing reference Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Sigh, why is my name at the top of this article.  Has previously existed in draftspace-hell at Draft:Juned Patel before being cut-and-paste moved to mainspace.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, this has previously been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juned Patel .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I saw that time he had not enough refrence.Currently he have.see he have references like Rajasthan Patrika Ahmedabad mirror, Dainik Bhaskar, quint Hindi etc.. .  BootTPP ( talk ) 05:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : his refrence ,  his privious offices and Media coverage and organisations show's.  enough.  BootTPP ( talk ) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : First-and-foremost, this reeks of clear WP:COI editing.  An SPA whose only edits in all 6 months they've been here is to this article/draft.  As for the sources themselves: 1 is clearly not reliable, 2 is just an organization leadership page, AGF on 3 and 4 due to the language but they're very short so I don't imagine they say much, 5 6 and 7 are just the same short quote repackaged, again AGF with 8 9 and 10 due to language but they are again so short I don't imagine there is much in the way of significant coverage.  This ""article"" is just a vanity project to promote the subject.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You told about refrence 3,4,8,9,10  are short.for your info sentence word's matter.  Obove mentioned other languages reference that are reputed media in Gujarat.  BootTPP ( talk ) 06:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Using the Google Lens app to translate the non-Eng sources; 3 is just a very short sentence that he received congratulation for getting a position (not sigcov), 4 is a statement by him advocating against child labor (not sigcov), and 8, 9, and 10 are just short quotes from him advocating for various political positions in his capacity as a party official.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would highly recommend Salting of this title and Juned Patel by the way.  The socking surrounding this subject is really becoming frustrating.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh I just noticed that Juned Patel has already been salted for two years .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is clear sockpuppetry in the history of the deleted contributions on Draft:Juned Patel and so I've blocked this user along with a few others.  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadupatel looks to be the account based on that history.  Izno ( talk ) 19:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Juned Mohmed Patel is Authentic Dynasty Politician.  His organisation website and organisation side refrences shows enough.  I can't understand why Wikipedia's writer removing Congress party leader's Wikipedia article.In Last 2 months they Removed article of  aiswarya Mahadev , saral Patel (hi) ,and others and currently Juned Patel.All those are National and state's reputed and Notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.6.10 ( talk ) 03:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) — 103.247.6.10 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Keep Juned Patel is Authentic Notable Politician and reference of Rajasthan Patrika, Ahmedabad Mirror, Vatsalya News, organisation website show authentic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.216.96.92 ( talk ) 05:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) — 106.216.96.92 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Keep : Juned Patel have State Office and Dynasty Politician relative of MLA Ibrahim Ali Patel .  Refrence of organisation website and other news of department side shows also authentic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.54.51 ( talk ) 02:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC) — 103.247.54.51 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Given this attempt to subvert the discussion process, I suggest this IP's not-vote is appropriately discounted by the closing admin.  Grachester ( talk ) 03:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  Subject is a public spokesperson, sources in article are mainly statemetns made by subject in interviews, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth .  Additionally their is a self published bio, and routine news announcements.  Source eval by Curbon7 and BEFORE done by others above show nothing, and the keep votes present nothing that meets SIGCOV.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  // Timothy :: talk 16:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Tossing out the sockpuppet Keeps, the only basis for keeping advanced is a ""collective assessment"" based on sources the editor concedes are not in of themselves SIGCOV.   This is an argument for 0+0+0+0+0=53, and plays no part in any notability criterion.   This is a plain GNG failure.  Ravenswing 01:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] actually its an argument that: 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 = 1 and it is an argument compatible with SIGCOV policy, as written Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NPOL , he's not elected to any post but just nominated in some inter-state party posts.  Moreover, he is not connected with Ruling party of the state.  Other than this, people here are continuously adding comments and i can see Jack4576 writers than 0.25 four times make 1, but you should have an Notable subject to say this.  Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 05:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – the sources in the article are not impressive at all.  Translating their content, all I can see is non-notable statements, and a Google search reveals no reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources.  And again to Jack, SIGCOV is not determined collectively.  SIGCOV source = 1, while a non-SIGCOV source = 0.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 05:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have yet to substantiate your bare assertion that SIGCOV cannot be established by an evaluation of multiple sources in combination; with any reference to policy.  Yet you repeat the mantra constantly.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Bangladesh Premier League umpires : Umpiring in the BPL is routine for the profession; nothing remarkable; no significant coverage of this list.  I completely agree, scoring a 100, taking 5-for or even getting selected to play in a premier tournament like BPL is a significant achievement, all these having articles make sense.  But what is the credit of umpires here?  Umpiring is a normal profession, simply an appointment.  If you have a look at the list, there seems to be many non-notable persons umpiring in BPL.  All the sources are just database or stat-based about how many umpired who who umpired.  Couldn't find sources which discuss about the subject in a group.  Yes, umpiring in 50 or 100 BPL matches might have some coverage, but that's enough to be included in the biography of that umpire.  Robo Cric Let's chat 16:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Cricket , Lists ,  and Bangladesh .  Robo Cric Let's chat 16:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom.  Fails the policies/guidelines as nom has suggested.  Not really a suitable redirect as umpiring isn't mentioned in the parent article.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY , no encyclopedic value, and isn't significant coverage of the BPL umpires in sources.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 16:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete very specific listcruft.  REDISCOVERBHARAT ( talk ) 14:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Homer, Kansas : BEFORE search did not return significant coverage.  – dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas .  – dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - satellite image shows nothing there.  No railway siding - just a single track.  About a mile from the interstate; the exit sign says ""Pioneer Road"" and another says "" Russell next 2 exits"".  No mention of Homer.  There is a large farmhouse 1/2 mile west of these coordinates and another one 1/4 mile east.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the obvious thing to do is change the article to ghost town , which I did just now.  I don't know why Homer wasn't listed in the template or county articles, but I fixed them too.   The google satellite view shows the location next to a ""Homer Rd"", thus article is useful for people to understand the source of that road name.   • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] May I ask which source supports the ""ghost town"" label?  – dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No Opinion - Plenty of coverage in newspaper sources.  It appears The Russel Record carried a semiregular column, ""Homer Items"", that discussed matters in the town ( [1] [2] [3] ).  This correspondence contains some substantive information about the town (perhaps not RS as a letter to the editor of sorts).  Other papers contained info about the town, including a blowout baseball game and a train timetable .  Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND with WP:NTEMP in mind.  AviationFreak 💬 02:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ""substantive information"" in that correspondence reads: From Homer.  I have often wondered why The Record, with all its enterprise, has not established an agency and a correspondent in this city.  Homer differs from other cities in many things.  It has no city government, and the people do as they please.  It has no city marshal and is not annoyed by crap shooters.  It has no churches and no dives.  There has been a movement in real estate the last few days, but no property has changed hands.  No hogs or chickens are kept within the city limits.  The census enumerator reports no marriages, no deaths and no babies born during tha last census year.  Tarty politics cut no figure and the Ruppenthal-Gernon contest is scarcely heard of.  The health of the city is good which may, perhaps, be attributed to the fact that there are no doctors here.  City property is not high and people who wish to enjoy a quiet peaceful life should come to Homer.  Having named a few of the negative virtues of the city, I will subside, leaving the positive ones for a future letter.  Homer.  This seems to be tongue in cheek.  The substantive information it appears to give is that there is nothing much in Homer.  It certainly doesn't verify that it actually is a city or anything more than a stop.  The baseball game also is quite interesting, as nearly everybody on both teams has the same surname.  The baseball game article does mention a school though, Yet if the school is anything more than an extended tutoring arrangement, one would expect some record of that.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 17:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hadn't considered that the newspaper is likely tongue-in-cheek; I'm not the best at reading sarcasm but that seems to fit the bill.  There is a slightly more substantial mention of the school in source 2, linked above - the name of the ""captain"" and mention of Sunday school programming.  There is a rather substantial log of ""Homer Items"" columns in various Russell-based papers, but these provide little information about the place itself (much more local happenings and gossip).  With this in mind, I've changed my vote of ""Keep"" to ""No Opinion"" (I hope that's allowed); I feel that there's probably not enough to show a clear-cut meeting of GEOLAND, but the place seems to act like more of a settlement than your average whistle stop with a post office.  AviationFreak 💬 05:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete I have to say this over and over: newspaper references to a place name don't automatically mean that it's a town.  I can't find any evidence that there was a settlement there with houses and stores and the like, whereas there's plenty of evidence in the form of maps and aerials that there isn't anything there but a passing siding.  These mentions are completely consistent with Homer being a vague locale, not a town; and we've long ago decided that station stops are not notable as such (station buildings being a different matter).  Mangoe ( talk ) 16:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (nom): Not everyone who colonised the Western US lived in a town; many were farmers who bought (or stole) a piece of land far from any settlement.  If you asked them where they lived, they'd name the post office where they picked up their mail, which was often just a farmhouse or one of the tiny railroad stations that had been established at regular intervals along the tracks.  Maybe there would be a church or schoolhouse nearby to serve the dispersed population.  I read the newspaper correspondence as tongue-in-cheek: The writer is having a laugh at the absurdity of living in a such a non-town.  – dlthewave ☎ 12:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I have thought hard about this one and reviewed all the newspaper clippings provided by AviationFreak, and wish to thank them for their efforts finding them.  AviationFreak is right that Homer gets a number of mentions, and although the one I quoted above seems fairly clear there was little enough in Homer, there is evidence of a school and/or Sunday School and ""Lyceum"" (which is not, in this instance, necessarily a school) in the vicinity.  There was clearly an area with some settlement that was called Homer, and the existence of the train stop shows why the area acquired that name.  Yet per Mangoe, the stop is not sufficient in itself for notability, and per dlthewave, this kind of informal community frequently existed but would lack official recognition.  GEOLAND tends to be quite accomodating to place articles because Wikipedia is a Gazetteer .  But it is not indiscriminate all the same.  So the real question here is whether an encyclopaedic article can be written about the alleged ghost town of Homer.  After much searching, I think the answer to that is no.  There is simply not enough evidence that this was anything but an informal collection of dwellings in the general vicinity of a train stop.  It is better treated in the Russell, Kansas article (which currently does not mention it).  All the sources I have looked at have been Russell local sources, and that is the notable community here.  Therefore, a useful Alternative to Deletion would be a redirect to Russell, Kansas .  No article is possible about Homer, but it may perhaps be notable for a mention at that page.  I would thus also be content with redirect as an outcome here.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Conservative left : Sources are cited to biased publications (including, in one case, a Japanese source which refers to the magazine of an extremely minor HK party claiming to be ""conservative left"").  No evidence of use of the term in mainstream media, and the article text characterisation of the concept is also, well, questionably put.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 01:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A search suggests that the term is used somewhat frequently, but there seems to be no consensus on what it means, and it's applied to all kinds of people and parties in various articles and op-eds.  This needs some academic backing before it deserves an article.  Cortador ( talk ) 07:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: The idea of a ”conservative left” is impossible and receives no authoritative support from the scholarly literature on the topic.  Trakking ( talk ) 15:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively into Conservatism where some of the information already exists.  I disagree that this is OR or SYNTH since at least one source (Kaufman, 2020) supports the basis of the article.  However, there is not nearly enough scholarship on this phenomenon to support a stand-alone article, and Conservatism has better and better-sourced material.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Is there any additional support for a possible selective Merge?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : this is a poor attempt at WP:SYNTH of a couple disparate ideas, none of which really hold water.  I find it difficult to understand any of what the article is trying to say.  I think a selective merge is unnecessary – the only interesting thing in this article is the citation to the Kaufman (2020) article.  An author might consider throwing its thesis into the already-existing left-wing nationalism or liberal conservatism articles, but the text on this article is not worth salvaging.  Dan • ✉ 21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Shafkat Saeed : 2 of the 3 sources are primary.  And the third source is just routine coverage.  LibStar ( talk ) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , South Africa , Pakistan , Iran , Kuwait , Belgium , France ,  and Luxembourg .  LibStar ( talk ) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Yes fails GNG clearly.  I did WP:BEFOER and only found some WP:ROTM coverage.  Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 14:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 14:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hassan Waleed : He is not to be confused with the handball player Hassan Walid , about whom plenty of content can be found.  My Arabic searches didn't yield any significant coverage about this footballer.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Qatar .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV in a league that gets decent coverage.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as I cannot find any sources that can make this person notable.  NoobThreePointOh ( talk ) 10:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – After 7 years of having a page, it's all of 1 line. .  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Judah Lavulo : My searches yielded a few trivial mentions.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league ,  and California .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Minimal sources and career doesn't appear notable.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 07:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Given the lack of in-depth, reliable sources, it's difficult to establish the player's notability for an encyclopedia entry.  Waqar 💬 17:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ahmed Al-Mohanadi : Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Qatar .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vladimir Ivanov (model) : Both references are from 2013 (one is broken).  Doesn't seem to have his models.com profile updated since 2017.  Does not meet wp:ANYBIO or wp:GNG .  Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me .  22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Entertainment , Fashion , Kyrgyzstan , Russia ,  and United States of America .  Classicwiki ( talk ) If you reply here, please ping me .  22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dhanesh MC : In my searches, I found a passing mention in The Hard Tackle but we need something way better than this for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"BridgeWay Station : Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  This development is only notable at the local level.  TH1980 ( talk ) 23:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Parkruns in the United States of America : See also List of Parkruns in Australia ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parkruns in Australia ) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 1 , in the latter discussion, the NOTDIR concern was raised by several experienced editors.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Lists ,  and United States of America .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy ping - to users who requested this go to AfD following completion of DRV Hobit , Jclemens , Robert McClenon , & Stifle Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping.  While I agree that this AfD is appropriate, I choose not to provide an opinion at this time.  Jclemens ( talk ) 20:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per list of Parkruns in Australia.  Clearly WP:NOTDIR .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 18:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is the sort of thing that readers would be better directed to the official source like https://www.parkrun.us/events/#geo=3.51/38.9/-96.41 rather than Wikipedia maintaining its own duplicate directory of non-notable small, local events like this.  LOL at ""Thanks to Louisville Parks Dept for the use of their park!""  Reywas92 Talk 18:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per Wikipedia is not a directory and not satisfying list notability .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 21:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The ""Thanks"" mentioned by Reywas92 hit my copyvio alert and sure enough there is lots.  egs [12] , [13] , [14] .  There was a big copyvio dump here by User:The yeetgodboii .  More here by User:Jinmohl .  I've reverted the list itself to an older version and if this somehow survives afd content will need to be chopped from the history.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 12:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  On top of NOTDIR and NLIST add other WP:NOTs .  Wikipedia is not a free web host for an organisations event listings.  Is not a mirror of primary content.  Is not a link farm.  Is not a means of promotion.  WP:PRIMARY , Do not base an entire article on primary sources.  duffbeerforme ( talk ) 12:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Clear WP:NOTDIR violation.  Stifle ( talk ) 08:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation.  Can't believe this and the UK equivalent survived AFDs in 2017, since no evidence has ever been given that these lists meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST , and they clear violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Greg McAdoo : — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebAgentBot63 ( talk • contribs ) 19:27, 16 October 2023 (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/2023 October 26 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Finance , Technology ,  and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is the only RS I can find that talks about him, and it's routine and rather short [32] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Other than the source identified by Oaktree b, I could only find routine announcements regarding his leaving Sequoia.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  This discussion title should also be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg McAdoo given that there is no prior AFD.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 19:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"SP77 46-44 : SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer 19:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no sources found.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the only sources which exist for this star are surveys and databases, which do not have any WP:SIGCOV of the subject or establish notability.  The star fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO .  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 08:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : only coverage is limited, trivial mentions in papers ( [6] , [7] ) or routine coverage from databases, etc.  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 15:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir : Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Hinduism , India ,  and West Bengal .  UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete.  Sandip 17:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul [ reply ] @ Mr.sandippaul : Please could you tell us why you think that the article should be kept.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are multiple reasons not to delete this page.  All the information given on this page is true.  I travelled here.  So as per my experience, I can say that the information described in Wikipedia is the same as in real life.  Architecture, geographic location, etc. are all properly mentioned here.  So I think, for now, there is no need to delete this page.  This article can be improved if needed, but deleting it would be a bad move.  Sandip 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul [ reply ] These are not legitimate reasons .  Please educate yourself on what is required to support keeping an article .  - UtherSRG (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They are not policy-compliant reasons, but they are his/her reasons.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Do not delete. @ Reason No 1 Reason No 2 Reason No 3 . Reason No 4 . Reason No 5 – Sandip ( talk ) 06:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul [ reply ] A donation link in the first article does not make it useful. Could be seen as promotional. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . If it will really be the largest religious building in the world (and even if not, it is clearly one of the largest) then it is obviously notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we don't have sourcing to back that up, this is the issue.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBUILD.  Sources in the article and above are not independent sources non-promo secondary sources.  BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Multiple news sources are saying this is notable.  There is no need to delete. – Iamshampa ( talk ) 11:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC) — Iamshampa ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.sandippaul [ reply ] Source assessment table: prepared by User:Toddy1 Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  ""ISKCON aims to build world's largest temple in Bengal"" .  Hindustan Times .  26 February 2013 .  Retrieved 28 January 2020 .  Based on a press release Based on a press release ~ ✘ No ""ISKCON's Mayapur in West Bengal temple to be world's biggest"" .  Telangana Today .  13 October 2019.  Archived from the original on 6 December 2021 .  Retrieved 12 August 2020 .  Based on a press release Based on a press release ?  Dead link, article not archived ✘ No King, Anna S. (2015).  ""Vedic science, modern science and reason"" .  In Keul, István (ed.).  Asian Religions, Technology and Science .  Routledge.  p. 55.  ISBN 9781317674481 .  author is a reader in theology at the University of Winchester ~ Pages 55-56 talk about the building ~ Partial Valpey, Kenneth R. (2019).  Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics .  Springer Nature.  pp. 214–218.  ISBN 9783030284084 .  ~ Pages 214-218 are really about cow care.   The mention of the building is only slightly more than in passing ~ Partial Chowdhury, Abhijit (27 August 2022).  ""হার মানবে তাজমহল, ভ্যাটিকান! মায়াপুরে ইসকন মন্দিরের এক এক তলায় ঠাঁই হবে কত জনের?"" [ISKCON Temple Mayapur Details: Lose Taj Mahal, Vatican! How many people will live on one floor of the ISKCON temple in Mayapur?].  Hindustan Times - Bangla (in Bengali) .  Retrieved 28 August 2022 .  Based on a press release Based on a press release ~ ✘ No ""বিশ্বের বৃহত্তম মন্দির বাংলায়, ১০ অজানা কথার সন্ধান"" [World's largest temple: World's largest temple in Bengali, search for 10 unknown words].  Zee News (in Bengali).  27 August 2022 .  Retrieved 28 August 2022 .  Based on a press release Based on a press release ~ ✘ No Kar, Sharmita (27 August 2022).  Srinivasan, Chandrashekar (ed.).  ""Vedic Planetarium, 'world's largest temple', to open in Bengal"" .  Hindustan Times .  Based on a press release Based on a press release ~ ✘ No Dey, Sreyashi (26 August 2022).  ""World's largest religious monument will soon be in India—with the help of Ford heir"" .  ThePrint .  Retrieved 28 August 2022 .  Based on a press release Based on a press release ~ ✘ No Mukhopadhyay, Sounak (27 August 2022).  ""World's largest religious monument to open in West Bengal, check details"" .  Mint .  Retrieved 28 August 2022 .  Based on a press release Based on a press release ~ ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  It is arguable that newspaper articles based on ISKCON press releases might be to some extent independent and reliable because journalists and fact checkers probably applied limited fact checking and the newspapers would have ignored the press releases if ISKCON had not been notable.  Note that five of the newspaper articles were evidently based on the same press release - so they are not independent of each other.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References don't have to be independent of each other, just independent of the subject.  In this case, it's a moot point, since press releases are not independent, and they were all based on the press release.  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the table, BTW.  Makes the discussion easier.  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also offer thanks for the source eval.  // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the source analysis.  could not find any better sources myself.  DrowssapSMM ( talk ) 13:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Based on the source table shown, this does not meet notability for buildings.  It is likely not old enough to qualify for historical building status, so it would fall under GNG guidelines.  Beyond confirmation of existing, I don't see much we can use for an article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets GNG Outlook , HT , ET , Times of India all covered about its opening.  BS covered it as early as 2014.  Tripadvisor , Government of West Benegal treats it as a tourist place.  Redtigerxyz Talk 17:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not exactly - its opening is always in the future; the newspaper articles said covered its opening were written in 2022 and said it would open in 2023; but earlier articles gave earlier opening dates; I think they were written in response to press releases.  Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir's website currently says that it will open in 429 days and 14 hours - i.e. 1 December 2024.  But they are still trying to raise funds to pay building costs, so don't hold your breath.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nicole Jordan (Miss Tennessee) : Let'srun ( talk ) 22:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants ,  and Tennessee .  Let'srun ( talk ) 22:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Nothing since her win, and that's not enough.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete All coverage relates to the beauty pageant win.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Golden Knights-Kings rivalry : Article reads as WP:FANCRUFT and the only sources available on a WP:BEFORE search are routine mentions or fan blogs.  As a Kings fan, I don't like the Golden Knights, and maybe a rivalry is there, but given the lack of reliable sources and other animosity, it doesn't deserve an entire article.  Article also seems hastily made.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 08:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source analysis by User:Conyo14 Source assessment by User:Conyo14 Series records : Los Angeles Kings(H)  against  Vegas Golden Knights(A) WP:ROUTINE list of head-to-head records.  N Vegas Golden Knights VS Los Angeles Kings Rivalry Gaining Steam Blog that does specify any animosity between the two teams.  In fact it only says ""All in all, the Vegas Golden Knights playing the Los Angeles Kings in round one of the playoffs would solidify the rivalry.""  The source does not actually specify a current rivalry, but rather the possibility.  N VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS  @ Florida Panthers FLORIDA PANTHERS A livestream of Game 5 of the 2023 Stanley Cup Finals.  This is an illegal cast of the game and is also a video source, WP:DONTUSETERTIARY .  N LA Kings: The Vegas Golden Knights are now the LA Kings biggest rival Same publisher as the second source above, and it doesn't mention any animosity or build up to a legitimate rivalry.  N I Guess We’re Officially Rivals Now, Vegas Someone's personal blog again mentioning nothing substantial.  N Golden Knights, LA Kings set to renew budding rivalry Routine coverage of a playoff series preview between the two teams.  Source only tells us the potential of a rivalry.  N SERIES PREVIEW: LA Kings, Vegas Golden Knights Set for Royal Rumble Routine coverage of a playoff series preview between the two teams.  Source only tells us the potential of a rivalry.  N Golden Knights hold off LA Kings in round one of Pacific rivalry This is a pretty good source, but it's also routine coverage of a series review.  ?  Golden Knights get the best of the Kings in new division rivalry This is a published source by a reliable author (Helene Elliott).  But it's also a routine coverage of the first regular season game between the two teams.  ?  Vegas Golden Knights ready for the rivals during the 2021-22 season Local coverage of specific divisional matchups.  This is more recent than the other sources mentioned and I'd say it's good.  Y Quick’s Starting Gig in Vegas Adds to Heated Rivalry with LA Kings Blog source.  Routine coverage of players getting traded to each other.  N Weekend Takeaways: Has Quick's trade ignited a Kings-Knights rivalry?  This source doesn't even bother to consider the teams having a rivalry prior to a player trade.  Also routine coverage of a player getting traded.  N Elliott: Kings 'a little scared of the fire' Jonathan Quick will bring to Vegas rivalry More routine coverage of a player trade.  N Panthers or Golden Knights?  A Stanley Cup Final rooting guide for 30 other fan bases Mentions nothing of a rivalry in the Los Angeles section.  N Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 08:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete or Draftify .   I agree with Conyo’s source analysis that only the KTNV source is GNG appropriate.   However some sources describe the potential of a rivalry.  Considering these sources, the teams geographic proximity, and the fact the Knights are only six years old and the teams have limited postseason history, a move to draft space may be a good WP:ATD .  [Also noting that I oppose a redirect/merge to National Hockey League rivalries, since that list should only rivalries with their own article.] Frank Anchor 16:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [note: bracketed text added at posted time. Frank Anchor 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) ] [ reply ] Draftify I agree that it could be a draft.  However, we have a main page for this: National Hockey League rivalries .  It is mentioned there and I think it's worth having there, just not on its own.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: The bar for rivalry articles is set very high, largely because fans and bored sportwriters are altogether too ready to claim a bitter ""rivalry"" based on there being a recently strongly contested playoff series.  We're talking Celtics-Lakers/Man City-ManU/Harvard-Yale level, with many decades and hundreds of games involved.  This ""rivalry"" -- between nothing more heated than a couple of divisional opponents, over a relative handful of games -- does not come remotely close to meeting that standard.   Check back fifty years from now.  Ravenswing 01:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Conyo & source analysis.  As Ravenswing said, it will likely take years for the rivalry to reach a requisite level of notability.  I considered suggesting a merge to National Hockey League rivalries , but as far as I can tell, this article doesn't contain much more information than that one does (it's just wordier).  Wracking talk!  22:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's already there, and what's there is fine.  What's here is not enough.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or merge to National Hockey League rivalries as sufficient ATDs.  DrewieStewie ( talk ) 14:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of an actual notable rivalry here, at least not in any greater capacity than between any two random teams in the same division.  Based on the provided source analysis, most of this is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and fails to actually showcase a notable rivalry.  In agreeance with Ravenswing , check back in a decade or two at least.  Possibly support a merge into National Hockey League rivalries , zero support for draftification, this rivalry won't be notable on its own anytime soon.  IceBergYYC ( talk ) 09:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - A rivalry does not need to be as storied as Harvard-Yale or ManU-ManCity to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.   But it does need to meet GNG, which requires multiple independent reliable sources discussing something particular as a rivalry - not just the two teams being in the same division (currently there are over 100 division pairings, not even counting historic division pairings) or playing a game or even a playoff series against each other.   And this does not meet that.   Maybe someday it will but not now.  Rlendog ( talk ) 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Majid Dastjani Farahani : Per BLP1E we should avoid having articles on individuals that reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.  Also relevant is WP:SUSPECT : ""For individuals who are not 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.""  AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Iran ,  and United States of America .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : All the sources are dated the same day.  March 4, 2023, and finding the same in a search...all on about the same date so fails WP:NOTNEWS and per nom WP:SUSPECT is also concern.  S0091 ( talk ) 16:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Samate language : Not much shows up in search engines.  In fact, ""Samate"" is another name for Ma'ya (going by ""Word-prosodic systems of Raja Ampat languages"", 2001, p. 14).  Semmiii ( talk ) 14:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not 100 percent sure on it's hoaxness, but what I can see is that its notability is not up to Wikipedia's standards.  Fails WP:GNG .  Cheers, atque supra !  Fake scientist 8000 14:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, then redirect to the unrelated Ma'ya language per nom.  (Not helped by the lack of an ISO 639-3 code, a red flag in itself.) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this is the second article on an Indonesian language I’ve come across today by the same creator, with very inadequate sourcing.  Not sure if theyre hoaxes exactly, or just leaps of the imagination.  Mccapra ( talk ) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to Ma'ya language .  As mentioned in the source cited by the OP ( here 's a link to it), Ma'ya (including dialects) is often referred to by the place that it is spoken at.  Bahasa Samate is the variety spoken in the village Samate on Salawati Island.  In ISO 639-3, Ma'ya is split into four varieties, the dialect in Samate is included in ""Salawati"" [slz].  @ Mccapra : Believe me, this is indeed not an isolated occurrence with this page creator.  They have long a history of producing articles about spurious languages and ethnic groups bordering on hoaxes, probably created in good faith, but with a very poor grasp about what they're reading in the sources.  I mean, saying that a language variety is an isolate when it scores 95% lexical similarity with neighboring lects is sheer cluelessness.  Last month, I PROD-ed two of their creations ( Vanimo Malay and Poso Pesisir people ).  I know, this is not place for it, but this cries for a TBAN or at least making it compulsory for them to go through the draft submission process.  – Austronesier ( talk ) 19:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Austronesier, and support restrictions on creator.  JarrahTree 02:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Window well cover : The article even has a section named ""How to purchase a window well cover"".  This is not needed and salvageable content - if any - can be safely included in Window well .  Biologos ( talk ) 13:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : ""How to purchase"" and the liability sections lead me to believe this is PROMO for the product.  I'm not impressed with the sourcing given; ok the thing exists, but beyond hardware store listings, I don't find any discussion of this item.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Promo and possible COI sourcing, and most of what is said is WP:SYNTH .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jerrel Wijks : All that came up in my searches were passing mentions ( 2018 , 2021 , 2022 , 2023 , etc.) JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Caribbean ,  and South America .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Unable to find significant coverage of the subject.  Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 22:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - created at a time when NFOOTY was the guideline, and does not meet current GNG requirement.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 20:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Al Baraka Bank Egypt : 64andtim (chat) 07:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : This article isn't notable, and the neutrality of this article is disputed.  CastJared ( talk ) 08:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Business ,  and Egypt .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article briefly mentions the milestones that al Barak Bank Egypt has achieved throughout its time.  This is a bank that has been operating for 40 years in Egypt, it's important to list it, and its credentials on versatile page as Wikipedia.  Maha G Aboud ( talk ) 08:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a bit of coverage in these books: [38] , [39] , [40] .  There may be more, but I gave up looking because the article is so promotional that it would need a complete rewrite anyway.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors about whether anything here is salvageable.  Definitely a promotionally written article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Egregious WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 07:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect To Al Baraka Banking Group , which itself could use more and better sourcing, as an ATD.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect - Not in the article's current state.  Half the references are to the company itself.  - Imcdc Contact 12:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : very very promotional FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 11:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gayeshpur Padmalochan High School : Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh .  UtherSRG (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   No evidence of notability.  At the time of writing there are two citations.  One of these is the school website; I checked this for JSC and SSC exam results and found that the school website gave different figures than the figures in the Wikipedia article.   The other citation is to a news website (Prothom Alo) and was about a meeting to organise a school reunion for for former students; the Wikipedia article does not use any of the information in this news story.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Toddy1's findings -- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bern, California : No information about this site available except the fact that there was once a post office there, which is not an indicator of notability.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This locale is only notable at a local level (that is, as a piece of local history).  TH1980 ( talk ) 23:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Even back in the 1910s this was a single house.  It was probably just a fourth class post office; it fact the label disappears from the maps for over a half-century until it reappears, presumably re-added from GNIS.  Mangoe ( talk ) 04:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jeffrey Bütz : He seems most notable as an author, with a few books that sound interesting, but he does not seem to satisfy WP:Bio.  The bio information about him in the few book reviews I found just repeats text from his book.  Edison ( talk ) 02:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors ,  and Pennsylvania .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete article fails WP:GNG and is written in a promotional style due to being mostly focused on his books - not the worst promotional style ever, mind you, but not very encyclopedic.  Needs cleanup if kept, but I'm not sure what's there to clean up.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep seems to be some critical discussion of his work [24] and [25] .  Author in a rather small field of theology, so sourcing is limited to begin with.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I'm finding a handful of short reviews for the first book, but not for the second (and the review I did find for that one implies that the author is a bit fringe).  I'm not seeing any reviews of significant length, so I don't see much for WP:NAUTHOR , and certainly not WP:NPROF .  -- asilvering ( talk ) 07:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 11:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   There are insufficient sources to write a properly balanced article on this subject.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Seema Hamid : Have you looked at the references before nominating?  FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 10:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Bangladesh .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  09:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very think attempt at notability with ref stacking.  I can't find extensive coverage of the person in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The coverage in the Dhaka Tribune articles does not meet SIGCOV (what is ""World University of Leadership and Management""? their website is a shell) Other coverage seems to be  primary sources, or otherwise insignificant.  Not sure if this is of note, but none of the articles are attributed to authors.  — siro χ o 10:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Glossary of computer software terms : Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  In case it gets deleted, the ""Software"" link should be removed from Template:Glossaries of computers .  ""Computer science"" link in the template could be renamed to ""Computer science (software)"".  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If this is deleted, redirects that point here will need to be retargeted.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - First of all, there are only 4 terms on this 2016 list.  Secondly, this was created by a sockpuppet of a now-blocked sock master.  — Maile ( talk ) 01:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Only 4 terms, redundant article with a better replacement as seen above.  StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mark Deming : Rift ( talk ) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] are you out there to just save a couple bits?  his allmusic reviews are quoted/re-quoted regularly.  96.42.182.14 ( talk ) 05:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For fans of indy, rock, alt, etc. he is a notable reviewer and critic.  Joelrashflint ( talk ) 05:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Journalism ,  and Michigan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Susan Stark profile (multiple pages) appears to be SIGCOV.  No?  Cbl62 ( talk ) 11:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Possibly.  It's definitely a ""local boy makes good"" piece which, per WP:GNG , creates the assumption but not a guarantee of notability.  Given that it's a minor acting credit (he was billed 36th), and there being a lack of secondary sources about any other aspect of his career, I'd say it's thin.  Rift ( talk ) 04:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, North America 1000 05:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see much coverage for him, in newspapers or otherwise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This might be about him, he would be about the same age [38] .  Still not enough.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:NBAND .  He might be a triple threat, but as an actor, musician, or writer, he is just not notable.  But passing references are not enough .  Bearian ( talk ) 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Maher Ali Rusho : There is zero independent coverage in the article.  It seems to be an elaborate hoax, to be honest.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bangladesh ,  and United States of America .  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Don't know if it's a 'hoax', but looks like it fails WP:GNG. - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG .  M.parvage ( talk ) 14:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- degree does appear to be a degree mill type or hoax.  I'm sure the article impressed his friends for a few days and the utility has passed. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  Maliner ( talk ) 15:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Blastoyz : BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 07:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel .  DreamRimmer ( talk ) 07:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG , couldn't find any reliable sources online.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 08:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When it comes to music- many of the most reliable sources are in fact various websites and E-magazines, and if you choose to overlook them, then You may claim the same, (couldn't find any reliable sources online) as for all the other DJs out there, who do have a Wikipedia article and who are as significant as Blastoyz or less. .  Please lift the deletion discussion from this article many thanks Adi Ady111 ( talk ) 12:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello you say it is clear that this person does not meet the criteria per WP:GNG.  I would like to challenge that position: The way I see it Blastoyz meets 3 different types of criteria if you will, as per the definition of the WP:GNG:  1. significant coverage in reliable sources- the man has been voted twice in a row as one of the top 100 DJs in the world.  this was published on the official DJ MAG website.  the web is full of praises of his work.  he is unseparated part of each end every major festival on the globe,  plus the number of his followers amount to some 1.75 million (Facebook, Instagram and YouTube combined).  seems legit to me.  2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. - so Blastoyz received Platinum on his song ""Mandala"" for over 100 million views and streams.  I will add the citation fir this event as well (it is a video from his personal TikTok channel, but nevertheless it is an evidence)  3. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;- he is definitely one of the top artists in the world when it comes to Psy trance music.  I don't see why this can be undermined.  I ask that you please remove the deletion consideration box, while I add all the necessary citations.  many thanks Adi Ady111 ( talk ) 11:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] oh and I forgot to add here that his song ""after dark"" was featured in the Netflix series called ""insatiable"" (season 2, Episode 1)- so he meets a 4th section of WP:GNG.  ""Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film""  I have added a citation for that one well.  LMK if there is a more reliable source.  Please reconsider the deletion of this article.  I believe I have established reasonable notability for the man :) thanks Adi Ady111 ( talk ) 11:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also reminding you that a Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it.  Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.  I expect that you will reconsider your desire to delete this article Ady111 ( talk ) 12:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a connection to Blastoyz?  LibStar ( talk ) 15:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No connection to Blastoyz except for admiring his music.  Ady111 ( talk ) 17:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ady111 ( talk ) 19:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  At this point in time, I found no verifiable, independent, sigcov coverage.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree.  I will start by reminding you the Wikipedia policy, saying hat a Disagreement over a policy or guideline of an article is not dealt with by deleting it.  second- I believe I have established substantial claim for notability, on the following basis: significant coverage in reliable sources- the man has been voted twice in a row as one of the top 100 DJs in the world.  this was published on the official DJ MAG website.  the web is full of praises of his work.  he is unseparated part of each end every major festival on the globe, plus the number of his followers amount to some 1.75 million (Facebook, Instagram and YouTube combined).  seems legit to me.  2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. - so Blastoyz received Platinum on his song ""Mandala"" for over 100 million views and streams.  I will add the citation fir this event as well (it is a video from his personal TikTok channel, but nevertheless it is an evidence)  3. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;- he is definitely one of the top artists in the world when it comes to Psy trance music.  I don't see why this can be undermined.  I ask that you please remove the deletion consideration box, while I add all the necessary citations.  many thanks  4. a song of his was featured in a netflix series.  you can claim your claim in reference to many other musicians.  where do you draw the line?  Ady111 ( talk ) 08:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] also regarding your claim not to meet sigcov: You must bare in mind that this article is about a Trance music artist.  some of the most reliable and published sources would be online magazines.  this would be true to other similar artists such as David Guetta.  have a look at David Guetta's article.  go to the reference section.   you will find the same citation sources I used for Blastoyz: DJ MAG, a web site called ""Pop matters"" another web site called ""we rave you"" which was claim to be ""not reliable"" in Blastoyz's case and I can go on and on.  so again I believe this article meets the sigcov criteria (which in this case is very hard to define), and I urge you to change your mind.  many thanks ADY111 Ady111 ( talk ) 09:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the man has been voted twice in a row as one of the top 100 DJs in the world.  this was published on the official DJ MAG website.  the web is full of praises of his work.  he is unseparated part of each end every major festival on the globe, plus the number of his followers amount to some 1.75 million (Facebook, Instagram and YouTube combined).  seems legit to me These are not criteria for notability , he needs to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ady111 , comments made are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , red herring , and otherwise irrelevant pleading.  I drew my conclusions based on the fact that I could not find notability-supporting sources ""out there"" by WP:NEXIST and based on the data in the article, and could not otherwise make a case for keep.  If you have quality sources, just insert each URL below and I will definately take a look!  I always check how we can keep an article.  For this article, I reached the opposite conclusion.  gidonb ( talk ) 15:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO , the sources provided are not reliable sources.  Google news mainly comes up with music industry sources.  Need more independent sources like mainstream newspapers.  Please note not to WP:BLUDGEON every delete vote here.  LibStar ( talk ) 01:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah. .  I see where this is going.  I used the same sources as for example David Guetta's article.  so those sources are reliable for David Guetta but not in my article.  My article meets  WP:GNG.  Also- this is not a vote, mind you.  Ady111 ( talk ) 13:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable WPPUFFPIECE; sources are not reliable.  116.92.232.6 ( talk ) 03:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I will be charitable by conceding that he does have some media coverage in specialist publications, but I am not convinced that they are sufficiently reliable and many give the impression of reprinting his manager's promotional announcements.  Good luck to him as he builds his online presence, but Wikipedia must not be a part of that effort.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vladyslav Kyryn : Best source I can find is Kudrivka , which is not even independent of the subject and the coverage is trivial.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 22:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Same as above.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 15:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC . -- Bexaendos ( talk ) 21:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG .  Jogurney ( talk ) 17:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ziad Sakr : Ziad as a squash player has no significant coverage specific to them; beside passing mentions in other articles.  They are currently ranked 182 by the PSA (squash tour), which is also not a notable ranking.  Their current rankings mean they are limited in the tournaments they may enter.   On the PSA website on Ziad Sakr's which lists news and video specific to the player no listings are specific to Ziad Sakr.  On the Wiki page there listed notable win in 2012 is the British Open which was for the U-13 category.  A junior tournament win of that caliber while impressive is not enough to meet notability requirements.  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 01:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 01:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also a concerned about the possibility that this page was written for WP:PROMOTIONAL purposes and that we have a strong WP:COI with this being the users only created article and them mentioning they have ""interviewed"" Ziad Sakr on my Talk Page , so therefore everything on the page is correct.  No reference is given to this interview on Ziad Sakr's page.  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The comment on the talk page after the article creation of, ""Hey, what steps need to be taken here for the page to be indexed?"" makes me also believe this article may have been created for promotional purposes.  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - First the page has no sound of promotion, it is only addressing facts and every fact is cited.  To your point in regards of the interview I conducted with him, here you go.  https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=fB3gdxTNgwE&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=RoyPoodle .  As for asking for Ziad's article page to be indexed, I just wanted to understand the process, and I see no harm in asking.  Namexre ( talk ) 04:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Thank you for your comments; I appreciate the time you are taking to address them.  Let's begin by addressing your concerns.  The British Junior Open stands as one of the biggest and most prestigious tournaments in squash juniors' careers.  Winning it is akin to securing a world championship.  Moreover, this individual has clinched multiple significant international titles, including the Arabian Championship three times with the Egyptian national team and the 17th national championship for Trinity College.  Since squash lacks a standardized league, the College Squash National Championship holds immense importance.  For aspiring professional squash players, winning it is a pivotal goal, attracting sponsors and providing an advantage for promoters to grant access to wild cards and satellite tournaments in the professional circuit, a crucial step in starting a professional career.  Regarding the second point, Ziad Sakr moved from 800 to 182 in the rankings within a year.  I respectfully disagree with your assertion that this is not notable.  Achieving such a feat—climbing over 500 places in under 12 months at the beginning of a professional squash career—is a commendable and significant accomplishment.  Ziad now qualifies to compete in major tournaments, and within the squash community, he is well-known.  After conducting an interview with him, I am convinced he deserves to have a Wikipedia page so more people can learn about his achievements.  This has nothing to do with promotion, as you said.  I am trying to give him the recognition he deserves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namexre ( talk • contribs ) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you find citations for showing specific in depth coverage of Ziad Sakr to meet the WP:Notability_(sports) standards such as for the tournaments you mentioned?  Trinity College's domination of the national title for two decades is a good example where significant converge exists for an article.  While being apart of a team that wins the championship is impressive there is not significant coverage specific to Ziad.  As an example for a college player (and pro) that met significant coverage is Youssef Ibrahim .  He played for Princeton (and the PSA) and received significant coverage while still playing for Princeton and therefore meets the requirements for a page.  Do you have a link to the interview you conducted of Ziad?  Ziad actually is not qualified at his rank of 182 to enter major tournaments.  Are you familiar with the PSA tournament requirements?  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 02:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Thank you for responding.  I already provided articles, link to the interview above and citations for every tournament, including the national championship title and All-American title.  from the source you shared WP:Notability_(sports) .  It says the following about individual seasons below: A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable.  A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable The article provides coverage and citations for the college national championship in 2018 and the All-American title, which meet some of the criteria in the link you mentioned.  From my point of view, is well sourced for every achievement, but I am not sure how much important coverage you are suggesting.  In fact, it is providing more coverage and citations for the person you mentioned.  I understand your point, and for sure, Youssef's has significant PSA coverage.  I can't disagree on that.  but I am also not fully on the same page, if you don't mind.  according to Wikepdia Notability, and the link you sent Ziad has his own coverage and pages and is more notable from my point of view than this person, for instance, Matías Knudsen .  Regarding Ziad's own articles, please find this link here [5] and many more that I am mentioning.  The PSA itself made the title of an article about his return after 7 years on tour here [6] .  and many more which is cited in the article.  Namexre ( talk ) 03:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As already stated to your earlier response on my take page, ""Those are notability of the individual seasons being notable and having their own page. Notability is not inherited to the the individuals on the team for a noatable season.""  Your first reference from Trinty College's own article to me is hard to make a case for significant coverage as it is written by the College themself for their own promotion.  If the article was from an independent news site, etc. then it would meet the significant coverage threshold.  Your second link only has a passing mention of Ziad with two lines, ""The 23-year-old last feature on the PSA Tour in 2016, when he played in the Arab Federation Open. Following an extended break away, including a four-year stint at Trinity College in the United States, Sakr returned to the Tour in Santa Fe this week.""  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 03:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - You haven't gotten back to me in regards to the page I mentioned for Matias Knudsen above.  Respectfully, I feel there is inconsistency here in terms of what you consider notable and not.  As you mentioned on your page, Matias is higher in ranking than Ziad #119 vs #182.  But in reality, as I mentioned, being ranked #119 vs #182 is not a big difference at all.  So your case here kindly, is not about notability and coverage anymore; it is about ranking ?  I am just a bit confused and trying to understand the facts you are proposing.  Not coming hard on anyone specifically, our goal is to give equal recognition to the athletes who deserve it, but as you know, creating a page takes a lot of time and I feel you came very hard on the page I created by directly asking for it to be deleted while others are already approved as Matias and similar pages don't have the same coverage and citation as this page for Ziad.  Namexre ( talk ) 03:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I also disagree with the fact that the article was written by the college for their own promotion.  The college will not pick anyone to provide such coverage.  They pick their elite athletes to do so.  So respectfully, I disagree here with you.  Because If this is the case, I could say the same thing about almost half of wikipedia athletes Namexre ( talk ) 03:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, KeepItGoingForward please explain to me your reasoning here I saw you recently edit a page Vikram Malhotra that has zero citations, and you didn't list it for deletion as you did for this page.  You are differentiating between article pages, which makes me question a lot of things here.  Also, can you explain to me why this page was approved?  Low Wee Nee ?  it has no citations; she went to Trinity College and also won the national championship, but with fewer achievements.  She didn't make it to major international tournaments such as the British Junior Open and the Arab Championship, as did Ziad.   Again, I am trying to understand your reasoning behind the word ""notability."".  because every citation I made for this article, you referred to it as ""promotional,"" which is very far from it Namexre ( talk ) 05:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ KeepItGoingForward You are violating Wikepdia rules Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments by constantly restoring the comments on the Ziad Sakr page while the editor keeps removing it.  This is vandalism, and I feel you are trying to destroy the page without any reasoning.  Namexre ( talk ) 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CAPTAIN RAJU @ Wcquidditch Please help here.  Thanks Namexre ( talk ) 17:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are talking about the talk page?  Restoring the history and the wikiproject headers?  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 20:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just as a point of note, I have not restored any comments on your talk page as per the policy on WP:Don't restore removed comments .  I have posted notices on it though.  I am sorry to hear that you feel that the AfD process is happening without reason.  Maybe let's wait for some other editors to weigh in on the process for a fresh perspective for both of us?  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ KeepItGoingForward Respectfully, you did restore comments on the Ziad Sakr talk article, as I mentioned in my comments above, and you can easily check the history of edits.  And you did that over 2 times.  The last restoration was made by you at 06:52 on January 12, 2024 Namexre ( talk ) 20:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You never got back to me regarding your reasoning for editing/creating the pages I mentioned above, which have no citations but were approved.  I would like to hear your reasoning behind differentiating between pages and why you are coming down hard on this particular page.  Namexre ( talk ) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I would also like to note that the British junior open title is notable, and as mentioned on their official website and Wikepeida page, The British Junior Open squash championship is considered the second most prestigious junior open squash championship after the World Junior Squash Championships .  It is one of the five Tier 2 events in the WSF World Junior Squash Circuit .  So to get to your point,@ KeepItGoingForward winning such a title is prestigious and considered notable, which makes this person, Ziad Sakr, a notable achievement.  This is one of many achievements that are mentioned on his page.  Namexre ( talk ) 01:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and here it is as well on the England squash official website: https://www.englandsquash.com/competitions/junior/major-competitions Namexre ( talk ) 01:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a serious accomplishment when he won the under 13 division; however, it does not make it Ziad notable for a wiki article, as there is no significant coverage attached to Ziad winning the tournament.  To add, basically all the links in the Ziad article at the moment are about the Trinity Squash team as a whole and not Ziad specifically or have issues as discussed above.  If you can find multiple significant coverage specific to Ziad then the article can be kept otherwise notability is in question.  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 22:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ KeepItGoingForward There are already plenty of articles that talk about Ziad that are referenced and cited.  I guess that brings you back to the point you have never answered.  Your consideration of notability is different from one page to another.  Consider these pages, which are also in squash space.  They lack much more references and citations.  In fact, you edited couple of them before and one or two of these page has zero articles or references.  I am looking forward to hearing your honest opinion in regards of why you are working so hard to delete this particular page which meets all notability criteria and why you are leaving others that are not.  You are in particular focusing on Egyptian players, which I noticed from your previous edits.  https://en.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Matías_Knudsen why he is approved ?  https://en.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Malhotra - why is this page approved https://en.m. wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Wee_Nee - it has no citations; she went to Trinity College and also won the national championship, but with fewer achievements than Ziad Kush Kumar - no achievements whatsoever and this page stating he won ""9 times junior national champion"" ? ??? that is absolutely not true, no reference supporting this and how this came through and got approved.  Thoboki Mohohlo - no citations, no achievements I need your honest opinion because you keep running away from answering these questions.  Ziad's page is well cited, notable achievements, supporting articles.  So really not sure how's your arguments is valid.  The pages above, you edited them before Namexre ( talk ) 03:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the five pages you quoted have any edits from me. I believe I was already clear above at this point.  I will leave it to others to decide.  The basic criteria is, ""A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."" as per WP:Notability_(sports) A news release by the Trinity College the College he plays for and is likely funding him through a scholarship, is not a secondary source or independent of the subject.  When one looks at the citations there are none that are all independent, secondary, and non-trivial in their focus on Ziad Sakr.  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 05:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You still run away from answering my question.  That is not answering why the other pages are not subject to deletion, given they have ZERO achievements or articles talking about them.  @ KeepItGoingForward You actually edited Vikram malhotra 's page. You can simply go to the page history, and you can see it. The last edit you made was 6 days ago. It is that simple. Again, I kept saying it multiple times Ziad Sakr citations are not just scholarship coverage. There are 21 citations and an interview that talks about him. You are simply targeting the page; it is very obvious you don't want to answer my questions or even admit you edited the page. Simply check the history for the page I mentioned. I will appreciate if our conversation can have full transparency here Namexre ( talk ) 06:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would appreciate if you would assume good faith and not do personal attacks. You are right I did edit Vikram Malhotra page to add an Unreferenced tag which adds to the top of the page, ""This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.""  I was pointing out an issue with the article. At the moment Vikram Malhotra's page does not show notability and if you believe that is still true after a search you can start a process for deleting the page.  KeepItGoingForward ( talk ) 22:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and Massachusetts .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting we really need to hear from more than 2 editors on this situation.  Just a reminder that each edito can cast a single bolded ""vote"" so please do not post votes repeatedly.  I might come back and hat some of these tangent discussions.  I think they would discourage editors from joining in the conversation.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I looked at the sources.",delete
"Wisra Okarianto : The primary references in the article primarily revolve around his regional responsibilities and engagements, lacking significant national coverage as required by WP:BASIC .  Alternatively, some references focus on his familial relations, which do not contribute to the notability of the article per WP:INVALIDBIO .  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 22:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Notability not found.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah binti Ahmad .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO.  Article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  Article makes no claim to notability, seems this is only an article because of their family and notability is not inherited.  BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 06:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of programs broadcast by DZRH-TV : Let'srun ( talk ) 14:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We generally do not maintain programming lists for individual television stations, especially those that have been defunct for over fifty years.  Nate • ( chatter ) 19:34, 5 March 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 14:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Dubiously notable topic and completely unsourced, seems like a no-brainer. — Moriwen ( talk ) 15:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Andrew Tite : Prod tag removed by IP who claims to know the subject so bringing here.  The references consist of two dead film websites listing the cast, and one local newspaper article about Tite's work as a mascot for $17/hour.  ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 22:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't come close to meeting notability requirements in the sources already used, and immediately clear from a search that there are no better sources to add.  Thebookstamper ( talk ) 15:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of passing of WP:NACTOR .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 23:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No evidence of notabilty.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete Not a notable actor.  I once dressed up in a Smokey Bear costume and that does not make me notable.  I am sorry that somebody got some terrible advice from a scammer , but that has no impact on this deletion debate.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 01:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Cullen328.  L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 02:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails general notability and acting notability .   The references are rubbish.  Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 www.metronews.ca/toronto/comment/article/102706 Archived from Wayback - An interview about performing in a mascot costume Probably not Yes Probably No 2 web.archive.org/web/20080827203656/ http://cycleoffear.net/index_files/Page364.htm Wayback archive of a cast listing for a film from the playbill.   14th line in cast listing Yes No, neither for GNG nor for NACTOR Probably No 3 web.archive.org/web/20080117163502/ http://www.thesecharmingmen.ca/castcrew.html Unreadable Wayback archive of a cast listing for a film from the playbill Yes Probably not Unreadable ?  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 06:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The last source is unreadable, but looking at the source it's because they made the text black on a black background (and scrolling for some reason).  After making it readable, he appears to be mentioned in the cast table, playing as an extra.  Still not significant.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 08:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , since I realized I forgot to vote in my previous comment.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 15:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Does not pass WP:NACTOR and fails WP:GNG .  Tar nis hed Path talk 08:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom -- Devokewater | (tαlk) 11:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No indication of notability.  Jeppiz ( talk ) 13:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  To qualify for an article an actor must pass the test at WP:NACTOR , which requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions .  Most of the roles listed in the filmography are very minor parts, e.g. in ""Charming Men"" he played ""Nerd Extra #1"", and in ""Zombie Jesus!"" he was an extra in a congregation.  The movies where he had more significant roles do not appear to be notable, e.g. ""Cycle of Fear: There Is No End"" does not appear to have recieved any coverage in reliable sources or have been reviewed anywhere, ""Light's Malevolence"" is a short film I can find no coverage of in reliable sources (IMDB estimates the box office takings at $400).  The sources in the article consist of two cast lists and an interview with a local paper, which are insufficient to demonstrate a passing of WP:NBASIC .  86.23.109.101 ( talk ) 12:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"R. Indira : Mentions in secondary source such as Indian Express are running.
 Also,
 Chairs/Positions held are non-notable, with multiple department heads/chairs in a single university, mostly on a rotational basis.
 Publications are journals and chapters(as done by virtually all professors), not full books.
 Secretary position in said society is below president, and is organisational in nature.  User4edits ( talk ) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , India ,  and Karnataka .  User4edits ( talk ) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions .  Tacyarg ( talk ) 08:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment she did receive the Indian Sociological Society Award , although I'm not sure how prestigious that is.  Broc ( talk ) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It might at strech be slightly prestigious, but surely not highly prestigious academic award .  The subject has previously served as the Secretary of the same society .  User4edits ( talk ) 16:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - according to her website , she is the author of books in English and Kannada, and the award from the Indian Sociological Society in 2022 was a Lifetime Achievement Award.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are WP:PRIMARY sources.  Secondly, almost all professors and academicians have written books.  WP:NOTINHERITED .  I have said about the award in my above comment.  Thanks, User4edits ( talk ) 06:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  She was the president of the ISS (primary sources here and here ).  The lifetime achievement award seems prestigious to me.  She has had two Festschrifts in her honour, according to this non-independent source; that meets NPROF 1c.  I agree the evidence could be stronger, and it doesn't help that the current version of the article reads promotional and has had CoI edits, making it hard to separate notability from promotion, but for me it's over the bar.  I think we are likely not finding secondary coverage in Kannada; for example, apparently she is a long-term newspaper columnist, but I'm not finding those online, and could not read them if I did.  Realise those are SPS, but if they are not coming up in searches then other secondary coverage may also exist but not be coming up.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 08:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As said previously, notability of ISS is not demonstrated in secondary sources.  Least of the president of ISS.  Next, this ""non-independent"" source is merely a profile of post-doc visiting scholar on a 19 year old university -- These texts put on profile-page are usually provided by the individual themselves only.  Not sure that university conducted such an extensive research on her without mentioning any sources or even that is a researched profile.  Which makes this ""non-independent source"" more of a WP:SPS .   And hence does not meet WP:NPROF C1 also, as every post-doc/visiting scholar in every university has a profile page of his/her on university domain.  User4edits ( talk ) 14:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the Festschrifts that take the article over the line for me. 1c says The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses .  Do you think the two publishers, Concept Publishing and Roopa Prakasana, are vanity / fringe / non-selective?  I don't know anything about them.  Tacyarg ( talk ) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concept Publishing certainly resembles a vanity publisher, considering the very wide range of topics it publishes on, including basically illiterate pseudoscientific treatises on homeopathy .  I can't tell what's going on with Rupa Prakashana since its ""About Us"" and ""How to Publish"" links don't load for me.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 06:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  She holds the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Chair at the University of Mysore.  This is a named chair dedicated to research in sociology; see https://ambedkarfoundation.nic.in/dr-ambedkar-chairs.html .  This satisfies #C5 of WP:NPROF , and satisfaction of one criterion alone is sufficient.  Qflib ( talk ) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Qflib The reference reads: She currently holds the Visiting Professorship of the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Chair at the University .  That means she does not hold that chair .   Nonetheless, chairs are far more numerous in Indian Univs than in the US or Europe, and professors could be appointed chair by rotation or mere seniority in the department.  Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the clarification.  Given that, I have to change my recommendation to Delete ; does not satisdy WP:NPROF .  Qflib ( talk ) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Next Conservative Party leadership election : This article is based off of early highly-speculative articles for an election that is entirely WP:Crystal Ball at this moment.  It is also written with the presumption that the next leadership election will be to succeed Sunak.  Likely, but that would be entirely presumptuous and WP:Crystal Ball given it is not an impossibility that the party’s next leadership election sees Sunak seek to remain leader while facing a challenger, as Thatcher did in both 1989 and 1990 (and Labour’s Kinnock did in 1988).  Should be either deleted or draftified.  SecretName101 ( talk ) 00:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom .  SecretName101 ( talk ) 00:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify .  I agree this is too soon.  We don't need to wait until there is actually a leadership contest formally announced, but we do need to wait until we're doing more than regurgitating speculation in 1-2 sources.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:CRYSTAL .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  10:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per WP:toosoon also this would need a dab specifying it's about the uk tories— blindlynx 23:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking for sources using news searches, the results from Bing gave me 6 on-point sources, two of which were unreliable tabloid newspapers, and the other 4 of which say ""likely to be"", ""are considering"", and ""are prepared to"".   They in fact all cite one single newspaper report as their common source.   Amd that further, 7th, source turns out to say that an anonymous person ""believed"" that something was ""about to"" happen.   So basically this entire article comes off one source, with other sources just reporting the report, and that source never reported an actual factual event happening in the first place.   This is unverifiable.   I'd say restore the prior redirect, but that was the result of a page move in 2022, and ""next"" no longer means ""2022"" now.  Delete .  Uncle G ( talk ) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails to satisfy conditions in WP:CRYSTAL necessary for articles about future events.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TOOSOON .  No sense in having this article based solely on speculative news articles, better to wait until there's an actual impending leadership contest.  Gazamp ( talk ) 00:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Balrampur Chini Mills Limited : Charlie ( talk ) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  Charlie ( talk ) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , Uttar Pradesh ,  and West Bengal .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP .  DJ InstaMalik ( talk ) 08:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Specialist Group Information Services : I do not think the subject is notable.  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom .  PercyPigUK ( talk ) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not notable enough to meet WP:GNG and does not have significant coverage.  The only available online sources at this time are self-published.  Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I'm not seeing any independent sources to back it up, and it doesn't quite reach the level of importance for Wikipedia.  Waqar 💬 17:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"EOdisha Summit : No independent sources to speak of.  Also bundling: EOdisha Summit 2013 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) EOdisha Summit 2014 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) SaUp2014 ( talk · contribs ) may need closer attention to determine whether any more of their articles merit deletion.  – Tera tix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Technology ,  and Odisha .  – Tera tix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Not a notable conference, and the per-year articles are filled with unsourced minutiae.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 15:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete .  Articles make no attempt to establish a credible claim of significance , let alone notability.  No independent sources of any kind and few sources in general.     ~ Politicdude ( About me , talk , contribs ) 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not sure about A7 but definitely fails WP:NORG /GNG.  Google search only returns their websites and these articles.  C F A 💬 21:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate its notability and importance. -- RodrigoIPacce ( talk ) 10:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Benabaye : GNews hit says that a suspect from a drug den bust just happens to be from said baranggay .  Alternatively , redirect to its town proper at Merida,_Leyte#Barangays -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions .  Lenticel ( talk ) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"James Melindy : A BLPPROD was removed after sources were added.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Sports , Ice hockey ,  and Canada .  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Biography fails to meet WP:GNG .  The only sources are to statistical databases with do not contribute to notability.  Flibirigit ( talk ) 15:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I found this but that is not enough to meet GNG.  Rlendog ( talk ) 17:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Sourced only to databases, plays in the low minors, fails the GNG.   Beyond that, at the very least that edit summary in the article creation is pure attack, ought to be revdel'd, and the article creator ought to get a trout slap over it.  Ravenswing 18:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Amir Válá Meshkin : Only 1 article links to this.  Could not significant coverage of this individual in news and google books searches.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Architecture ,  and Australia .  LibStar ( talk ) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete - He may be better known as an architect than a musician, but several of his architect related citations are from books or publications that cannot be accessed online to verify.  None of his music citations are acceptable, so even if the page is kept it needs to be edited to remove much of his music info.  If someone can find verifiable citations, let me know and I can change my vote.  Royal88888 ( talk ) 21:25, 26 November 2023 (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 11:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Instablog9ja.com : All I see online is the blogs own posts on other social media platforms like twitter and X. I also see to bloggish/churnalist-type stories where the writer is guessing or implying who the author of the blog may be.  Fails GNG, NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT.  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Websites ,  and Nigeria .  Netherzone ( talk ) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please check the references I made Realcontribution ( talk ) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh i see where you're heading to how about if you check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Take_Out You will notice that they didn't add much references still it wasn't nominated for speedy deletion Realcontribution ( talk ) 23:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  I ran a Google search and wasn't able to find reliable sources that discuss the blog.  Versace 1608 Wanna Talk ?  14:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Lacks in depth coverage.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Golden (knowledge base) : The included sources are a couple of TechCrunch articles and an archived primary blog post.  Source search has not been productive, but that may be due to the name being ambiguous (searching for ""golden.com"" in quotes mostly yields results from the site itself, and a few unrelated hits) That aside, this article reads more like a pitch for the site than an encyclopedic article.  It was successfully PRODed before claiming lack of notability.  ASUKITE 02:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Products , Internet ,  and Websites .  ASUKITE 02:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Only non-self sources are Techcrunch, which WP:RSP mentions is questionable for establishing notability.  It's also worth noting here that one of the Techcrunch sources mentions that a former editor at Techcrunch was heading Golden's research team, which would compromise the independence of Techcrunch sources.  - MrOllie ( talk ) 21:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fundraising rounds are not notability-sustaining content.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 22:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Memento Exclusives : Paid editor created an article for this company and its founder, who is also up at AfD .  In the case of Memento Exclusives/Memento Group, the sourcing does not support notability under WP:NCORP .  Despite being a WP:REFBOMB , sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARYSOURCE S like press releases, WP:INTERVIEW S or WP:TRIVIALMENTION S. Other coverage is limited to WP:TRADES publications, which do not contribute to notability for companies.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO , and without sufficient WP:SIRS , this article doesn't clear the bar.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Motorsport ,  and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete agree with the nom.  All the independent coverage is not WP:SIGCOV and all the WP:SIGCOV coverage is not independent.  Article moved to mainspace in clear contravention of WP:AFC rules for WP:PAID editors.  No real claim to notability.  Surprising to see an established editor with 4000+ edits and with apparent affiliation with Wikimedia act with such brazen disregard with settled policy.  Mel ma nn 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongest delete - ""independent"" coverage is limited to brief passing mentions (""X teamed up with subject to do Y"", focusing on X and Y and not subject, with the sources often being closely related to X in the first place).  Possibly worth reporting to WP:ANI due to being a paid article made in obvious violation of relevant policy.  I do have to wonder what this ""research"" is that the user is undertaking that would cause such atrocious paid content to appear in mainspace.  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – As above.  5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Oh I wanted to AFD this but thanks I saw this after voting from the founders page.  A promotional WP:PE and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  11:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Aldene Forbes : I can find no significant coverage of this player in web searches or Cayman Islands news sources.  There is a marriage announcement in the Cayman Compass but it is not nearly enough.  The subject of the article fails to meet GNG.  MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Sports , Football ,  and United Kingdom .  MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails GNG, best source found was this image caption Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Per Capita : Makes loads of unsubstantiated claims which aren’t backed up by third-party sources.  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with originally stated reasons.  Seems to have been created by an individual who could be assumed to have some ties to the group (admittedly, back in 2006 ), and the organization does not seem to have significant coverage in any sense past that point.  While some citations are present, they seem to be so passing as to not confer notability (ie. other orgnizations presenting information that 'aligns with Per Capita research' or is 'likely influenced by Per Capita findings').  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Potential WP:PROMO .  Most of the sources are primary.  LibStar ( talk ) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lacey Pauletta : JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Netherlands ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Beatbox Kitchen : See table below.  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia .  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios Lengthy discussion of Rashid before interview begins coverage is of Rashid, not the restaurant ✘ No https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/beatbox-kitchen-opens-brunswick ?  Unclear whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content ?  Unclear ?  Unknown https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html Bare mention of the restaurant, article is about COVID ✘ No https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/food-truck-fitzroy-beatbox-kitchen-opens-second-shop ?  Unsure whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content ?  Unclear ?  Unknown https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9 ?  Tabloid ~ Bare mention of the restaurant ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question Hey, GMH Melbourne , I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews.  Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview.  I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives.  Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage?  Are these sources known for sponsored content?  For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant.  I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor.  Valereee ( talk ) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional.  A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS.  Industrial Insect (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Valereee : I understand what you mean.  If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG.  Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject.  The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles.  - GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece.  That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves.  So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, ""Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!""  But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox.  So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.  The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant.  I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet.  But that's still local coverage.  The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID.  And the Vice is not about the restaurant.  I think on balance I'm landing on Delete .  Valereee ( talk ) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios This coverage of it shutting down which nevertheless is a secondary source that provides critical commentary of its life: https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/beatbox-kitchens-brunswick-burger-shop-is-closing-down-20210715-h1x5me.html This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets WP:THREE and WP:GNG .  BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself.  GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject.  It's about the owner.  Valereee ( talk ) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary).  The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen.  We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck.  The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution.  It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure.  Discursive because it provides some background.  The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary.  See WP:SIRS .  Nothing here meets WP:CORPDEPTH and this fails WP:NCORP , but again, we have one good source for a BLP.  If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the chain fails sigcov but the owner could have an article on themselve.  X ( talk ) 04:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Anshul Tewari : See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Ki Awaaz (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Ki Awaaz User4edits ( talk ) 07:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Journalism , India , Delhi ,  and Uttar Pradesh .  User4edits ( talk ) 07:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per nom.  Tehonk ( talk ) 20:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Zynx Health : No indication of being notable.  Refs are routine business news.  scope_creep Talk 12:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Could possibly redirect to Hearst Communications .  The references on the page fall well short of WP:ORGCRIT .  I found one book source that gives a little bit of background on the company but definitely not enough to establish WP:NCORP .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 01:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Darren Middleton (footballer) : He never played above the fifth tier, seems to have been created because a user thought he played in the Premier League .  However, this was an error on the Soccerbase website , he did not appear in the alleged 1995 match per the Premier League website and this news article .  S.A. Julio ( talk ) 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football .  S.A. Julio ( talk ) 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  S.A. Julio ( talk ) 06:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-league player after not making it at Villa or Wolves.  Went into banking, now running a training academy.  That isn't enough for notability.  Haven't found any additional sources and what is in the article doesn't meet GNG.  Pawnkingthree ( talk ) 01:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Marie Wiseborn : Not notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia.  Searches showed that she existed, but being a fiancee of someone famous is not enough to pass the WP:GNG .  Aside from being the fiancee of Moses Bliss, there are no other notability of the subject of the article.  Thank you.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions .  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Law ,  and Christianity .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Per nom, nothing in RS about her being a singer, preacher or a known law practitioner.  Even this article says that she's known for being someone's fiancé, the subject fails GNG .  It also doesn't look like the article can be expanded beyond {{ stub }}.  dxneo ( talk ) 05:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : No sigcov of the subject.  Her affiliation does not necessarily make her notable.  Fails GNG.  -- Donaldherald ( talk ) 08:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Speedy Delete - in agreement with the voters above.  She was in some gossip rag photos for one day, which is not even remotely close to our notability requirements.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable enough as per notability requirements.  Her current popularity is due to her engagement with a popular person which in my opinion is not enough at the moment --- MEVOELO ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 04:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:TOOSOON , also, she's doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or any applicable SNG.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 11:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"J. L. Langley : The AfD from 2010 was started by a sock and closed as a speedy keep.  Regardless, AfD has changed since then and I don't think the arguments in the keep votes-- that her work has been translated into other languages, or that some non-RS websites have reviewed her books, hold up now and days.  Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Arts , Literature ,  and Sexuality and gender .  Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with DGG :-( that it's a sign of notability, but the sourcing I can find doesn't back it up.  It's all social media and other non RS.  Star Mississippi 02:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I also agree with DGG (may he rest in peace) that having a novel translated into another language is a sign of nobatiblity.  However, to prove notability we need significant coverage from independent , reliable sources , which I cannot find.  -- Mike 🗩 19:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I feel like this individual should be notable, but I can't find much. [23] is a match on the name, but I'm unsure if it's the same person... One of the books is mentioned here [24] , but it's basically a plot summary. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even using """"J. L. Langley"" romance novel review"" all I get are links to buy the book or reviews on user generated sites. Nothing we'd use for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I ran into the same @ Oaktree b . Something should exist, but it does not appear to. Star Mississippi 01:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [1] is definitely a different JL Langley -- digging up wayback archives of the author's site, we're looking for a woman from Texas, not a man from California, and probably younger. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regretful delete. It looks like this author is pretty open that she also writes under the name Jeigh Lynn, so any sources for that author or those books could support this article too. But, I can't find anything at Kirkus or Booklist for either name, which is usually a ""gimme"" for reviews. I found an archive of her author site , which is usually a good source of breadcrumbs for RS because authors like to quote from good reviews, but no dice. I feel like this is an awkward blind spot for wikipedia in general: genre writers with meaningful audiences (see, e.g., this thread of people wondering about her ) and even formal publishers, but no RS because reviewing in this genre happens in blogs rather than magazines. I'm not sure where Long and Short Reviews falls in terms of being ""a blog"" versus ""an online magazine"" -- unlike the others I found, it doesn't call itself a blog, it has an editorial team, they are selective in what they review, etc.  But that's the best sourcing I was find for JL Langley or Jeigh Lynn.  And I can't convince myself it's enough.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"For the Emperor (novel) : Di (they-them) ( talk ) 05:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agree with Nominator and article doesn't have any Reference.  Historical Heritages of Bihar ( talk ) 18:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mega Long Mall : Just another mall.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per WP:SIGCOV -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 08:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Lacks WP:SIGCOV .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No notability shown, it is just a mall that got sued once.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Flying Tiger Development : The entire article's sources list consists of links to the company's website and IMDb, and I've been unable to find adequate sourcing to write a better article, so don't think it can be done (feel free to prove me wrong though, I may have missed something!).  Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs ) please always ping !  14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Toys ,  and Companies .  Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs ) please always ping !  14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The company actually has a history of developing games back in the day, including Time Crisis Alpha for the PlayStation and an old King of the Hill game – but none of this adds up to any kind of notable press coverage.  A passing mention at IGN ( [37] ) and small one in Kotaku ( [38] ) were the only truly reliable ones that popped up, and I don't think it passes WP:CORP .  Nomader ( talk ) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not even fit WP:ORGSIG , with little to no coverage in independent sources as well as the lack of independent sources available.  MimirIsSmart ( talk ) 09:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Embassy of Indonesia, Wellington : Lacking coverage to meet WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Indonesia ,  and New Zealand .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as this should be about the physical embassy, not relations in general, and there is no demonstrated notability.  Geschichte ( talk ) 10:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as this article lacks any independent reliable sources and therefore fails to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG .  Marshelec ( talk ) 06:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not enough notability for standalone article.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"KVHC-LD : Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And doesn't seem to be accurate since its ownership with Bridge Media Networks since it's still an affiliate of Paranormal TV and not NewsNet according to RabbitEars.  OWaunTon ( talk ) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : We are already up to a second nomination here because the first nomination was malformed — specifially",delete
"Alicia and Annie Sorell : Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film ,  and United States of America .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Hot Twin and screaming woman are trivial roles.  I'm not seeing anything that would satisfy ACTOR here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sourcing found is a Youtube video, wiki mirrors/blogs and in Gnews, they're in a list of hottest twins.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Current sourcing is obviously deficient, and I was not able to find GNG or NBASIC meeting references per a search.  The roles are especially minor and fails WP:NACTOR .  VickKiang (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rory J. Cutaia : Links are to interviews (primary sources) and promotional content such as PR copy and articles that he has written.  ... disco spinster talk 03:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  ... disco spinster talk 03:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I prodded this but it was removed, The links used are primary or brief profiles.  Nothing else found in RS Oaktree b ( talk ) 05:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Sourcing currently used is either primary or trivial coverage. A Google search only brings up these links, PR items or social media. Google news only delivers PR items. Should be deleted for lack of extensive coverage in reliable sources."" was the prod reason.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 05:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Technology ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Google doesn't show much significant , independent coverage of him.  On Newspapers.com, there were various passing mentions or quotes from him in newspaper articles, especially when he worked as an attorney, but almost all were not significant.  Altogether, these mainly local, passing mentions don't seem enough to combine into notability.  These were the 3 best sources I saw on Newspapers.com: [102] - Substantial coverage, but the writer discloses an affiliation (that Cutaia was an investor in, and producer of, an independent film he wrote), making it likely not independent enough [103] [104] - Coverage of him organizing a community effort to buy a local store that was going to close: the Middlebrook General Store.  Both were written by the same local newspaper.  - Whisperjanes ( talk ) 05:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It seems like if he founded a company that was sold for over a billion dollars, there would be more substantial coverage of this millionaire.  Makes me wonder if his role in that company was exaggerated.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was also mention of crypto in the last go-around at AfD, wondering if this is still some sort of PROMO for whatever business he's currently involved with.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ian Cottage : Neither of the sources in the article meet the threshold for notability.  The article itself has been tagged with {{ BLP sources }} since October 2012.  I've attempted to search for reliable sources on the director and his works, and while I can confirm the works exist, I've not been able to find any reviews of them nor of his work more generally.  The closest I was able to find was a potential interview in a now defunct publication (Boolean Flix) that is now offline and not archived anywhere.  Finally, someone",delete
"High school rank : Perhaps this can be converted into a proper disambig or redirected?  Student rank is likely the same as Class rank ; high school rank seems to be American-only ranking equivalent to College and university rankings but for high schools, which we do not have an article for.  Although of course high school rankings exist outside US, so this is also badly in need of globalization.  Can anyone fix it, or will we redirect this WP:TNT is also a consideration.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This old stub seems more like a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article.  Some of the content about it's use is also close to WP:OR and not useful.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 22:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , there's no article here, nor one that could be created from it.  If we had articles on the USNR annual ranking of US public high schools or the WaPo equivalent and articles on similar surveys in other countries it could be an index page, but we don't.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 01:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Small and Medium Business Development Agency (Azerbaijan) : There is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable.  There is no independent reliable sourcing of the subject – it's only covered by Azerbaijani government outlets.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 18:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have no trust in Thenightaway nominations, this is an article about a government agency.  I feel it's perfectly an acceptable article under WP:NORG .  Regards.  Govvy ( talk ) 15:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Many states have some kind of office or agency oriented around small businesses promotion, yet the only Wikipedia article for those agencies is the US Small Business Administration , which has lots of RS coverage.  What exactly is there about this Azerbaijani office created in 2017 that makes you say it meets notability requirements?  Simply being a government body of some sort is not a notability requirement.  Every subdivision or office of a government bureaucracy does not inherently have notability.  Thenightaway ( talk ) 16:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : being a government agency does not provide automatic notability.  Owen× ☎ 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG and NORG.  All sources fails WP:IS.  #2 is routine mill news based on gov press release.  BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS.  Azerbaijan government sources are not independent reliable sources.  // Timothy :: talk 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Krishna Kaul (actor) : Imsaneikigai ( talk ) 08:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uttar Pradesh .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draftify : As per Nom.  Pri2000 ( talk ) 14:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per the views of Nominator.  TheChronikler7 ( talk ) 16:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Embassy of Palestine, Tashkent : All this article does is confirm it exists.  Fails WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Uzbekistan ,  and Palestine .  LibStar ( talk ) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If embassies are not inherently notable, then there is no reasons offered in the article for it to be kept.  WonderCanada ( talk ) 09:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable at all.  The article just confirms this exists.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 10:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  You get lots of hits when you search for ""Embassy of Palestine"" in Uzbek (""Falastin elchixonasi""): https://www.google.com/search? q=%22Falastin+elchixonasi%22#ip=1 Embassies are often built to be impressive, so there might be coverage in Uzbek media of the building's architecture.  It's always worthwhile to search for references about an embassy in the languages of both countries.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Embassies are often built to be impressive"" has zero bearing on notability in WP.  LibStar ( talk ) 12:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Briar Prestidge : KH-1 ( talk ) 03:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  KH-1 ( talk ) 03:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep not a field I have a lot of expertise in but once you sort through all the self publicity and promotional stuff on line she seems to have reasonable substance within her field.  The wiki article needs a major overhaul as it is promotional in nature rather than encyclopedic.  NealeWellington ( talk ) 08:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the more I looked the less I found.  All the articles seem to be self promotional.  There is nothing of substance that I could find at this stage.  Maybe it is a case of too soon NealeWellington ( talk ) 09:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Zealand .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note [53] this page should be of interest to you all as it states <quote> Want to become notable with a Wikipedia page?  Our, team of trusted Wikipedia consultants create pages for our clients.  After we have achieved top tier press features for you, we will create, reference, and submit your write up to Wikipedia.  With 10 years of experience in writing and editing Wikipedia pages, we have a very credible rating.  This will highly increase the chances of your profile being accepted by Wikipedia.  </quote>.  NealeWellington ( talk ) 09:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, NealeWellington .  I've filed an ANI report .  Schwede 66 10:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we are allowed to delete .  Yes, there's lots of media stuff about her, but everything I looked at was clearly the result of her own publicity activities.  If your business is getting people into the limelight, you can do it for yourself too: get yourself interviewed, issue the right press releases to the right people at the right time.  We really need evidence that someone chose to write about her without her doing the behind-the-scenes prompting, and that at least some of the information isn't coming more-or-less directly from her.  It is nearly impossible to write good articles about publicists because of the nature of what they do.  In this case she hasn't helped us (or her case) by producing a vast quantity of PR that will dilute out any ""real"" independent information.  Elemimele ( talk ) 14:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Even without the paid-editing concerns, when you take away the things that do not show notability, such as interviews, churnalism, articles written by the individual, and trivial mentions (such as sources that mention a designer label or Prestidge Group but have only a passing mention of the individual ) and there's no sources that would show notability per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO .  - Aoidh ( talk ) 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No signs of in-depth coverage of Briar Prestidge by independent sources. — Alalch E. 22:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article creator has been involved in very few topics.  Article reeks of self promotion.  Fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 14:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sahil Adeem : Gossip rags and primary catalogues, or content farms, are the only sources.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 04:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 04:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This but it's a spam site -www.google.com/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi4-6GY_uCCAxW-lIkEHb1TCPoQxfQBKAB6BAgLEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Freviewit.pk%2Fsahil-adeem-controversial-discussion-on-dajjal-yajuj-majuj%2F&usg=AOvVaw29g4rM3fg4j9NjI7IE_w4z&opi=89978449] I don't think we're at notability, could even be a hoax.  A whole five hits in Gnews...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 06:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Site is blacklisted, so I can't even link to it.  That's proof of non-notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 06:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete !  Clearly not notable Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 23:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article has been significantly improved and now includes multiple reliable sources.  Ainty Painty ( talk ) 17:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete while the article has indeed been rewritten, none of the sources in the rewrite meet GNG or RS at all.  Daniel ( talk ) 03:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"UltraFly Model Corporation : Could not find any coverage in English.  Would reconsider if someone found indepth Chinese sources.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan .  AllyD ( talk ) 05:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete promotional for a dead business.   No coverage.  Walt Yoder ( talk ) 17:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : interviews (ref 1) can sometimes be reliable/notable, but not in this case with so few sources.  The second ref is WP:LINKEDIN .  Asparagusus (interaction) 13:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : An article setting out the former product proposition of a company, supported by an interview and a shopping site EL.  No evidence of attained notability provided or found.  AllyD ( talk ) 08:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Giovanni Deterville : JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Caribbean .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Archie Fletcher : Broc ( talk ) 22:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Music ,  and United States of America .  Broc ( talk ) 22:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is one of hundreds of Tin Pan Alley composers, a one hit wonder .  We don't even know when he died.  Bearian ( talk ) 15:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Analía Céspedes : I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and Cuba .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - best I can find is CONCACAF , which doesn't address her in enough depth Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Urban Search and Rescue Nebraska Task Force 1 : If there was anything to merge, it could go to FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force as am AtD JMWt ( talk ) 12:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 12:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can find articles about things this force has done and disasters they've assisted with, but nothing about them as an entity.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Coverage consists solely of trivial mentions and routine local coverage about their deployments.  Mooonswimmer 23:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"AFL Sydney 2023 season : This is unreferenced, and there ought to be a better route than AfD for things like this.  However here we are.  Draftify if it is not properly referenced.  If good references are provided please let me know and, if the rules allow me to withdraw the nomination, I will do so.  (Obviously AfD is not cleanup, except that in this circumstance it is) 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This article has no references, and so fails not only notability , which is a policy, but verifiability , which is a non-negotiable policy.   Moving a page back into article space after it has been draftified because it has no references provided is disruptive editing , but AFD is a content forum.   Wikipedia doesn't need articles with no references.  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 00:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The only source I could find when doing a before was this .  It's behind a paywall so I haven't examined it fully, so unless someone can examine it and provide more sourcing showing SIGCOV in RS then this doesn't pass GNG.  Ping me if something changes.  Tar nis hed Path talk 12:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : a low level league which receives minor routine newspaper coverage only, the individual season would not meet GNG.  (Also, AFL Sydney 2023 season is completely inconsistent syntax, and if it survives the AfD it should be moved to 2023 AFL Sydney season with the incorrect syntax arguably deleted as a tidy-up rather than redirected).  Aspirex ( talk ) 23:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Laxmi Steel Railings : A WP:BEFORE search shows a variety of ""Laxmi Steel"" companies but none fitting this description, and the only references to ""Laxmi Steel & Railings"" are on other commercial catalogues.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  Redirect to KK Bishnoi would have been fine too, but I can't find a RS to connect the two.  Article creator seems a bit focused on the Bishnoi family.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, didn't want to redirect as even that claim doesn't seem to be supported anywhere.  Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Telangana .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from reliable references to support WP:GNG .  Agree with analysis regarding redirect.  Onel 5969 TT me 10:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of WP:SIGCOV , Does not pass WP:NCORP .  Macbeejack ☎ 08:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jay Verma : The subject appears to fail WP:GNG , and for WP:NACTOR to be met, we would need to be demonstrate through reliable sources that Verma had ""significant roles"" in notable films or shows.  The mere claim (in the article) that this is the case is not enough to establish notability.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 13:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film ,  and India .  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 13:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The absence of reliable sources in the article can be attributed to the lack of any reputable sources that cover this individual.  The only mention of the person comes from TellyChakkar, an entertainment website, but their credibility falls short of meeting the necessary standards.  As of now, the individual does not meet the eligibility criteria.  AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 08:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails WP:GNG .  𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ill add IMDB reference Link if you want ill add more link 3foxwriter ( talk ) 18:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IMDb is considered user-generated content and accordingly does not contribute to establishing notability.  If you have other relevant reliable sources , please do mention them here or add them to the article.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 18:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Stigma of pedophilia : – Joe ( talk ) 07:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Sexuality and gender ,  and Social science .  – Joe ( talk ) 07:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no redirect - POVFORK created by a blocked SPA.  Not a plausible-enough search term for a redirect.  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree that this is a redundant fork of Pedophilia#Society and culture .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 07:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is a mish-mash of various themes related to pedophilia, and effectively amounts to WP:SYNTH .  It also seems a bit POV-forky over issues already covered in various other articles.  Boing! said Zebedee ( talk ) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll just add that I do think an article on this subject could be justified on notability grounds.  I just don't think this is it, due to its one-sided POV synthesis.  Boing! said Zebedee ( talk ) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect seems fine, I don't see the need for further explanation of this topic.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete POV fork for the worst possible POV Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep .  The topic of this article is well-sourced, and has obvious notability within the literature.  There exists a construct and subsequently a stigma of pedophilia (see my comments on Talk).  While not fully divisible , the construct and stigma of pedophilia clearly interact with one another, and so they must both have their own notability.  These multiple AfDs appear to be part of a systematic attack and opinion canvassing operation against the creator of the Minor-attracted person article, which unambiguously referred to the topic (acknowledging the considerable controversy surrounding it) rather than mobilizing it.  Wikipedia is not censored, and is driven by notability and mentions of a topic in reliable sources.  I'd also like to suggest that some admin further up has a good look into what is happening at certain bulletin boards, and whether it violates existing policy.  -- 86 Sedan 09:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) - (pro-pedophilia account blocked).  ValarianB ( talk ) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This AfD is a follow-up to the discussion that led to the creator's block at WP:ANI#Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll .  It's completely routine to review the wider editing of a user blocked for distorting content, for obvious reasons.  – Joe ( talk ) 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I must agree with Sedan, I find the targeting of these pages and the banning of the creator quite disturbing.  This weaponization of fear is the exact thing this article talks about.  Legitimate topics being suppressed.  -- Pokelova ( talk ) 10:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for reasons stated above.  Casdmo ( talk ) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep .  There is heaps of research about the social stigma of pedophilia and how it negatively affects child sexual abuse prevention and affected individuals mental health.  Pedophilia has been described as ""one of the most stigmatized human characteristics"" (Maroño & Bartels, 2020).  There is clearly enough information on the topic for there to be an article.  Many researchers in relevant fields believe that while it's absolutely necessary to stigmatize the act of child sexual abuse, stigmatizing the attraction itself is counterproductive.  Observer42436 ( talk ) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) - blocked for pro-pedophilia advocacy) ValarianB ( talk ) 14:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with Hemiauchenia, this is better handled at Pedophilia#Society and culture .  -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 11:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per WP:NOPAGE this aspect of pedophilia is better handled in the parent article.  Breaking off 'stigma' to treat in isolation in a standalone article is intrinsically WP:POVFORKy .  Bon courage ( talk ) 11:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I agree with ActivelyDisinterested and Bon courage that it's better handled at the main article.  DFlhb ( talk ) 12:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the Wikipedia had a problem over a decade ago with now-long-banned editors working to soften pedophile-related articles, it is sad to see this advocacy creeping up again.  any stigma attached to child-rape is deserved, it does not justify a separate article to champion its cause.  ValarianB ( talk ) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is not about stigma of child rape, Valarian, and I think deep down you know that.  Intellectually you understand the distinction.  It's giving performative.  -- Pokelova ( talk ) 13:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] you are straying into the territory of the blocked SPAs. I'd advise caution. ValarianB ( talk ) 13:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The distinction between pedophilia and child rape is obvious to anyone with a dictionary. It would take incredible bad faith to construe that as advocacy of any kind, though I guess I wouldn't be surprised if that happened given how disgustingly this whole situation has played out. Well, if anything they certainly can't accuse me of being a SPA. -- Pokelova ( talk ) 14:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the distinction is about as meaningful as choosing between being shot or stabbed.  you are picking the wrong horse in this race.  ValarianB ( talk ) 12:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  Let me hear that again.  The distinction between pedophilia and CSA is as meaningful as between being shot and stabbed?  You can't seriously think it's right to equate the trauma of child rape victims to the ickiness of pedophilic desire itself.  If you did, then how would you even be able to justify basic measures such as background checks for childminders?  The pedophile is already a pedophile, so nothing can make the situation worse, according to you.  I'm not here to defend the article, but your insulting language towards Pokelova should be withdrawn in light of the nonsensicality of your associated arguments.  small jars t c 00:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As a WP:POVFORK .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clearly a WP:POVFORK with ulterior motives.  Legitimus ( talk ) 13:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Obvious POVFORK by someone who has an obvious POV.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:POVFORK .  I'm sad that this was created.  Scorpions13256 ( talk ) 19:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks, walks, and quacks like a WP:POVFORK .  Even if the motive behind creating it were pure as the driven snow, it is redundant with the article of broader scope , and having both around just makes maintenance more difficult.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] strongest delete possible .  literal pedophilic trolling.  lettherebedarklight 晚安 03:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:POVFORK.  Johnuniq ( talk ) 03:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete POVFORK trash.  Really hope we don't need to salt, but I'd support that if re-created.  Nate • ( chatter ) 04:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For all of the reasons laid out above.  OgamD218 ( talk ) 10:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For ALL of the above reasons.  Equine-man ( talk ) 16:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no difference here between this and stigma of copraphilia.  No article there.  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I must admit that this one is inherently WP:UNDUE .  There's no way we could ever make anything good out of this article because the choice of topic has an unacceptable impicit premise.  small jars t c 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Looks like an AVALANCHE in here with only a single established editor ! voting keep, who doesn't cite any policy and goes on a mini-polemic about the delete ! voters (not counting the long-dormant account which appeared alongside the other SPAs which are now blocked).  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hinaki Eel Trap Bridge : A quick search shows little in coverage outside of local government sources.  The article is mostly promotional in tone for the company that design it.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Zealand , Transportation , Architecture ,  and Engineering .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There are no reliable sources showing that this is even somewhat notable.  LinkedIn is not a reliable source.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Delete merged some into Oakley Creek .  Nothing else worth keeping.  NealeWellington ( talk ) 09:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Promotional article for company, editor wrote nothing before or since 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.",delete
"Marwan Effendy : See WP:PERPETRATOR .  On both counts I propose to delete this article.  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 22:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions .  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 22:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Law .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Other than the alleged bribery, I don't see what he did that was unusual for his day .  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 02:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The article could be expanded using the corresponding article in Indonesian (which includes 10 references) at id:Marwan Effendy .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked the id:Marwan Effendy article using a computer translation.  The article says that Effendy was appointed Junior Attorney General to clean up the image of the office after Urip Tri Gunawan, a prosecutor, was arrested for taking a bribe from Artalyta Suryani .  If I understand correctly, as Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes ( Jampidsus ), Mr Effendy reported to the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes.  Certainly an important position in the Attorney General´s office but prima facie not inherently notable in terms of Wikipedia:Notability (people) .  Also his academic positions do not presume notability in terms of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) .  There are indeed several Indonesian sources.  One refers to an alleged bribe unrelated to the Suryani case; there was no proof.  Another set of sources refer to a possible case of plagiarism regarding Effendy´s dissertation.  I don´t think it is quite enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability .  Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 17:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:GNG and my own standards for lawyers.  The above discussion says it all.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) P.SZ.  Since nobody asked, see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability .  Bearian ( talk ) 17:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Robert Yudin : Shellwood ( talk ) 22:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Clearly not notable.  Aintabli ( talk ) 06:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Source Insight : Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG Zim Zala Bim talk 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 04:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  There are some reviews out there in trade journals, but the independence of those is highly questionable.  I cannot find any sources meeting criteria.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:07, 19 April 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 04:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No significant coverage from secondary sources.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rose Lefebvre : I tried looking in google books, but comes up with hits of namesakes.  Fails WP:ARTIST .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Visual arts ,  and France .  LibStar ( talk ) 04:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per the one source in the article, she is mentioned on page 8 of Émile Delignières Catalogue raisonné de l’œuvre gravé de Jacques Aliamet, d’Abbeville , Paris, 1896, digital scan available here (in French) .  Evidently the same information given by the source used in the article, and hardly conveying any amount of notability: it's a single, one-sentence aside in a footnote.  Otherwise, the closest thing to a source I could find is that Google Books hints there may be a mention on page 109 of Achille Le Sueur Le clergé Picard et la révolution - Volumes 1-2, Yvert et Tellier, 1904 (but snippet view isn't showing it to me and I haven't found the work digitalized anywhere I can access it).  AddWitty NameHere 09:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Azerbaijan–Tunisia relations : There are no aspects to these relations that add to notability like embassies, state visits, significant trade or migration.  The 2 cultural aspects mentioned seem to be minor factoids.  Fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Tunisia ,  and Azerbaijan .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  There does not seem to be WP:SIGCOV that could establish notability.  Yilloslime ( talk ) 17:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Samidin Xhezairi : Can find little literature that mentions him (by real name or nickname), and these mentions are very brief.  The source used for the article names him as one of 100 ex-guerrillas being questioned at the Hague, and relies itself partially on the man's brother on Facebook.  While it is clear that this man did participate in the Yugoslav Wars, I can't see the sources proving notability.  Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 17:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Albania .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - insufficient RS, no real claim to notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 20:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom BLP, not sure this even makes a valid claim to notability.   Fails GNG and NBIO.  Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth .  BLPs require strong sourcing.  Open to a consensus redirect suggestion, but I really don't see an appropriate one.  // Timothy :: talk 18:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Toyen (band) : The article is also long-time unsourced and has other issues.  FromCzech ( talk ) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic .  FromCzech ( talk ) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – The Czech Wikipedia article also is unsourced and lacks any reliable secondary source, which might help otherwise.  ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Stephen Yohay : Page is written like an advertisement, which is surmountable, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient sourcing to warrant keeping the page even once it's properly rewritten.  GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk ) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: may or may not be notable but he's working on it.  ""Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Settlement With Substance Abuse Treatment Center And Its Owner For Enrolling Patients Through Kickbacks And Using Falsified Patient Admissions Forms (announcement)"" .  Southern District of New York .  United States Department of Justice .  21 December 2020 .  Retrieved 7 August 2023 .  Bryant, Bailey (6 January 2021).  ""SUD Treatment Provider, Former CEO to Pay $6M for Medicaid Fraud"" .  Behavioral Health Business .  Hasday, Jill Elaine (18 July 2019).  Intimate Lies and the Law (PDF) .  Oxford University Press .  pp. 73–74.  ISBN 9780190930233 .  Retrieved 7 August 2023 .  190-word description of a privacy-lawsuit arising from his divorce.  He won.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the subject appears to be mostly known for defrauding Medicaid per what A. B. found.  There is another ""Stephen Yohay"" who specializes in OSHA law who might be more notable.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Cannot find any SIRS .  C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 05:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.  This article 1 mentions him in a Medicaid fraud.  CarribeanKing ( talk ) 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hamad Al-Harbi : Vyvagaba ( talk ) 11:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Qatar .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the article uses a single source, which is the player profile on a blog.  Vyvagaba ( talk ) 14:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Azealia Banks' controversies : There may be reliable sources on some of Banks' various feuds, but not every single one of them needs to be recorded per WP:NOTNEWS ; especially given how Banks has attacked and criticized most mainstream celebrities at this point.  Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 14:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Popular culture .  Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 14:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A lot of is poorly sourced, unencyclopedic, and tangentially, giving air to the Internet rants posted by a woman who is better known for her feuds than her music at this point.  Ss 112 00:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The nominator nailed all the relevant policy violations.  The fact that Ms. Banks is always in a beef with someone is already described adequately at her main article, and a list has no encyclopedic value.  The Disputes and controversies section at her article could be cleaned up too, with a general summary rather than a few isolated examples.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and those above.  There is no justification for a separate article on the ""controversies"" of the subject.  BD2412 T 15:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ibrahim Sani : No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.   Basically a resume which collected and spun up a range of factoids.    None of the references is even partial GNG type coverage of him.   The only one describing him clearly looks like a self-supplied BIO.  Some concern that the creator has 25 lifetime edits and edit #5 was creation of this article which IMO was a wiki-saavy creation.  North8000 ( talk ) 12:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Journalism , Television ,  and Malaysia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"The Swiss constituency : No plausible redirect target.  Un assiolo ( talk ) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Kazakhstan , Kyrgyzstan , Tajikistan , Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan , Azerbaijan , Poland , Serbia ,  and Switzerland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : unless they have real tangible impact that is covered by high quality independent RS, this isn't a notable subject.  - K evo 3 2 7 ( talk ) 14:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article may be removed due to poor formatting. -- ETIBAR MEMMEDOV TT me 22:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - from a quick search it appears that this is a platform for international cooperation that goes beyond just voting in IMF/WB.  See for example mentions like ""The main em- phasis was on providing support to the central banks of the Swiss constituency in the IMF ..."" ( [30] ), ""...carried out in the framework of a joint IMF- Swiss regional project for countries in the Swiss constituency"" ( [31] ), ""During the meeting of the Swiss Constituency the most important elements of policy of the World Bank and the IMF were presented , i.a. with respect to the prevention of financial crises . "" ( [32] ), ""Meeting of World Bank / IMF Constituency September 2000 saw the annual meeting of the World Bank / IMF Constituency which includes Poland ( the "" Swiss Constituency "" ) , organised by the NBP and the Ministry of Finance in Cracow"".  None of these are particularly good as article references, but the wordings shared here point to that the constituency plays some role in cooperation between states.  -- Soman ( talk ) 22:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per above notes.  The constituency is a political tool, and the concept is definitely non-trivial.  Superboilles ( talk ) 20:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Discussion page was never added to the 19 June log page upon the last relist.   Relisting now and manually adding to the current day's log Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, -- Finngall talk 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but I would definitely expand this if possible with more information because article is very little but this is definitely a valuable institution.  Боки ✉ 20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Can we please have some gng passing sources.  The keep votes seem to be arguing based on assumptions not policy.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Spartaz Humbug!  07:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable subject under Wikipedia notability guidelines .  Does not pass WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth coverage.  There is not enough information about this topic to expand it from a stub.  The constituency is already mentioned in International Monetary Fund#Executive Board , where its mentioned that Switzerland, Poland and seven ""near eastern"" countries form a constituency.  This can be expanded there via note, by listing the other countries.  The percentage of voting rights is subject to periodic change, and is therefore not a useful piece of information.  If we decide to keep this, we could then create articles for the remaining likewise non-notable 24 (the IMF has 24 and the World bank has 25 total) constituencies.  In that case, these articles should be merged into a List of constituencies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank , or similar, but the resulting page would also be relatively short, and considering WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGE (context) could simply be merged into the IMF parent article (49kb of readable prose).  As these constituencies seem to be more or less the same for the IMF and the World Bank (where this constituency is called EDS24 ), the same information could be added to the World Bank article.  To conclude, information about the constituencies should be added directly to the IMF and World Bank articles. — Alalch E. 10:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see this link to understand that there are 24 directors of the IMF and they all represent a constituency , which may be one or more countries.  All countries that are IMF (and World Bank) members are therefore either a constituency or form a constituency, and there is nothing special or distinguishing about ""the Swiss constituency"" .  — Alalch E. 10:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Constituencies World Bank constituencies IMF constituencies 2019 (leader - group) EDS1 - United States United States - United States EDS2 - Japan Japan - Japan EDS3 - United Kingdom United Kingdom - United Kingdom EDS4 - France France - France EDS5 - Germany Germany - Germany EDS6 - Afghanistan, Algeria, Ghana, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan and Tunisia Iran - Afghanistan, Algeria, Ghana, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia EDS7 - Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Ireland, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines Canada - Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Ireland, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines EDS8 - Argentina, Chile, and Peru Argentina - Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay EDS9 - Australia, Cambodia, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.  Australia - Australia, Kiribati, Korea, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu EDS10 - Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Czechia, Hungary, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Turkey Turkey - Austria, Belarus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Kosovo, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Turkey EDS11 - Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, West Bank and Gaza, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen Egypt - Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Yemen EDS12 - Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Sri Lanka India - Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka EDS13 - Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal and Togo Mauritania - Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Togo EDS14 - Botswana, Burundi, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe South Africa - Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe EDS25 - Angola, Nigeria and South Africa EDS15 - Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Panama, Philippines, Suriname, and Trinidad & Tobago Brazil - Brazil, Cabo Verde, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago EDS16 - Brunei, Fiji, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam Indonesia - Brunei, Cambodia, Fiji, Indonesia, Lao P.D.R., Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam EDS17 - China China - China EDS18 - Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Spain Colombia - Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Spain EDS19 - Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Moldova, Montenegro, The Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, and Ukraine Belgium - Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro, The Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, Ukraine EDS20 - Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden Sweden - Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden EDS21 - Albania, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, San Marino, and Timor-Leste Italy - Albania, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, San Marino EDS22 - Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia EDS23 - Russia and Syria Russia - Russia, Syria EDS24 - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan Switzerland - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan From the above table you can see how many of these constituencies there are, and how they are nothing special.  You can find the same amount of trivial or primary coverage on practically any of those, for example "" The Spanish constituency "" . — Alalch E. 11:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The topic of representation of countries through the constituencies is an interesting one, but it needs to be treated as a whole, on a broader scale.  And this is how it is treated in the sources.  For example: Uneven Patterns of Governance: How Developing Countries Are Represented in the IMF .  Here's another example, contemplating an ""EU quota"", through an EU constituency ; it mentions ""Australian, Belgian, Canadian, English-speaking African, Indonesian, Italian and Nordic constituencies"".  Additional example: The Internationalization of Postsocialist Economies (Grzegorz W. Kolodko) (""Indeed, why not compose a new IMF and World Bank constituency from Latin American, Eastern European, and CIS nations"").  And consistent with this, the only secondary source in the article, the swissinfo.ch article, precisely deals with the broader politics of representation, and is not about the Swiss constituency as a constituency, but about how ""Emerging countries and the United States want a wider distribution of seats"", and Switzerland's (as a country) response to that.  It does not contain WP:SIGCOV of the Swiss constituency. — Alalch E. 12:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I searched and found it mentioned a lot in books, but always passing mentions and not significant coverage.  Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage.  CT55555 ( talk ) 02:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Priyanshi Arya : Being a the general secretary of a students' union does not inherently makes one notable.  There's also generally no SIGCOV anywhere.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions .  Owen× ☎ 22:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women ,  and India .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Potentially notable as the first Dalit general secretary in 30 years.  This article from the Deccan Herald looks like SIGCOV: ""Who is Dhananjay? All you need to know about JNU's first Dalit president in nearly 30 years"" .  Deccan Herald .  Retrieved 2024-03-26 .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain I’m surprised to how you interpret SIGCOV.  Is Dhananjay the same person as Priyanshi Arya?  Obviously not and the only mention of this person there is In addition to Dhananjay's victory, Avijit Ghosh from the Students' Federation of India (SFI) secured the vice-president's post, while Priyanshi Arya of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students' Association (BAPSA), supported by the Left, won the general se. .  Where’s the SIGCOV here?  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 23:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Have added a reference from mainstream Indian media which is reliable, secondary source and independent media outlet.  It passes WP:GNG as it has WP:SIGCOV , an exclusive full length article and at least one other article with about five paras written about her from mainstream media.  I request Editors to look at all the cited references and take a call.  May be, if some feel it does not pass, request that it may be draftified.  thanks and regards!  Davidindia ( talk ) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meet Priyanshi Arya, The Newly-Elected JNU General Secretary Who Was Raised In Middle-Class Family The article from Zee News.  There is another full-length article, in The SportsGrail, which I am not taking here as SIGCOV, as its main domain is sports.  Davidindia ( talk ) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:TOOSOON , SIGCOV, WP:PROF , and potentially WP:BLP violations.  As a university student she is not notable, absent significant coverage in Chronicle of Higher Education or the equivalent.  One reliable source by definition fails SIGCOV and WP:OR .  We very rarely keep any academic who has not gained tenure with at least an associate chair.  There's also disputes in the sources about whether she's dalit or middle class - a real BLP violation if you're an Indian reader - and very likely to be the subject of an edit war.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the sources given like Indian Express, Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Economic Times are major reputed newspapers in India and the three news websites, News Minute, News Laundry and Wire are equally reliable and reputed news houses.  Except Sportsgrail all the sources cited are secondary and from mainstream news industry as reputed as Chronicle of Higher Education or much more.  All are highly respected news outlets.  The article about the subject is not for an academic, per say, but for a political leader in student politics.  I could not understand the dispute of the subject being a Dalit.  Anyway, I leave it to the editors.  If possible, it can be put in the draft space.  Thanks and regards, Davidindia ( talk ) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Divided between Keep, Delete or Draftify arguments.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete University-level student leader is inherently nonnotable unless some national level achievements.  - Altenmann >talk 23:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  With due respect to the senior editors here, who have been doing great work on Wiki for years, I am just curious to understand if there is a wiki guideline or policy that prevents student leaders from having a BLP page.  I saw that many student leaders in Europe from Digby Jacks to Malia Bouattia to Shakira Martin to Zamzam Ibrahim , have articles.  Many BLPs on student leaders were created on Wiki with just a reference or two, when they were first created.  Here in India, a leader from JNU| Jawaharlal Nehru University is not just a university-level student leader... any leader from JNU gets ten times more visibility and recognition in India than a state university, say Bangalore University.  Many from JNU have become National leaders later on.   The subject is also notable because she is the first queer dalit student.  But this bit was removed to make sure there were no BLP violations and to protect the confidentiality of the subject, as there were not many sources and it was not clear if she was “out” I feel this subject BLP passes the WP: GNG .  But I leave it to the editors to decide.  Thanks and regards!  Davidindia ( talk ) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Draftify .  The page is currently confusing with the sources given whether the page is on Priyanshi Arya or Dhananjay.  I do not think a local student union leader is notable but seems like the subject must have made some achievement that could be worthy of notice so I lean on draftifying this page for improvement with more reliable sources.  RangersRus ( talk ) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) and after going through all the sources more discreetly, many are poor to unreliable to lack of coverage on the subject.  General Secretary of a university is OK but it is not a significant enough to be considered notable when you cannot find more reliable sources with indepth coverage.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ RangersRus The person who ""won the Jawaharlal Nehru University student union (JNUSU) election for the post of General Secretary."" is Priyanshi Arya and not Dhananjay.  The author of this article is suspiciously using the ""Dhananjay""'s coverages to imply notability on Arya.  Dhananjay is not inherently notable either.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 15:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I went through the sources and also tried to find sources on the subject but not any help.  It lead me to change my vote.  Page and the subject fails notability.  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment At the outset, I would like to declare that I have absolutely no conflict of interest.  I just saw the news and did the article.  I have a lot of respect to the editor for all his work, especially with a number of good articles and C rated articles.  I am taken aback by a comment that attributes motives.  1000s of editors use the subject in search and cite all the articles that quoted the subject, which is quite normal.  AfD discussions are not 'voting' and since it is relisted, I used the bullet as Keep.  My only point is when student leaders in Europe have pages why not in India... especially when Priyanshi has at least one article, exclusively about her (Zee News is a reputed media outlet).  I just want everyone to know that I am just doing this in good faith, and have no particular interest in the subject.  Thanks and regards!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia ( talk • contribs ) 06:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Margaret H. Sedenquist : It turns out there have been socks involved ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlesSquid ) and one of the suspected socks created this article.  Margaret H. Sedenquist is the mother of the Imbrifex Books publisher and I'm sure she was an amazing person but the article as it stands is referenced by an obituary likely authored by the family and some references that aren't really references.  a Los Angeles Times article that merely mentions her name [2] a Pasadena Star-News article that also only mentions her in passing and has a quote from her [3] another Pasadena Star-News article about local events that carries four paragraphs about the local Women's Civic League giving Sedenquist a Woman of the Year award but only two of those four paragraphs are devoted to Sedenquist.  [4] It look like there is only one reference where she is sole subject of the article [5] but it is a local business paper announcing her talk at the local Rotary Club and she is being interviewed.  I think that makes it fail WP:INDY as a source.  She appears to have been very active locally and probably a nice person but I don't think it meets WP:BIO right now.  ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 19:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , notable individual.  Some of the sources cited appear reliable and also found this one [6] which is not yet cited in the article.  AllNotAll ( talk ) 06:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO.  I thought this would be an easy keep, but I didn't find anything that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.  Source eval: Comments Source Obit, looks like the below source from AfD is sourced from this obit.  1.  ""Margaret H. Sedenquist 1927 - 2021"".  San Gabriel Valley Tribune.  Retrieved 1 May 2021.  mentioned in sentence near end of article.  2. ^ Drake, Sylvie (February 21, 1986).  ""Pasadena Playhouse Reopens In April With 'Arms And The Man'"".  Los Angeles Times.  Archived from the original on October 20, 2023.  Retrieved February 15, 2013.  Mention with quote, fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Williams, Janette (August 11, 2011).  ""Five Acres children's home leader Bob Ketch to retire after 34 years at the helm"".  Pasadena Star-News.  Archived from the original on August 19, 2011.  Retrieved February 15, 2013.  Promo for an event they were speaking at, fails WP:IS Pasadena California, Hotels,CA Real Estate,Restaurants,City Guide... - Pasadena.com"".  www.pasadenanow.com.  Archived from the original on August 7, 2019.  Promo for an event they were participating in, fails WP:IS  5. ^ ""Patt Diroll: Honoring those who help the community"".  Pasadena Star-News.  May 15, 2011.  Archived from the original on May 18, 2011.  Retrieved February 15, 2013.  Fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  6. ^ ""Margaret H. Sedenquist Scholarship"".  from AfD Reprint of what appears to be an OBIT in a press release, all the normal problems with an OBIT https://chu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-chu-recognizes-2021-congressional-women-year-hometown-hero-edition See the nom's comments for what their BEFORE found, mine found nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV.  Ping me if WP:IS sources are found with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth , it really seemed like this would be a Keep, but it needs WP:IS sources with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 6 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Terrorism ,  and Iran .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Previously deleted by PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:ORG .  Would reconsider if someone found sources in Persian.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: No reliable sources, fails WP:ORG.  Toadette ( let's chat together ) 05:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dhiman : The article is authored by a contributor( User:Karandhimanbahre ) with a potential conflict of interest(see his other contributions/talk page) with not enough citations/reliable sources.  I believe the article does not meet Wikipedia standards.  It lacks inline citations, and the information about the notable individuals(removed now) [21] and companies appear to be without proper verifiable sources.  Moreover, the article is in a state where cleanup or rewriting would require an extensive effort due to its lack of verifiability and biased presentation.  Starting this AfD to either delete, fix or draftify this article.  Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Literature , Ethnic groups , History ,  and India .  Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- The article is in sad shape, but deletion is not for cleanup .  I do not find any blatant WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues; existing sources pass WP:GNG easily; and additional sources exist based on basic WP:BEFORE searches.  I am confused by the WP:NPOV and WP:V complaints in the nom.  Other than the fact that the cites are all at the bottom of the article instead of inline, the sources seem to support the article text.  I am also disturbed by the accusation of WP:COI in the nom.  I think that should be stricken unless the nominator can support how one or more of the authors contributing to the article have a financial stake in the subject of a caste (without outing or doxing that editor).  If the COI argument is specific to one or more entries in the Current Accomplishments section, that (again) is a matter of cleanup, not an argument for deletion.  Overall, I see no valid policy reasons to delete the article, and I feel that deletion will not improve the encyclopaedia.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 12:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My suggestion is to blow it up and start over .  With regards to WP:COI , WP:NPOV and WP:V , the author/major contributor User:Karandhimanbahre, has 44 edits in total.  [22] .  Subject has 79.9% content from the user:Karandhimanbahre.  The name Karan dhiman bahre and their userpage clearly indicates they are from the Dhiman subset.  Also has a previous COI warning from submitting this article initially [23] and tried to create Jatinder Dhiman recently.  Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI.  My COI argument is not because of the entries in the Current Accomplishments section but from WP:EXTERNALREL .  It's widely known that upper-caste Indians often proudly display their caste identity, carrying it with them wherever they go.  Ex: Karandhimanbahre's user page.  Now to clarify WP:OR , Is there any source for the notable names and companies mentioned on the article actually belongs to the Dhiman subset?  No.  In the Culture section, Dhimans are group of people, who took Engineering and Technology works as an occupation.  and The community is moving very highly in society in both business and education.  I believe there was no term called technology those days and the 2nd quote is not NPOV.  Similarly in Current Accomplishments , Today, we can see people from Dhimans group leading in many sectors.  From business, art, and science to politics, people from this group are showcasing strong accomplishments.  ""Dhiman-Brahmin are on-par with the Brahmins in the current time, whereas until the early 1500s they were above the rest of Brahmins in the social hierarchy."" looks like it has been rephrased from Panchal , This is enough for this editor to be not anywhere near this article.  Looks like the whole section Dhiman is copied from Panchal .  Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 14:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see similarities between Dhiman and Panchal —almost identical from section to section with only some words replaced.  Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 14:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Superb analysis and explanation, Jeraxmoira .  Thank you!  I am still deeply uncomfortable with using COI outside PROMO issues, but I know that caste is a special case for many policies and guidelines.  I'm concerned that allowing the idea to creep too far would mean excluding Brits from articles about UK culture and history, or blocking LGBTQIA2S+ from articles about gay and transgender topics.  That said, editorial bias of any kind damages the encyclopaedia, so removing it is a good idea.  On balance, though, is it reasonable for an entire article about a caste to be scrapped due to COI issues of a single editor?  That worries me.  As I said above, I think that the subject passes GNG and is worthy of an encyclopaedic article.  I do agree with the callouts above as examples of puffery or likely POV issues that need to be excised, but I just can't see the article as a whole being TNTed for it.  Do you really think that there is literally nothing in the article that can be salvaged?  That seems... harsh.  I think a stronger approach would be to keep the article and ruthlessly, sentence by sentence, strip out everything that cannot be directly supported by RS.  The citations in the article and the additional ones readily available on gScholar or gBooks should give us a strong starting point for a better article.  In short, I think this is still a Keep and that the discussion should move to WP:BRD and the Talk page.  I am quite willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not seeing a good reason (yet).  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I get what you're saying about COI and the need to salvage articles, but this cannot be compared to your examples as here it is proven that the major contributor has a COI with the article.  First off, the article was created in May 2023 and is not a long standing one.  From the page history, the only significant contributor is the author himself.  Secondly, most parts are copied from Panchal as I have mentioned in my previous reply.  And I don't think WP:BRD is of any use here as everything in this article can be removed because of no inline citations.   The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.  In this case, the article would end up empty, which is why I initiated this AFD.  FWIW, if you believe the current sources meet GNG (even though many might fall under WP:RAJ and therefore are not reliable), then the article should be draftified until someone completely rewrites it.  Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify at minimum .  AFD may not be cleanup but this is an article that does not have any inline citations that falls directly under the purview of ongoing general sanctions .  This cannot be acceptable for mainspace.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify at the very least.  Article is inherently flawed.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 19:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is a very strong WP:TNT case.  When we're dealing with an article that has no inline sources, is completely disputed, and is on a topic that falls under disciplinary sanctions... sometimes AfD does actually have to be cleanup.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or otherwise remove from mainspace.   This is unlikely to be suitable as a base to write a properly sourced article.   Most of the cited sources are not really reliable for the topic presented, i.e. Hindu scritptures, colonial era ethnography, mentions of actors with a particular last name, or don't support the content of the article (e.g. the government reports about the Tarkhan (Punjab) caste that only mentions Dhiman as a synonym of that group.  In short it needs new content based on new sources to be a viable article and thus is a reasonable candidate for WP:TNT .  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 04:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Nick Capstick-Dale : Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG .  Only two sources from the Evening Standard may establish notability, but one is an interview.  All others are brief statements, mentions, a listing, and unreliable content.  Toadette Edit!  17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , France ,  and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , sources used in the article don't go into enough depth to pass WP:GNG .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 16:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Valery Androsov : Boleyn ( talk ) 20:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Architecture ,  and Russia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Have you done WP:BEFORE with Russian sources?  You can use Google translate.  Even then it's harder to find Russian sources.  He's a big deal in Mytishchi , and if he was an American, with his achievements, he'd surely have enough articles etc. to rate an article.  We don't want to be too Anglo-centric here.  Heck we want to try to bring in articles about people outside the Anglosphere.  I translated this article from the Russian Wikipedia (Андросов, Валерий Владимирович).  There are seven references there.  I didn't put them all in.  There's only one of me.  OP could do the work instead of trying to delete the article.  The article in Russian Wikipedia has been there 15 years, so they're fine with it I guess.  As a general rule, I think that if there's an article in the Russian Wikipedia, it should be considered that an article in the Wikipedia would probably be a good idea.  Within reason.  To avoid Anglocentrism.  I'm sure there are really obscure things that, even if they have a good Russian article, should not be brought over, if it would have basically zero interest to anyone except a Russian.  Androsov is not one of them.  None of this is written down anywhere, but it's still a good de-facto rule to follow.  Sorry for going on, I'm like that.  Herostratus ( talk ) 21:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I read: ""demonstrate his mastery of modern materials"" ""have retained ergonomic and aesthetic appeal over the decades"" ""has had a major impact on the memorial architecture of the city of Mytishchi"" ""one of the major monuments in the city of Mytishchi"" ""a significant event in the cultural life of the city of Mytishchi"" ""one of the city's dominant architectural works"" ""has won prizes for various monument projects"" ""was awarded the Medal 'Veteran of Labour' and the Medal 'In Commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of Moscow'"" Notability indeed.  Or anyway, notability if these can be believed.  And to be believed, each has to be backed up with a reliable source.  Currently, none of them is.  Herostratus is an experienced editor in good standing, and if they say they can read Russian and that good sources can be provided, I'll believe it.  But if Herostratus wants an article for Androsov, then creating a decently referenced one is their job, not ours.  Herostratus is free to (temporarily?) remove some of the claims above.  But of the claims that remain, the majority should be soundly sourced.  As long as they aren't, this should be draftified .  I'd then trust Herostratus to promote it to article status when it merits this, and not before.  -- Hoary ( talk ) 08:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmph . Hmph, I say. Re ""If Herostratus wants an article for Androsov, then creating a decently referenced one is their job, not ours"" c'mon, building the Wikipedia is everyone's job; almost all articles are worked on by several editors.  And you can't ""trust"" me do everything you want me to, or actually anything. I'm busy. If you don't want readers to see the article, say so. Don't put in my userspace without my permission. I don't ""own"" this article any more than any other editor does. I'd be willing to consider supporting draftifying to your userspace if you will undertake to bring it up to your standards. If you can't read Russian, you could learn. But beyond all that, it's been my understanding that an article is usually kept if it has sufficient reliable sources or could have . If we're now onto deleting articles that don't currently have sufficient refs, even tho they are out there, that's a lot of articles. It's supposed to be the nominators job to do WP:BEFORE and, on finding good and necessary refs, put them in themselves or else at least pass on sending the article here. Herostratus ( talk ) 04:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, if I want to create an article about something or somebody, then it should be decently referenced and it's me who should provide this decent referencing. Note ""decent"", not ""entirely satisfactory"", let alone ""unsurpassable"". Others could come along and improve the referencing here and there, and I'd hope that they'd do just that. A major reason why it should be me who attempts to reference all of my new article is that I'd know which bit of it came from which reliable source, and it's far easier for me to create a decent article ""forwards"" than it is for other editors to create one backwards . No, Herostratus , I don't want this draft in my userspace, because I have little interest in its subject (although more than I have in the subjects of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of other articles), and realize that I'd have little competence to improve it. Anyway, I'm busy too, though I try not to trouble other editors with my own creations (my most recent fresh creation , IIRC, subsequently improved somewhat, and of course welcoming further improvements by others). -- Hoary ( talk ) 22:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' per Herostratus, a full and certainly adequate defense of the page.  Please remember that at AfD finding good sources and discussing them will save an article, even if the sources are not currently used on the page.  The sources establish notability.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 01:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I concur.  This topic fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO .  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not finding reliable sources to add to the uncited information presented in the English article.  A translation of the Russian article doesn't have sources that show notability.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Herostratus, ""doesn't currently have sufficient refs.""  Feel free to draftify to my userspace where I will work on it after I've learned the required Russian.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 23:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you studying Russian now, or are you just being sarcastic?  Herostratus ( talk ) 13:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am studying Russian now.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 14:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, excellent.  But as to ""doesn't currently have sufficient refs"" being a reason for deletion or draftifying an article, no, that is not the usual standard.  It it was, over half our articles would be subject to immediate destruction, and that's several million articles.  When coming across an problematic article, I have found this 1-2-3 rubric appropriate:  1) Find and put in the refs yourself.  2) If you don't have time/interest/competence for that (very very likely, and fine), tag the most problematic statements and/or the whole article as a whole as needing refs.  3) If you don't have time/interest/competence for that -- we're talking a couple-few minutes, for an article that may have taken a colleague hours to write -- if you can't be bothered to do that , then move on, go do something constructive.  Tagging serves two purposes: it alerts the reader to take the tagged material with a grain of salt, and it flags other editors (or readers) that the article needs some reffing work.  Tagging doesn't mean ""Look at this garbage"".  It means ""Hello, citizen! Here is a place where the article could be improved! You're invited to pitch in if you're so inclined.""  If you find or think that the article can't be reffed, that's different.  If the article is about something that looks trivial and the writer didn't put in any refs, there probably aren't any.  Probably.  But, if it's a good and decent-sized article about a subject that doesn't seem trivial on its face -- 14th century Bulgarian poet, archeological site, Russia artist, whatever -- then there probably are refs out there, its just that nobody has put them in yet.  Most people don't usually write six dense paragraphs on a not-obviously-trivial subjects for which no refs exist.  Or there might be refs, but not enough good ones.  You'll find this if you do WP:BEFORE .  So, there are a lot of subtleties.  Of course there are, this is a very complicated operation we're running here.  Facts live on a continuum of importance and liklihood.  If there are facts that are somewhat important and seem like they might be dubious, you could just delete those ones, if you think tagging won't do; we don't want to seriously mislead our readers.  Many facts are not very important and/or are very likely true.  Tagging is usually better for those.  One has to use one wits to make one's best judgement here; no rule can guide one.  In this article, for instance, whether or not Androsov was director of the Mytishchi Art Gallery is important, but very likely he was.  Nothing's impossible, but it's not the sort of thing that somebody would just make up, or get wrong.  Conversely, there might be stuff that is more likely to be wrong but is trivial.  Both of these are worth tagging!  They are!  Absolutely, tag them, and thank you.  But, they're not necessarily a good reason for, you know, erasing the article altogether.  For one thing, deleting an article stops cold its improvement.  Its hard to add refs to an article that doesn't exist anymore.  Herostratus ( talk ) 03:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not reading all of that.  You've already left multiple lengthy comments which I have previously read and responded to.  Don't bother replying to me again.  Thanks.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You want to destroy my hours of work on a reasonably-OK article for the stated reason that ""doesn't currently have sufficient refs"" is all that's needed, yet you won't take five minutes to read about how that is not OK and giving some tips about how you might consider these issues more deeply (or at least correctly).  Got it.  Please strike your vote.  If you won't, I request that the closer disregard it.  You're not willing to take five minutes to become more educated (or at least hear another voice) on what we're, I don't know, trying to do here, and decline to engage.  This is not good.  You should not be participating in AfD discussions, so for the good of the project please stop, thanks.  Herostratus ( talk ) 22:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I need more time to work on this.  Herostratus ( talk ) 22:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article has been tagged since 2010.  It has been on AfD for a week.  You have spent time discussing why the article should be kept, rather than adding sources to the uncited paragraphs of the article.  Plenty of time to make the additions (that no one else can find).  It is not reasonable to keep an article on a non-notable person because an editor insists there is something out there.  Your bludgeoning is not persuasive.  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 03:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ziad Abdelnour (financier) : I don't find coverage about this person, only him talking about other things.  Rest of the sourcing isn't helpful.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , Finance , Politics , Lebanon , New York ,  and Pennsylvania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, due to the previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad K Abdelnour , Soft deletion is not an option.  We need more opinions here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt We'll whack-a-mole another page title probably, but nothing new here since the last nominations.  SportingFlyer T · C 01:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We could title blacklist , I guess.  It's absurd that the same stuff has been going on since 2006.  * Pppery * it has begun... 01:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt per everyone above.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 14:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The sources are articles written by Ziad Abdelnour or quotes from Ziad Abdelnour, but nothing about Ziad Abdelnour, other than some YouTube videos and some blogs.  Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the reasons stated above.  Ben Azura ( talk ) 23:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Commonwealth Markets : Cabayi ( talk ) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , Internet , California ,  and Kentucky .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for PROMO.  SEC filings and various blogs or un-reliable websites don't help notability, I can't find anything extra.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which blogs are you referring to?  Which un-reliable websites are you referring to?  SEC filings are completed with multiple third party law firms and audited annually.  104.35.224.196 ( talk ) 23:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom as WP:TNT .  Jumpytoo Talk 18:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still think this should be G11 but I do see that this was declined, so I will refrain from tagging for it.  In any case, speedy delete .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since this is blatant promotion.  The article was created almost single-handedly by Dominic.persinger , an account which was created on August 20 and blocked indefinitely on August 25 for ""undisclosed paid editing for advertising or promotion"".  Anton.bersh ( talk ) 09:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Clearly just promotional.  Nigej ( talk ) 07:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Madiha (singer) : Steven Walling • talk 06:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 07:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Poorly sourced article per WP:RS and I do not find any notable albums or songs which meet WP:SINGER . - CSMention269 ( talk ) 10:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Like others above me, I tried to find RS.  Maybe someone who once dreamed to be a star?  Nothing wrong with that, however, we work by the GNG.  gidonb ( talk ) 03:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No coverage from WP:RS at present.  The MSN.COM source does not mention the singer.  Artene50 , 24 December 2023 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.",delete
"Erik Desiderio : Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Television , New York ,  and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article passes WP:GNG , in which it has significant reliable sources like ( [50] , ( [51] , few more sources are added now and it has also have notable award and nominations such as two times Hollywood Music in Media Awards nominated and more other reliable festivals.  Iitttlefir ( talk ) 02:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those aren't reliable at all.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 09:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – Iitttlefir is the creator of the article up for deletion.  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify The evidence points to it being a COI article but also it potentially passing WP:NCOMPOSER , making an outright deletion potentially hasty.  However, currently it lacks decent sourcing or any sort of non-resume-like content.  I would suggest it be draftified and prohibited from being recreated without the approval of a knowledgeable editor, if sources can be found.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Can't find anything on this composer whatsoever.  Additionally, Iitttlefir's entire edit history consists of creating articles for obscure, non-notable filmmakers using as the image a full-res, staged photoshoot that they describe as ""own work"" – genuinely leading me to believe that they may be being asked to do these on the subjects' behalfs.  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : coverage for this composer is very scarce, mostly database biographies.  The NYFA piece seems good, but WP:MUSICBIO clearly states that the subject must have multiple pieces of significant coverage for notability.  InDimensional ( talk ) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No significant coverage found aside from the NYFA piece.  Otherwise, the article's sources are either primary (interviews) or press releases.  As mentioned by TheTechnician27 , the highly stylized infobox image caught my attention as well.  HopalongCasualty ( talk ) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Undoing my close, per request at talk page.  Editor claims to have additional information.  I am entertaining this request as the discussion was not relisted.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Greenish Pickle!  : , @ Iitttlefir : , @ Zxcvbnm : , @ Govvy : , @ TheTechnician27 : , @ InDimensional : , @ HopalongCasualty : - note that I have zero opinion one way or the other regarding the post-close claims of notability on my talk page.  78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If thats the case, then ill recommend to '''Draftify''' the article for having COI issue.  After looking at the sources, the 1st source were just interview, and other 2 is an awful sources.  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 02:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am really confused by the claims of SIGCOV there, one of the sources is an interview and another is a potentially unreliable blog.  The last is from a database.  To me none of those change anything about the article's notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After the weeklong window of the nomination, there's still nothing that even begins to assert notability.  Any viable sources (BBC, Hollywood Reporter) only mention him in passing and there's virtually zero article content, just a quick mention of his education and work history.  Coupled with the infobox image, it's not a stretch to consider this a promotional piece.  💥 Casualty • Hop along.  • 03:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources were mentioned at User talk:78.26 and the editor requesting relisting hasn't participated in this discussion yet.  So, they weren't talking about the existing sources.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - keep I am surprised you opened this back up, didn't think you wanted too.  I am a bit confused by the nomination and the process here.  People always go on about significant coverage.  But we should always ask, is there basic coverage first.  We have some interviews, like the ones in the article, vgmoline.net and this one by ozwe games, a smaller website interview here .  and we have awards he won, two sources for [52] , [53] , for the Los Angeles Live Score Film Festival .  Mentioned here as a winner in the article for the Global music award .  Surely this all adds up for WP:BASIC .  I agree google is limited but that doesn't negate new articles and they need to be given a chance to evolve, this was only added on April 9th, I don't see why you can't wait longer to see what happens with an article.  But hey that's my take on it.  Regards.  Govvy ( talk ) 11:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment – Anyone can just hand out non-notable awards.  I hereby award you the Wikipedia Award for Excellence in Filmmaking, the Internet Award for Charcuterie, and the 21st Century Video Game Award for Best Character Writing, so if you can sit down with me for an interview, I can have your article up within the week.  If all it takes to get a Wikipedia article is to very obviously pay someone to write one for me then, when it's very predictably challenged on notability, show that I've had one or two meaningless interviews and won a couple awards by two-bit, no-name organizations as a form of muddying the waters to retain the article, then we've fallen pretty far from our efforts to clean up this sort of crap that infested the project in the 2000s.  This article is effectively spam designed not for the benefit of the encyclopedia but for the sole benefit of its subject.  TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment None of these awards are significant, nor does scoring a non-notable film at the ""LA Live Score Film Festival"" work in establishing SIGCOV.  Interviews are primary as they are used to promote the subject, plus Ozwe and Level With Emily are not even viable sources.  💥 Casualty • Hop along.  • 20:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"English Music Festival : Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Boleyn ( talk ) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Harsha Bahadur Budha Magar : UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators ,  and Nepal .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Evidence of passing WP:Prof not found.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete .  His 1990 dissertation was published in book form as Is Gorkhaland a reality or simply mirage?  (Kathmandu 1994 : Pushpawati Bura Magar); I only found a single citation for that on google scholar.  I can't find the source this article is based on, either.  If this is about him, it's a strong indicator of notability: [10] .  But that's all I've found.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Waleed Asiri : The best sources that I can find are Alyaum 1 and Alyaum 2 , both of which only trivially mention Asiri as an unused substitute in a reserve match.  WP:FPL is no longer relevant and Asiri needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC to have an article.  I'm not seeing a passing of either guideline at this moment in time.  WP:TOOSOON at best.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Saudi Arabia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Searching in English and Arabic, nothing beyond passing mentions.  〜 Festucalex • talk 07:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis.  A case of WP:TOOSOON .  Jogurney ( talk ) 16:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Paolo Cecconi : UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , he made 193 appearances in Italian fully pro Serie C from 1970s to 1980s do deifnityl has offline sources.  Clearly was significant figure in Italian lower league football.  Also I found [66] , [67] , [68] , [69] , among more Italian sources.  Article needs improvement, not deletion.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1 and 2 are the same source, and all the sources are very brief routine death announcements.  Playing in the Italian 3rd division is not a claim to fame now, let alone 40/50 years ago.  Giant Snowman 17:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG with references above. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 04:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - All of the available coverage are obituaries, with the Il Tirreno and Notizie Prato ones derived from an A.C. Prato press release making them questionably independent of the subject.   The La Nazione obit is independent coverage, but similar to the Prato TV source it is extremely brief.  Keeping in mind that this footballer played one season in Serie C1 (the third tier of Italian football) and nine seasons below that level, I don't see a justification for an IAR argument when SIGCOV isn't available (I'd prefer to see something covering him prior to his death).  Jogurney ( talk ) 15:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per Jogurney.  Derivatives of press releases are not independent, and significant coverage in general is totally lacking.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"James Lyon (footballer) : signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Scotland .  signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per this decent article, [1] , other bits like [2] , the cites on the article already, more around in google is enough for me for basic WP:GNG thanks.  Govvy ( talk ) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Dougal18's evaluation of these sources below (although the Sun citation is really just a mere mention even before we consider the paper's reliability).  signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Herald contains a couple of sentences and his boss waffling on about Lyon.  The Sun is depreciated, the cites on the article are either non independent (PTFC) or mentions in match reports (BBC).  He fails GNG.  Dougal18 ( talk ) 12:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lyon has literally today moved on loan to a new club, I have already added new sources covering this and will continue to update the page and add content and sources when necessary.  This move will only provide the page with more detail.  Partickthistle123 ( talk ) Comment Where is the SIGCOV ?  Read CRYSTAL .  Dougal18 ( talk ) 13:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I really don't understand the persecution of Scottish football league players at times.  They get similar coverage to English players.  I still don't get why people don't like general coverage.  Govvy ( talk ) 14:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  Herald source is OKish, Sun is absolutely not.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify , maybe TOOSOON, but he's playing pro football and already has some coverage. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 13:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 23:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails GNG.  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Government platform : No sources added for 16 years, and anything relevant to a country's government platform would already be covered in its own article.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 22:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Vague dictionary definition with no sources.  Worth noting however, the similar term ""government as a platform"" could possibly meet notability (even if it is just a buzzword).  Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 08:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This could be merged to political platform , but that just redirects to party platform , which is not the same thing.  British-originated two-party politics doesn't need separate government and party platforms, because the dominant party gets to dictate the government platforms, but this doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist in genuine multi-party democracies.  The term has been used at least with Finland and Austria.  -- vuo ( talk ) 10:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : as a dictionary definition, per others.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) * [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kayode Adegbulugbe : No reliable sources.  BoraVoro ( talk ) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not sure the award is notable, rest of this reads like a CV, with simply confirmation of employment.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Engineering ,  and Nigeria .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't think ""no reliable sources"" is a fair description of the article.  The notability claim is a bit buried in the article - he's known primarily as a philanthropist.  See eg [27] (unfortunately no byline) and [28] .  Those don't add up to a keep ! vote, but I think we ought to do a more thorough look for sources before deleting this one.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't agree with WP: BEFORE . Considering sources is not variably the reason to delete. There are sources to support certain claim. I will suggest rewriting. Otuọcha ( talk ) 06:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I see reprints of publications in different outlets. Aside from those reprints (which are obviously paid for), there are no articles to prove the notability of this subject. It also gives me the WP: PAID or WP:COI vibes. Reading Beans 13:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Reading Beans whose judgement I value on Nigerian sources. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Refund Home Loans : There is the possibility of merge/redirect to founder, but I think that might unbalance the article.  Boleyn ( talk ) 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and Australia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - From what I can tell this just barely meets SIRS with the Advisor article being the most in-depth and substantive.  It seems to have been notable and controversial independently of the notable founder.  WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment there is some coverage.  I found this in-depth article .  Geeraarts ( talk ) 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No claim to notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 03:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree.  Fails GNG.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG.  Coverage is run of the mill.  Not the only Australian company to breach the Trade Practices Act.  LibStar ( talk ) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Yair Lemos : Appears to have only had 90 minutes of play time in 2011/2012 in the second level of the Uruguayan football league system.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Brazil .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete .  Seems like an open and shut case.  MaskedSinger ( talk ) 19:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What basis for a speedy deletion?  Giant Snowman 19:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah this doesn't fit any speedy deletion criteria.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Chon Byong-ju : Simione001 ( talk ) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom.  Svartner ( talk ) 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete because there is no reasonable target for a redirect.  Anwegmann ( talk ) 19:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Noizbloc : Fails to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG .  I could not find any sources on Google, and nothing has changed since the last AfD .  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 09:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (or possibly speedy) again no sign of notability of any flavour, just like at the previous AfD.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 11:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also thought about applying CSD A7, but I wondered if it had already been rejected for speedy deletion before, which might be why it was nominated for AfD.  So, I concluded that AfD would be the best course of action.  – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Unable to find anything else usable online.  Here is an analysis of what we have right now.  Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://www.thecompanycheck.com/company/noizbloc-private-limited/U59201TN2023PTC165258 Provided by company.  I suppose it's just factual data?  ✘ No https://www.planetexim.net/indian-company/noizbloc-private-limited/cin/U59201TN2023PTC165258.html ✘ No https://aeroleads.com/list/top-music-label-companies-in-india ~ ✘ No https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/689077362/breaking-boundaries-kadhal-kadamaye-emerges-as-a-musical-masterpiece/ Press release.  ?  ✘ No https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wppt ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  TLA tlak 12:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that profiles like in the first citation are often unreliable at least.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies ,  and India .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no sources to satisfy the GNG, none of their artists appear to be notable either, so coverage feels unlikely to be found...  Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete still fails NCORP. - KH-1 ( talk ) 06:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Has essentially no notable artists and is less than 2 years old, so it fails against the WP:MUSIC suggestion of an important indie label.  Pretty clearly spam.  Chubbles ( talk ) 07:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Case of WP:PROMO , Promotion, advertising.  Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clearly failed WP:NCORP basic WP:GNG .  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Shouldn't this be G4'ed instead?  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hacqueville (disambiguation) : The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, and per WP:TWODABS .  BD2412 T 02:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  ""Hacqueville"" is not ambiguous.  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 09:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"National Youth Assembly of Korea : 'National Youth Assembly' is not official assembly run by government, it is only kind of civic movement group.  Members of the 'council' are not elected by election, but are arbitrarily selected from the executive branch of adults.  This organization has been criticized by Korean Intellectual Property Office and youth activity groups due to many operational problems, such as promotion through false or exaggerated information.  Korean Government officially denied its relationship between National Youth Assembly.  [1] References ^ [ https://youthpress.net/xe/kypnews_article_society/410244 A civic group stole the name of the National Assembly and operated the 'Youth National Assembly'..Need to pay attention to 'Korea Youth Council' . Korea Youth Press Corps. 03 March 2018. Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics ,  and South Korea . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Notability not established.  Searches didn't turn up references in news or books.  Flurrious ( talk ) 20:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Institute of Cape Wine Masters : I see nothing other than self-promoting, probably paid, editing throughout the article history.  There is very little that can be saved and I think it is better off deleted.  MarcGarver ( talk ) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine , Education ,  and South Africa .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I find references to this Masters thing in various obituaries, news pieces and the like, but always in regards to another person (Mr. XYZ who was a Cape Wine Master, did xyz thing).  Regardless, there is no extensive coverage and this is PROMO with flowery language.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The article has survived since 08:48, 17 July 2008‎.  Gjs238 ( talk ) 12:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It should have been deleted then...  I am astonished that something with no references, no apparent notability and so promotional has managed 15 years of life.  MarcGarver ( talk ) 12:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"903 Peachtree : Even with WP:TNT though, the title of the article would suggest the article is about the company, and not actually the physical address 903 Peachtree Street.  The history of the building development does not seem notable in itself as all ten existing citations seem like WP:ROUTINE news coverage and I cannot find any heritage or other historical information.  Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - truly awful advert.  Surprised it’s not already gone through speedy.  KJP1 ( talk ) 20:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Utterly unremarkable building which replaced an utterly unnotable strip mall; the article copy is just 'On date thing happened' details about building progress.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gerard Armond Powell : Jtbobwaysf ( talk ) 17:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Costa Rica ,  and Pennsylvania .  AllyD ( talk ) 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ping those who participated or were pinged in the last AfD discussion SwisterTwister ( talk · contribs ), Melcous ( talk · contribs ), Conquistador2k6 ( talk · contribs ), and Dthomsen8 ( talk · contribs ).  Thanks!  Jtbobwaysf ( talk ) 03:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The only significant coverage is from press releases and non-RS sites, such as a Medium blog.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 20:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There doesn’t appear to be justifiable evidence to support keeping the article.  Little to no RS news coverage or notability.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 05:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Yossi Elran : Multiple editors have pointed out issues with these such as notability, sourcing, refbombing.  This is perhaps the weakest.  Lecturer with an h-factor of 8, no major awards, no major mentions, weak independent sourcing and many unsourced paragraphs.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Citations too low for WP:PROF#C1 and no other PROF criterion apparent.  I did find one sort-of-published book review, by notable reviewer Adhemar Bultheel on the now-defunct book review site of the European Mathematical Society [39] , but that's not enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggest that we will examine your behavior, then each and every of your claims.  There have been elapsed 32 minutes since the moment you marked the entry until you put it under discussion for deletion.  I assume your were so insulted by my comment in your talk page that you've determined to teach me a lesson.  Ok, well.  Let us now examine your comments one by one:  1. ""Multiple editors have pointed out issues with these such as notability, sourcing, refbombing"" - there were only issues in Eli Jerby and you were the one that have decided to crusade the entry.  Refbombing?  are you serious?  to cite academic articles is refbombing?  2. ""Lecturer with an h-factors of 8"" - Yossi Elran is mainly notable not as a scientist but as an educator.  h-index (and not h-factor, I expect you to know that) is irrelevant in this case.  3. ""No major awards"" - I understand that you have a fantastic aquaintance with all the awards and accolades in education and science journalism.  4. ""Weak independent sourcing"" - sorry, I don't have plenty of times like you to mend an entry within 32 minutes.  Have a wonderful day.  קוונטום דוץ ( talk ) 07:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] pls delete page thanks Lorenzo1235 ( talk ) 08:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] pls keep or delete page thanks Lorenzo1235 ( talk ) 08:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Little sign of WP:NPROF impact via research.   Article originator claims NPROF C4 impact, but I do not see much sign of this.   Passing mentions only are apparent for GNG.   NAUTHOR looks more plausible, but this would require more in the way of reliable source reviews.   It is somewhat possible that reviews exist in Hebrew, where the different alphabet makes searching difficult, and I am watching the discussion in case better sources emerge.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 08:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some claims why to keep the entry:  1. Membership in the Gathering for Gardner – Membership is granted based on significant contributions in the field of recreational math and a selection committee.  It is considered the ""supreme body"" of the field.  Additionally, Elran was the head of a very significant committee there.  2. His book, ""Lewis Carroll’s Cats and Rats"", has received high recommendations from three very senior and well-known individuals: Ian Stewart, Cliff Pickover, and David Singmaster – all three are authors in the field of creative mathematics and all three have entries here in English Wikipedia.  The recommendations are written on websites where the book is sold, such as Amazon and World Scientific, and on the outer cover of the book itself.  3. The book ""Paper Puzzle Book"" received an excellent review from the MAA – Math Association of America - and also from the European Math Society.  4. Elran's videos on Ted-Ed, which he actually wrote, have collectively accumulated about twenty million views.  5. In Israel, he is certainly well-known.  Especially in the context of correspondence mathematics, but he has also written many articles on mathematics that have been published on Ynet, the main news website in Israel.  He was interviewed on mathematics at the radio show ""Three Who Know"" and appeared on several other television programs related to correspondence mathematics.  There were also several articles in the local press abroad about Math by Mail and he even appeared in this context on CTV's morning show in Toronto during a visit there in 2007.  6. In his list of scientific publications, he wrote chapters in very significant books – one in Gardner's book and the other in MOVES, which is the second most important conference in the field after Gardner.  7. By the end of the year, the number of his books will increase by two and next year he already have requests for more (and he is also writing two chapters in a Springer's book).  Please consider again.  קוונטום דוץ ( talk ) 09:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding 1,2,4,6, these do not contribute significantly to notability.   Regarding 3, a second review might tend to make the book notable, and redirection to a stub on the book could be a possible alternative to deletion.   Regarding 5, what are the three best sources?   (Note that sources do not need to be in English.)  Regarding 7, see WP:CRYSTAL .  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  Regarding 3: here are more reviews - [40] , [41] .  And here are some sources for 5: [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] ... קוונטום דוץ ( talk ) 15:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Nick Origami site is some combination of a blog and a storefront for someone selling services, and is not a reliable source.   This review counts little towards notability.   Articles by the subject count not at all, and I don't think that announcements of events that he is running contribute much.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 15:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear Russ, you asked to bring resources for point number 5, which refers to articles that he wrote and other things.  So how does it not count?  Anyhow, regarding what you said toward the end: these are not announcements of events he's running; these are interviews of him in a nationwide radio station.  קוונטום דוץ ( talk ) 18:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles written by Elran count for little or nothing.   Articles written _about_ Elran may support notability.  Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 18:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, so I hope that the few items of interest will support notability in this certain context.  Here is an article written about Elran and his program in the New Jersey Jewish News: [48] Here is an article on scienceblogs: [49] There is also a publication in the Weizmann Institute news: [50] Here is a press release from FutureLearn, a major MOOC platform, where he has four courses with over 100,000 learners in total.  [51] Also, Elran is on the advisory panel of MathsworldUK alongside very respected and well-known individuals in the field such as Conrad Wolfram and Rob Eastaway.  See: [52] .  It is an organization that is establishing a mathematics museum and many related activities in the field of mathematics in the UK.  Additionally, the books that are scheduled to be released by the end of the year have already been sent to print, so it is more than just an intention.  One is with World Scientific and the other with CRC – Routledge.  Finally, there is an article in Hebrew on Ynet about his activity in establishing the first synagogue named after Yitzhak Rabin [53] .  Please consider all that, קוונטום דוץ ( talk ) 14:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Russ Woodroofe FYI.  קוונטום דוץ ( talk ) 16:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kriti Singh Debbarma : These sources are WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as they all say almost the same things, her father being a three-time MP and her mother being a two-time Congress MLA, and they also do not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG , also, notability is not inherited.  Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 14:47, 20 May 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 May 20 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Royalty and nobility ,  and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Another example of WP:BLP1E , the subject fails WP:NPOL as she was never elected as an MP or MLA.  She received media coverage because of the general election in India in 2024.  Grab Up - Talk 15:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this is a good article on a living person please keep thanks Briannemartindale ( talk ) 23:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Fails WP:NPOL .  The degree of significance of the subject and of role as princess and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject.  RangersRus ( talk ) 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"United Airlines Flight 1722 : Basically an airliner took off, lost some altitude for undetermined reasons, recovered with no damage, injuries or deaths and continued to its destination.  The regulatory authority, the US FAA, declined to investigate and the NTSB had indicated they may have been interested in investigating but never published a report.  It was a total non-event, with no lasting effects, no changes in procedures, no airworthiness directives or any other outcomes.  Just not notable in any way.  Ahunt ( talk ) 17:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Aviation ,  and Hawaii .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft , within whose scope this article falls.  - Ahunt ( talk ) 18:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no evidence of significant third party coverage, changes to procedures or other follows up from an investigation.  No indication this was anything in any way notable other than a minor error with no consequences such as happens all the time.  Canterbury Tail talk 18:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a minor incident with no clear significance.  -Fnlayson ( talk ) 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - May not aviation-specific notability guidelines but it does meet WP:GNG by virtue of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: - I did not cite any ""aviation-specific notability guidelines"".  You can note that the policy I did cite in this nomination is applicable to all Wikipedia articles and specifically says Wikipedia is not a newspaper ...  News reports.  Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.  While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... - Ahunt ( talk ) 19:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Deeday-UK 's PROD rational was doesn't meat criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents and you seconded with just not notable and then included a bunch of aviation-specific discussion in your justification for deletion above and somehow I didn't see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING .  So now that I do, I'm changing my ! vote.  Thanks for your patience.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 03:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, the PROD was not mine; I only fixed what looked like a messy edit involving a pre-existing PROD template.  -- Deeday-UK ( talk ) 18:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not meet WP:NEVENT .  All coverage was published the same week. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 03:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Only routine news coverage, no WP:SIGCOV .  Doesn't come close to WP:EVENTCRIT .  I wouldn't even consider this notable enough for a list of aircraft incidents.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unnotable.  Does not meet WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. -- Jetstreamer Talk 22:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that WP:AIRCRASH says, Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 03:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete .  Not notable.  Moreover, poorly made and does not meet WP:NEWS per above.  🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！ ) 05:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable enough, by using the logic you used while creating this page, the qatar b787 nosedive should have an article on wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.79.9 ( talk ) 01:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per all of the above.   This event was (mercifully) not notable.  TH1980 ( talk ) 03:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Kvng.  Very minor incident (compared to other events) that resulted in no injuries and no damage.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 23:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of left-wing terrorist attacks : Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents.  This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents.  AlanS talk 09:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics ,  and Terrorism .  AlanS talk 09:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the original creator of the page List of left-wing terrorist attacks.  In my opinion, I believe that the page List of left-wing terrorist attacks should remain up if the page List of right-wing terrorist attacks is not deleted.  A lot of the problems existing on the page List of left-wing terrorist attacks also exist on the page List of right-wing terrorist attacks (such as not explicitly left\right attacks being listed on their respective pages).  I should mention that I am a newcomer regarding Wikipedia.  I had not fully finished the List of left-wing terrorist attacks page by the time it was submitted for creation (as the page was full of bare URLs).  There are many problems with the page List of left-wing terrorist attacks, I do think that it should be improved, or even deleted.  However, I believe that if List of left-wing terrorist attacks is deleted, so should List of right-wing terrorist attacks.  Micheal Sieger ( talk )10:01, 30 July 2023 @ Micheal Sieger , I have nominated both List of left-wing terrorist attacks and List of right-wing terrorist attacks .  So far it appears that people who vote on one are voting on the other so I imagine whatever the result is it will most likely be the same for both.  AlanS talk 13:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  Michael Sieger ( talk ) 21:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as it seems to be an OR mess, and possibly a mass BLP violation.  Slatersteven ( talk ) 10:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Blow it up .  While reliable sources routinely publish lists of left-wing terrorist attacks, this article does not reference these lists and is basically original research .  Left wing terrorism does not mean terrorism carried out by people who happen to be left-wing, but terrorist attacks carried out in order to achieve left-wing objectives, specifically, the replacement of capitalist rule with socialist government.  It specifically excludes anarchist, eco and nationalist terrorism, each of which have different characteristics.  I would not preclude someone from recreating the article, but in my experience list articles of this type quickly become exercises in original research.  TFD ( talk ) 10:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Left-wing objectives are much more broad than just replacing capitalism with socialism.  It includes any attack done to further a left-wing political message.  As such, attacks with Anarchists, Eco-Terrorist, or nationalist motives would be considered if there are reliable sources that refer to the attacker’s motive as socially or politically left wing.  Jaboipizza22 ( talk ) 12:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your argument to me seems to come from a position of original research or WP:SYNTH .  I don't think it's justified.  AlanS talk 13:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliable sources use the definition I provided, not the one that you have.  They are concerned about the motivation for terrorist attacks.  Having a list of terrorists who happen to be left-wing is prohibited by policy as Wikipedia:Synthesis .  TFD ( talk ) 22:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion .  Delete per above.  OR mess.  -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 11:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AfC reviewer comment : if this is to be deleted as OR/TNT, please salt it .  This is what it looked like when accepted.  All of the attacks on the list at this point were carried out by socialist, Marxist-Leninist, etc organizations (though personally I think there's an argument to be had about some of the Palestinian lib/nationalism ones).  There may be some in the list that I missed and which actually fail verification, in which case mea culpa , but you can see from the article history how quickly the rest of it was added, and how a few editors have been continually trying to hack it back to something that isn't a solid wall of WP:OR .  Personally, I think lists like this are a huge editorial timesink and non-npov magnet and I would not be sad to see it go.  But since the topic ""left-wing terrorism"" is notable in itself, this list will be continually recreated and then immediately drown in the same problems the article has now.  TNT will not fix this one.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 12:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering , I personally disagree with any assessment that sees Palestinian lib/nationalism as necessarily left-wing.  While the Palestine Liberation Organization can be characterised as left-wing (with the wiki page showing its member organisations being so), I think a lot of left-wing people would not think that Hamas is left-wing by any stretch of the imagination and I've never seen anything where they characterise themselves as such.  Those on the left generally support national self-determination as a principle, however that doesn't necessarily mean that they always identify with the actors that are leading the push.  This highlights perfectly to me the amount of OR that is going on in that article.  AlanS talk 09:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AlanS I definitely don't think Palestine lib/nationalism is necessarily left-wing, and already removed a few of those myself in a sweep of the article.  I personally agree with you about Hamas, etc, but I'm not an expert in this area.  I left the ones that were attributed to orgs that claim some degree of socialism/communism/etc according to their Wikipedia articles, since deciding those aren't ""left-wing enough"" seemed to me to be too much of a departure from existing editorial consensus.  (ie, I am taking the contents of the current articles as a standing consensus, and my own sense as the sense of just one editor.)  If the article were to survive I would encourage discussion on the topic to clarify the point.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 16:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : mainstream sources do not normally use the joint term ""left-wing terrorist"", probably because the term ""left-wing"" is ambiguous and means different things to different people and in different countries, and instead use a more precise term to modify ""terrorist"", such as ""Palestinian terrorist"" or ""eco-terrorist"" or ""white-supremacist terrorist"".  NightHeron ( talk ) 14:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If this information was actually valid, it could be included in a column at List of terrorist incidents .  D r e a m Focus 16:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete even after the effort to clean up the list there re still entries where left-wing politics is not mentioned in the relevant article.  This is just going to be a massive time sink to maintain against POV editing.  As Dream Focus says anything useful can be included in List of terrorist incidents.  -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions ∆ ° co-ords ° 18:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Besides this and List of right-wing terrorist attacks , it may be worth noting that we also have List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks (and maybe more).  TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt : per asilvering.  Content of this article should be covered at List of terrorist incidents or Left-wing terrorism#History .  –– Formal Dude (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My reading of LISTN is that even if there are multiple examples of X (e.g., people who played baseball for two teams and got injured on each one), we should only have a ""list of incidents of X"" if sources consider ""incidents of X"" to be a category which could be listed, yes?  and that instances of ""more complex [...] cross-categorization"" like this are even less surely includable.  Well, I do not find that many sources that talk about ""incidents of left-wing terrorism"" as a general category of incidents, although there are several; it is even less clear to me that sources exist which would regard Operation Nemesis and the Pheasant farm raid as groupable into a single category of thing that could be listed, i.e. sources which would support the scope our list currently has; and there is a general List of terrorist incidents that any non-OR incidents could go in.  So, it seems reasonable to me to move anything that would be left here after pruning the OR to List of terrorist incidents as proposed above, and salt this page.  If anyone wants to bring to bear RS that do have ""lists of left-wing terrorist attacks"" that would include the kinds of things this page includes, I will reconsider.  However, it seems clear that if kept, this page is likely to need at least Fascism -level protection to stop OR, and is likely to be a POV magnet and timesink.  -sche ( talk ) 21:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I like your reading of LISTN but the list AfDs I've seen have been all over the map, with ""the general topic is notable, and it can be written in list form, so keep"" coming up extremely often.  However, I do think ""list of left-wing terrorist incidents by country"" is notable per your definition.  I don't think that would be any better, though.  It would just give editors even more work to prune, and bring up additional categorization questions.  At least in my view, I don't think the issue with this article is a notability one.  It's ""do we, as editors, want to put the work into maintaining this list"" and ""is this list useful and informative to readers in a way that justifies keeping it"".  I think I'm a no on both, myself.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt A POVfork filled with original research.  Cambial — foliar❧ 21:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that List of Islamist terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion .  Delete Highly subjective metric for a list.  Some clear, well-agreed upon (by RSes) examples can be included on Left-wing terrorism , but we shouldn't be trying to compile a list ourselves.  -- M asem ( t ) 13:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The origin of this list is obviously this list by the user Alejandro_Basombrio/Empanada Mixta - who got blocked indefinitely after a series of problems [20] [21] + sockpuppepery [22] for ""Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia"".  The author of the article "" Michael Sieger "" mostly copied the list.  The other edits of the account fit the old accounts too (for example [23] ).  This clearly seems to be another sockpuppet, which might be another reason for deleting the list.  What's useful might be integrated into the main article Left-wing terrorism ) instead.  2A02:810B:10A0:634:7D8F:E8FA:1C3B:A4BC ( talk ) 15:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion .  Keep .  The topic is notable and encyclopedic.  However, strongly enforce WP:DUE on the page; as I have raised previously we have an issue with items being included in lists without meeting core policies of WP:OR or WP:NPOV .  Correcting that broadly is a difficult task, but hopefully we can correct it here.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt since those building the article appear clearly intent on POV-pushing the inclusion of incidents far outside the obvious scope of left-wing terror and simply by any nationalist group that may incidentally have a left-wing leaning.  BilledMammal's suggestion of simply vigorously enforcing WP:DUE might be the ideal scenario, but who's going to enforce it, especially if the page's main contributors clearly have no interest in doing that?  Pages that are simply disruptive, POV-pushing magnets are just a community time sink.  And here the main contributors are clearly only interested in WP:OR .  Hence delete.  And salt, to stop this going round in a circle all over again as it clearly has already before.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt .  ""Left-wing"" is clearly being defined here as POV OR.  I'm ambivalent about the existence of ""right-wing terrorist attacks"", as it likely better-defined and less OR-ish in that definition though I would suggest ""ethnonationalist terrorist attacks in the Global North"" is probably a more-appropriate description of what I assume that means.  ""Islamist terrorist attacks"" is also better defined.  — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk ) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt ; BM's suggestion is appealing in theory, but in practice it will never work.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 16:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete In the context that the term is bandied about in this case, ""left-wing"" does not exist.  It is a conservative pejorative, bordering on a neologism, for things they do not like, a one-size-fits-all lump of everything from Marxism to Antifa to Barack Obama.  Zaathras ( talk ) 00:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not only is this a mess of original research (as others showed above), but even if the contents were perfect, I still see no value in such a contextless list.  We're mashing together a bunch of different attacks of different kinds, done for wildly different goals, and the list has no educational value.  DFlhb ( talk ) 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of companies in Amarillo, Texas : Some of these companies just have a presence in the city, not based in.  We could add McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Starbucks to the list as well if we kept going that route.  Currently there is a category covering the companies based there and at the moment there are only five.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Lists ,  and Texas .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per NLIST, these companies are not notable as a group for this characteristic.  This list is short enough it can easily be addressed in Amarillo, Texas#Economy (with reliable sources).  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  the entire world has changed dramatically since this was created in 2006.  Weyerhaeuser, for instance, sold its Amarillo assets a long time ago.  Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and other techno visionaries changed corporate business forever.  Whatever businesses are operating in Amarillo in 2024, it's unlikely to be this list as is.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NLIST .  Suonii180 ( talk ) 18:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Athang : A draftification was contested.  There are a few sources online, and I am personally unsure about whether or not the sources meet SIGCOV.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment These [52] [53] [54] [55] are some of the better sources online.  I am leaning towards delete, but I'd like an evaluation from some more experienced editors.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: FInal relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  If this were a film it'd only need ""2 reviews"" to pass ( WP:NFILM ), but since it is a web show it will need 3 WP:GNG sources.  I read the 4 sources mentioned in this AFD.  The first source looks good, I think that passes GNG.  The other 3 sources aren't great.  2 and 3 contain a lot of quotes so probably aren't independent.  4 is a bit too positive, could be based on a press release, so not independent.  – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 08:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"ARVØ : There is a citation but it links to a recording of a radio show which is in Estonian.  Searching for information about this award or any coverage of the subject brings up absolutely nothing apart from the artist's socials.  Additionally the article was written by the subject or his staff as WP:PROMO InDimensional ( talk ) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Germany .  InDimensional ( talk ) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No WP:SIGCOV .  It is also poorly sourced and its tone does not necessarily express as written from neutral point of view.  -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 21:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bryon Kiefer : A web search throws up two short articles ( [80] , [81] ) but no WP:SIGCOV .  The article fails WP:GNG .  Robby.is.on ( talk ) 12:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Netherlands .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Unable to find sufficient SIGCOV from third-party sources to satisfy notability requirements.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of PlayStation games incompatible with PlayStation 2 : While List of backward-compatible games for Xbox One and Series X/S and List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 have History sections putting the feature in context with the console's development and such, this article has only the list, sourced either to primary sources or YouTube videos.  QuietCicada - Talk 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada - Talk 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The article reads like original research , and it also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  — Hello Annyong (say whaaat?!) 03:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This violates the rules against Wikipedia being a database as well as WP:OR .  It's potentially useful info but misplaced.  Maybe in Wikibooks or a different Wiki.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV .  Contains WP:OR .  User:Let'srun 15:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR .  They had 17 years to make this a notable article.  Here we are still.  There is no reason to sustain this listing.  Any game that is forward-compatible should be listed in its article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – As far as I know, the vast majority of PS1 games are incompatible with the PS2.  Content is too specific, and perhaps it has lost its meaning since both video games are considerably out of date.  I archived it on the Wayback machine anyway Svartner ( talk ) 04:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:NOTDATABASE , WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:OR , WP:GNG , and WP:SIGCOV .  Videogameplayer99 ( talk ) 09:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sevad : Ping me if reliable sources are found with indepth coverage meeting SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk 17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are some external links from famouse news portals related to this article.  Different Rahul ( talk ) 06:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Rusty4321 talk contribs 19:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage.  The article totally fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV .  To establish notability, it requires multiple in-depth coverages from reliable independent secondary sources.  Grab Up - Talk 08:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rowan Vargas : Fails WP:GNG with no significant, in-depth coverage.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 21:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 21:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Mexico .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 15:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Vargas is a former professional footballer who got many caps with professional clubs, and now is managing a professional club, if that is not notable, then I don’t know what the concept of notability means anymore.  I’ll include more references hoping it could be enough to keep the article alive.  Merlyn26 ( talk ) 21:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Merlyn26 : Please provide GNG-passing references here so we can better evaluate the keep arguments.  Remember that notability isn't based on WP:NFOOTY anymore.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Just playing the game doesn’t qualify you for an article.  Not notable and I vote delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no significant coverage means no article, regardless of whether he was a professional Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tom Matthews (politician) : Article cites a single reference.  MBE is the lowest class in the Order of the British Empire , and having been a POW doesn't swing the balance in this instance for me.  Uhooep ( talk ) 15:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 15:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Being a member of the OBE would be enough for notability if the article were well-sourced , but it is not ""inherently"" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG just because the text has the words ""Order of the British Empire"" in it.  So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but this as written and sourced is not enough by itself.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only one source at the moment and it's not even clear it was staff-written.  Fails WP:GNG as it's written.  Name is too generic for a comprehensive before search even when adding secondary terms, so may be hard to WP:HEY .  SportingFlyer T · C 19:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Vijayaba National School : The best that I can find in Sinhalese are The Papare , Lanka News Web and Lankadeepa , all of which only address the school in passing.  Article created by WP:SPA with clear WP:COI .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Sri Lanka .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Schools aren't inherently notable.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL .  Dan arndt ( talk ) 01:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 12:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Narine Aleksanyan : When performing WP:BEFORE , I found little to nothing on her in English that could be used.  I don't speak Armenian so perhaps there's something on her in Armenian, but the Armenian-language article has very few references and I doubt they can be used.  There is something about her winning the Artavazd Awards at some point that might place her in notability, but I could find no reliable citation saying that she in fact won this award.  Jaguarnik ( talk ) 00:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and Armenia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable Armenian Actress, meets WP:NACTOR due to winning Best Actress of the Year Artavazd Awards , a notable award that has a wiki page.  Naomijeans ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also added 2 new citations.  Naomijeans ( talk ) 02:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the response.  However, WP:NACTOR says the 2 general criteria for actor notability is  a) significant roles in multiple projects  b)unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.  As far as I can tell she does not fulfill either criteria.  I put into auto-translate the citations you provided - it looks like they are both interviews with Aleksanyan; sources proving notability should be secondary and independent of the subject, which interviews aren't.  Kind regards, Jaguarnik ( talk ) 06:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  The character Janna in Domino (TV series) is a recurring role, but it doesn't seems to be one of the lead characters.  Hopefully more sources can be found, because the current ones have issues about independence.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She meets Wikipedia:ANYBIO ""The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor.""  Naomijeans ( talk ) 20:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Archives908 ( talk ) 18:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one week's relist in order to search for additional sources that might establish notability.  It sounds like existing sources do not fulfill this purpose.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks significant roles in multiple shows/films, as needed to meet WP:NACTOR .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She meets Wikipedia:ANYBIO ""The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor.""  Naomijeans ( talk ) 20:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are the Artavazd awards well-known and significant?  There are many awards given out for films and actors, not all of them are necessarily significant.  And a wikipedia page proves nothing about notability by itself, just that someone made an article about it.  See WP:ARTN .  Jaguarnik ( talk ) 22:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would like also to point out that WP:ANYBIO says ""People are likely'; to be notable if they meet WP:ANYBIO...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.""  Assuming she did meet WP:ANYBIO, by the words of ANYBIO, that wouldn't necessarily make her notable.  She fails the 5 criteria of WP:GNG .  Jaguarnik ( talk ) 23:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Apsley Business School - London : (Also a possible diploma mill...) — RAVEN PVFF · talk · 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education .  — RAVEN PVFF · talk · 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan , Austria , France , Hungary , Netherlands , Poland , Slovakia , England ,  and Brazil .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless we have some exemption for degree granting at that level in a specialized subguideline (I recall something like this might have been a thing a while back).  But outside such slightly possible exception, I concur with the nom that notabilty is not shown.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Delete as per nom.  I would agree with possibly being a diploma mill.  Even this diff [1] in 2018 called it fake.  Companies House reports it has assets of £100, so not even a successful diploma mill if it is one.  Claims to be founded in 2012, but company was only incorporated in 2018.  I call fake.  Equine-man ( talk ) 07:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There have been two companies with this name 08330372 which ran from 13 December 2012 - 26 June 2018 and 11517526 incorporated on 14 August 2018.  The article was created on 11 May 2015 about the first company.  The second company is filing ""Micro company accounts"" which screams non-notable.  Cabayi ( talk ) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Haya Fatima Sehgal : Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO .  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 11:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jamiebuba : Please can you tell me with how this can be made notable?  ~~~~ Aysha Ayshaipath ( talk ) 12:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination, I can't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, apart from routine coverage of her book launch.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify.  Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER article creator has said that ""I work for a company as a social media content writer, and where the company has a direct link with the content I write and submit here."" but they have NOT disclosed this correctly anywhere.  Theroadislong ( talk ) 14:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this has been rectified Ayshaipath ( talk ) 09:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Promotional, poorly referenced, and offering no evidence of notability, with likely COI to boot.  I suppose draftifying would also be an option, if the author disclosed their COI and agreed to put this through AfC, although if these are the best sources that can be found that AfC path would only ever lead to rejection.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 14:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] what is afc?  Ayshaipath ( talk ) 09:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Same creating editor also created Draft:Resilient Pakistan , which is a self-published book written by Sehgal.  David notMD ( talk ) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Buran Parks : The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this coverage for winning a club player of the year award.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union ,  and South Africa .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG .  No suitable redirect here per WP:ATD .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Stefano Caselli : It does not qualify for proposed deletion of BLPs because it has external links.   They have been checked, and they do not contain significant coverage by independent sources .   Two of them appear to be listings of his works, which do not verify basic information.  Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 www.comics.org A listing of all of his comic books Yes No Yes No 2 stekart.blogspot.com Doesn't appear to mention him, but may be his blog No No ?  No 3 comicbookdb.com Aooears to be another listing of his comics Yes No Yes No This article has been tagged as needing better references since 2008.   The Heymann criterion will be three independent reliable sources verifying basic biographical information and providing significant coverage .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Comics and animation ,  and Italy .  Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - doesn't appear in the kinds of independent RS that we need.  Or at least I don't see them.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm undecided.  His work is prolific and highly successful, he seems to be a valued guest at festivals, but finding sources is hard.  I found this: [25] which although cast partly as an interview is an extended in-depth piece by a named author, though I have no idea how we rate the source.  Elemimele ( talk ) 08:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete purely due to the lack of independent biographical sources.  We shouldn't blaze the trail in writing biographies of living people, there have been too many problems caused by this.  Guy ( help! - typo? ) 15:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Responding to talk page ping .  In my searches for sources, the sources I found largely were passing mentions in book reviews that mention he illustrated the book ( example from Publishers Weekly and example from Booklist ) or were about a different person with the same name, a finance professor at Bocconi University .  ( example ).  Cunard ( talk ) 00:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bagher Moazen : Ladsgroup overleg 11:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Dance , Iran ,  and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree the sourcing is poor for WP:GNG.  Fad Ariff ( talk ) 12:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It would seem that he meets at least 3 criteria from WP:MUSICBIO .  he meets criterion 4 (multiple tours/concerts with coverage), 7 (prominent musician from Iran) and 9 (Got gold medal in Iran).  Royal88888 ( talk ) 17:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I have to say this is the best developed G11 i've seen.  I almost hate to delete it being so perfect, but it is a BLP, and fails GNG and BIO.  WP:BLP states ""Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources""' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ).  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.",delete
"Ahmad Khesraw : I have looked at the other language Wikipedia articles and searched in Farsi (احمد خسرو) but still found nothing of use.  Database sources like Soccerway seem to be all we have.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Afghanistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 13:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per lack of sources offering significant coverage.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis.  Jogurney ( talk ) 17:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not enough sources.  fails WP:SIGCOV .  Shadow 345110 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Desmond Tutu (footballer) : Simione001 ( talk ) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 18:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  〜 Festucalex • talk 21:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom   -- Devoke water 19:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, WP:BEFORE gives me results mainly on the namesake Karnataka ( talk ) 21:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Han Song-ho : Simione001 ( talk ) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Simione001 ( talk ) 04:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dale Keenan : Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 19:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG, per nomination and comments.  Easy delete.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 23:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no independent coverage, does not appear to meet the notability guideline .  C 679 08:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Badri Asadi : she is listed as ""World Championship medalist"" but all of her medals are in poomsae (and not usual taekwondo) and they are all in over 36-40 years old category (never been mentioned in the article) which is far from being a notable achievement.  Sports2021 ( talk ) 23:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran .  Sports2021 ( talk ) 23:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Her world medals were all in senior events in poomsae (aka forms or patterns).   She won an individual medal in women's age 41-50 and two team medals in the women's 36+ division.   None of these would be considered to be at the sport's highest level.   The article also gives several mentions of her being tested to be a referee at the Tokyo Olympics.   It's true she was among 79 invited to a training and selection camp but that was only for the Asia and Oceania region.   She didn't appear to make the final training session for the 50 referees from around the world from which the 30 Olympic referees were chosen.   The final point is that there's nothing that shows significant independent coverage of her.   There are results and passing mentions in lists of referees, but nothing significant.   In fact, she's not even mentioned in some of the references.  Papaursa ( talk ) 23:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Artur Gubaydullin : Article recently deprodded.  No indication of notability nor can significant coverage be established.  Mbdfar ( talk ) 05:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Russia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 16:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - can't find any decent Russian coverage Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jiafei : Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Internet ,  and China .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can't find sources that confirm this in RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources .  The Wikipedia article cites https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/jiafei .  According to WP:KNOWYOURMEME , the source is user-generated and unreliable.  The other sources in the article are user-generated sources from TikTok and YouTube.  The Wikipedia article says: Jiafei is a TikTok trend that involves Chinese bot accounts reposting videos of attractive Asian women from Douyin while trying to sell products through absurd advertisements.  The iconic Jiafei image is a photoshop of K-Pop stars Wang Feifei and Meng Jia 's faces from the girl group Miss A .  Jiafei has become a symbol of Stan Twitter and FlopTok discourse, and parody accounts have been created that use sound effects and satirical concepts like kidnapping through IP addresses.  ...  Many of the bot accounts that migrated to TikTok from Douyin had usernames containing the name ""Jiafei,"" which originally referred to the two Chinese K-Pop stars Meng Jia and Weng FeiFei of the group Miss A .  The use of ""Jiafei"" to refer to both women in one name dates back to 2019 and 2020, before being appropriated by the bots.  Meng Jia 's Chinese name is 孟佳.  Wang Feifei 's Chinese name is 王霏霏.  Combining the two names, ""Jiafei"" should be referred to in Chinese as 佳霏.  I conducted a Google search for ""佳霏"" and could not find significant coverage in Chinese-language sources about this trend, which does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability .  The Wikipedia article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability because all of the sources in the article are unreliable, and I could not find even passing mentions in reliable sources about the subject.  I am willing to reconsider my position if another editor finds significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject.  Cunard ( talk ) 08:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG, WP:NOTNEWS found nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Just routine pop culture mentions about a tick tok meme/spam advertising trend - not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - simply not enough enduring, in-depth coverage to surmount either WP:NOTNEWS or WP:GNG .  Onel 5969 TT me 00:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Could be a notable topic should reliable sourcing be found, but as things stand it's not.  Rupples ( talk ) 01:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"ChoCo Entertainment : Fails WP:CORPDEPTH .  US-Verified ( talk ) 20:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Korea .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *about the company* .  ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  Looking at the references none meet the criteria for establishing notability as there no in-depth Independent Content about the company and I am unable to locate anything that does.  Perhaps someone will find something in another language but until then I can't see this meeting notability criteria.  HighKing ++ 20:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sandal College Faisalabad : BookishReader ( talk ) 12:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Pakistan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Weak Keep (see below): unless nominator is able to provide assurances that they have conducted in concentrated in print and/or local media.  This is a weak nomination and should be opposed on the basis of WP:BEFORE, and the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability unless the above can be demonstrated Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said in another thread, I use multiple tools to research and I consider myself well-versed in whatever I do.  I usually don't like to waste participants' time, but for your assurance - I'm posting the links of passing mentions below (keep in my mind, to pass WP:ORGDEPTH we need significant coverage - more than one paragraph at least three time per WP:THREE ): Stolen papers` issue: Cancellation of papers to cost BISE dearly No to oversight: Private Schools’ Association reject PPEI Ordinance Recognition: Walk held to mark National Working Women’s Day Corona claims two more lives in Faisalabad Robber killed in ‘gunplay’ This is not a policy-based argument, so the closing admin should discount it.  BookishReader ( talk ) 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, it is a policy based argument to request that you follow the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability Secondly, those articles don't pass WP:ORGDEPTH, and SIGCOV.  But SIGCOV and ORGDEPTH are not requirements for notability, they merely, upon their satisfaction, give rise to a presumption of notability.  Based on the apparent size and location of this school, and the fact that its existence can be established from the links you have shared, which appear to be reliable, I am still satisfied that this subject meets general encyclopedia notability.  In that circumstance I think a weak keep is the most appropriate vote.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Searches in Urdu only yielded trivial mentions (announcements of seminars, listed along with other schools, etc.).  Honestly even if this AfD ended with keep, the problem with the sources of this article won't get resolved.  As of the time of writing, no sufficient sources that can be used to improve the article have been found.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 06:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and ORG.  Source eval: Comments Source Nothing about subject, fails SIGCOV  1.  ""Corona claims two more lives in Faisalabad"".  The News International.  2020-12-08.  Retrieved 2023-05-12.  Google search page  2. ^ https://www.google.com/search? sxsrf=ALeKk02uZ6SonbMXHZWWWHqyTCBPMVX9Cw:1588406278894&q=sandal+college+faisalabad&npsic=0&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=31476975,73105272,301&tbm=lcl&ved=2ahUKEwjxvIzA2pTpAhVEKBoKHfziCe4QtgN6BAgKEAQ&tbs=lrf:! 1m4! 1u2! 2m2! 2m1! 1e1! 2m1! 1e2! 3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:2&rldoc=1#rlfi=hd:;si:;mv :[[31.487552545761293,73.12921946208496],[31.466397541227515,73.08132593791504],null,[31.47697564127402,73.1052727],15] Primary  3. ^ ""Sandal College Faisalabad"".  Sandalcollege.edu.pk.  Retrieved 2016-06-08.  Primary  4. ^ ""Sandal College Faisalabad"".  sandalcollege.edu.pk.  Archived from the original on 2011-06-03.  Keep vote is an example of WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST , multiple BEFOREs (including Keep vote) showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk 06:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Kotii Reddy : Aronitz ( talk ) 12:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India .  CptViraj ( talk ) 13:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and Telangana .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I could not find any significant secondary coverage for this businessman.  There are some websites linked in the article that do discuss the subject, but they are mostly promotional pieces or provide most of their coverage towards his company rather than himself.  Another linked source was an interview where the subject talked about himself.  I would say that the article does not meet WP:NBASIC due to a lack of independent coverage, and would note that the creator of this article was blocked for potential involvement in WP:UPE .  The Night Watch (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sahyadri School : Ratnahastin ( talk ) 11:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra .  Ratnahastin ( talk ) 11:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 22:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Singapore representatives at international male beauty pageants : The only source in the article currently is to Miss World , which is primary.  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Beauty pageants , Lists ,  and Singapore .  Let'srun ( talk ) 00:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination.  This list is more trivia than encyclopedic.  TH1980 ( talk ) 01:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as we have deleted several similar articles.  Mccapra ( talk ) 15:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Qonto (neobank) : scope_creep Talk 11:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Organizations ,  and France .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and promotional in tone.  Theroadislong ( talk ) 20:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as coverage exists but it is in French and behind paywall.  This article in Les Echos notes that it is valued at 4.4 billion euros, i.e. unicorn (finance) - a good indicator that we can uncover good amount of coverage if any of us do a proper WP:BEFORE .  I understand this is a case of WP:TNT but there is a well-written article about this topic on French Wikipedia, fr:Qonto .  Why not just translate?  We know that French Wikipedia's notability criteria is very tough and requires "" at least two independent and reliable secondary sources, in national or international publications, spaced at least two years apart and centered on the subject "".   I don't know if copying all the references from French Wikipedia here is a good idea or not.  In any case, it is an obvious keep.  2A05:87C7:9008:2C00:A839:6080:4248:D58B ( talk ) 21:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : no indication of importance and nearly no encyclopedic information in the article.  Just a vague description as French online payment institution for freelancers and SMEs .  Undescribed product (A vague description of it has been removed because it was promotional.) and a list of amounts of money raised.  Janhrach ( talk ) 21:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I was going to do a source analysis but I see not a single reference in the article passes WP:SIRS .  Not one.  WP:THREE is the consensus based best-practice for proving an article is notable.  If there is references, now is the time to prove it.  scope_creep Talk 12:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Democratic Republic of the Congo–Ukraine relations : Doesn't look like they even have official embassies.  This info could easily go in Foreign relations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and/or Foreign relations of Ukraine .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Democratic Republic of the Congo ,  and Ukraine .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Relations not subject to third party coverage, fails GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 09:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per lack of SIGCOV.  Yilloslime ( talk ) 05:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Finger Your Neck : The existing sources that can be validated provide only routine coverage (e.g., ""This show will be playing Sunday at 8pm!"").  One source provides two sentences about the show's creators.  A quick Google search did not provide further insights.  Significa liberdade ( talk ) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Significa liberdade ( talk ) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added some extra details and references.  The fact it was a play about the mafia adapted to Australian radio is very novel for me - but if concensus of the community is that it isn't quite enough then by all means delete.  Britfilm ( talk ) 12:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Super League Ultimate 13: Grand Final Team : PROD was contested, suggesting a merger instead.  I have no problem with this suggestion if anyone is able to provide citations, but I was unable to find any sources for this myself.  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 16:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions .  J Mo 101 ( talk ) 16:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Worthy as a footnote on Super League if sourced at most.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Couldn't find any sources via ProQuest and nothing on the SkySports website via the Wayback machine.  This might have been worthy of a merge to either the Super League XII article or the 2007 Super League Grand Final article if references could be located.  Storm machine ( talk ) 05:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Renzo García : Several references, but none of them seem to cover the biographee with any depth.  The same article was twice deleted from Spanish Wikipedia.  Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Colombia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Scattered mentions of the person, seems to be PROMO as they're running for mayor.  Doesn't seem to pass notability for academics either.  Reads like an extensive resume Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Oaktree b.  The article reads like campaign literature and the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV .  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 13:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per lack of WP:RS to ensure notability.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 21:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bee Broadcasting : Let'srun ( talk ) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies ,  and Montana .  Let'srun ( talk ) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree that subject lacks needed secondary sources.  Also appears to fall firmly under Wikipedia:ROTM .  Manyyassin ( talk ) 04:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clearly fails WP:NCORP , no coverage in reliable sources found.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 20:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gillis, California : That source  a) is a passing mention and  b) specifically describes Gillis as a siding, and rail sidings are not notable (nor are they ""unincorporated communities"").   This is a clear failure of WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG .   No other information found other than routine listings in rail tables: [62] .   Nothing found in news.   Satellite view shows an empty stretch of track in the middle of fields, with no human structures.   And the bit about a fruitcake festival appears to be a snarky hoax, as a search for ""Gillis"" only turned up articles about people with that name, and ""Gillis + fruitcake"" turned up nothing at all.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No evidence this was anything but a non-notable railroad siding.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 01:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per user WeirdNAnnoyed, quick searches yielded on no results.  killer bee 05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a biography of James Gillis (businessman) , a soda water salesman and farmer, in the 1890 Illustrated History of San Joaquin County, California and I have little doubt that this is simply a siding at the ranch that Gillis had ""3 miles from Stockton"" or one of the other land-holdings that he and his descendants had.   The person is documented in a biography, and I have even found a second source in an Arcadia Publishing book.   The ranch is not (hence the lack of clarity of exactly which land holding this is).  Uncle G ( talk ) 10:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Amusingly, Sarah Hayes Gillis is better documented and in more depth, I find after more searching, than her husband is, and he is a sub-topic of her, rather than the other way around as the 1890 History has it.  Uncle G ( talk ) 10:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you proposing we make an article on these two people & mention this location in the article??  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 16:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my original prod, disappointing that that was removed while the blatantly false ""is an unincorporated community"" remained.  This vandalism from January is why we shouldn't mass-produce or keep junk that no one is paying attention to.  Reywas92 Talk 20:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The railroad ""siding"" in question looks abandoned on satellite view and isn't connected to the main railroad line anymore.  It was certainly a siding at some point, but that is no longer the case.  The only thing other than fields around the siding is two structures (probably houses) about 400m north of the siding, although they are not part of whatever this ""unincorporated community"" is, they're just part of San Joaquin County in general.  This ""unincorporated community"" is just a marker for a railroad siding.  No population, structures, or anything else to see there.  Fails WP:GEOLAND .  Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 20:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Lochana Munda : Everything that came up in my searches were trivial mentions.  The same goes for the sources in the article, as well.  I also searched her name in Odia (ଲୋଚାନା ମୁଣ୍ଡା), though I can't be sure the translations were 100 percent correct.  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football ,  and India .  JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 12:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom   -- Devokewater | (tαlk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Battle of Killi Luqman (2017) : — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (Daet) : No evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Philippines .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no good hits on GSearch, GNews and GBooks.  GNews Archives gave an article about the family of doctors who founded the hospital from a small clinic.  However, I'm not sure that that is enough to warrant notability.  -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete should have never been created.  Catfurball ( talk ) 15:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Gardella Racing : Article has had maintenance tags since 2010.  Very little in the way of sources.  I do not believe this passes WP:GNG as they don't seem to have much in the way of significant coverage.  Qcne (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions .  Qcne (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is about all for coverage [16] , sadly it's not enough.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the nomination.  Fails WP:GNG and has very little in the way of coverage.  IncompA 21:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Jed MacKay : UtherSRG (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Television ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft space for referencing improvement, does not meet quality standard for article space.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non notable BLP, I see no value in moving this to userspace given the lack of sources, Fails GNG.  – Davey 2010 Talk 23:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Abdulaziz Al-Faraj : The best sources found in an Arabic WP:BEFORE are Ar Riyadiyah 1 , Al Araby and Ar Riyadiyah 2 .  The first two are trivial mentions and the last is an image caption.  Still no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC so the reasons for deletion are still valid.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Saudi Arabia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Can confirm that no SIGCOV exists in English or Arabic. Results for عبدالعزيز الفرج overwhelmingly return results for an Egyptian Qari' .  〜 Festucalex • talk 13:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 14:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis.  Jogurney ( talk ) 16:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom -- Devoke water 12:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Shri Shiv Chhatrapati College : Sohom ( talk ) 14:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Maharashtra .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Dalamarmarangal : A search for reliable sources did not reveal any that were anything more than just a placeholder page with minimal details, at least among the mostly English ones I could find.  Perhaps there are some in Malayalam that I did not uncover.  No apparent significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG .  Also does not appear to satisfy even one of the notability criteria for films (see WP:NFO ).   — Archer1234 ( t · c ) 10:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .   — Archer1234 ( t · c ) 10:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 12:50, 6 April 2023 (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 11:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - lack of WP:SIGCOV .  Bearian ( talk ) 01:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Bader bin Saud bin Mohammed Al Saud : Except for [4] , no other independent source can be found.  CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 15:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Military ,  and Saudi Arabia .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete seems to be a resumé-type article about a subject of no clear notability created by an SPA.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Reads like a resume and has no sources to support its claims.  That is problamatic for a BLP.  – Pharyngeal Implosive7 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as above.  DrKay ( talk ) 09:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Mauro Vargiu : Player hardly made any professional appearances, and I could find no significant coverage online for a player who played in the 2000s.  Only bit of coverage is here , which is cited on the page, and is only an article talking about how he signed at Dundee at age 17.  Not significant enough to warrant an article.  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Italy .  Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 09:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails to prove WP:NBIO .  Kind regards ––– Àvî Râm7 (talk) 2:18,  2 August 2023 (UTC) 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.",delete
"Mamamusic : In other languages, the page has already been removed.  MaxBokstf ( talk ) 03:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Fashion ,  and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxBokstf ( talk • contribs ) 03:56, 16 December 2023 (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/2023 December 16 .  — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies ,  and Ukraine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"George Faunce Whitcomb : Theroadislong ( talk ) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and California .  Theroadislong ( talk ) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – this article on a non-notable relative of the creator (part of a walled garden of his and his wife’s family and extended families.) DIFF to the tip of the iceberg [3] .  The subject of this article does not meet WP’s notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR .  In a nutshell, he was born, attended Harvard, married, wrote some poems, presented a medal in honor of his mother to an undergrad student who wrote a poem, served in the army, divorced, remarried, then died.  None of which makes him notable.   The sourcing consists of a self-written autobiographic statement in a Harvard U alumni report (used 6 times); a piece in the Harvard U newsletter on the medal named after his mother (used twice); an unverifiable source; a source that does not mention him at all; a two-sentence mention in the Buffalo  Courier, and four of his own writings used as sources.  Fails WP:POET and WP:GNG .  Netherzone ( talk ) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV , George Faunce Whitcomb was an American poet, known best for three books on poetry: Eagle Quills in 1919, Jewels Of Romance in 1922, and Serpent’s Credo in 1931.  The Buffalo Courier wrote: ""EAGLE QUILLS is a book of poems by George Faunce Whitcomb, and which comes from the Cornhill company, Boston Mass. Short poems, sonnets and quatrains of varying theme and moods, and possessing a certain charm are offered for the reader's entertainment and show the author to be retrospective and serene in style and expression without stirring any particular depths. The Churchill Company, Boston, Mass."" [1] Greg Henderson ( talk ) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ ""Reader's Guide"" .  Buffalo Courier.  11 January 1920 .  Retrieved 18 April 2021 .  Comment - [4] does not count toward notability itself, but indicates a review of topic's work was reviewed by Boston Evening Transcript .   There's a 1919 review by American Poetry Magazine.  [5] .  Reedy's Mirror gave a very short but independent review.  [6] .   Evidently topic was noticed by the New York Times.  [7] .  That's a high indication there are more that haven't been digitized, but I'm not sure if it adds up enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR #3.  78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 00:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This article was created back in October 4, 2017‎.  Why is it coming up for nomination now?  It passed a review by other editors and sources are all WP:RS .  Greg Henderson ( talk ) 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, sounds like a lot of coverage for his poems!  Greg Henderson ( talk ) 05:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Military ,  and Massachusetts .  Graywalls ( talk ) 20:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: The article creator's wishes notwithstanding, what ""review by other editors"" does he claim this article on a non-notable author had?   Why is it coming up for nomination now?   Because the nom gave the article that review, and found it lacking in significant coverage in reliable sources given to the subject.  Beyond that, it's carried notability tags for four years now that the article creator didn't particularly address beyond asking for the tags to be removed.   (And beyond that , there's the conflict of interest on Greg Henderson 's part.)  The depth of coverage is meager, and says almost nothing about the subject himself.  A handful of scanty reviews doesn't count: 0+0+0+0=0.  Ravenswing 03:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per strong arguments given above.  The creator put a lot of work into this loving family history profile and should publish it on their own website, but the article makes no claim whatsoever to notability by WP standards.  Llajwa ( talk ) 17:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Ravenswing's reasoning.  In addition to failing WP:POET and WP:GNG , Wikipedia is not a family history site.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tiffany Ford : The principal notability claim here is that she's been a school board trustee and non-winning candidate for election to city council, which are not WP:NPOL -passing roles.  Having a bit of run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of a non-winning election campaign doesn't add up to passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, either: every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so having campaign coverage doesn't make her more special than other candidates.  Otherwise, what's left is a couple of local-interest awards in local-interest contexts that don't fulfill WP:ANYBIO , and a bunch of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all.  Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she achieves a stronger notability claim, but nothing here is already enough as of right now.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - unelected candidate, and don't quite think this is there on GNG grounds.  SportingFlyer T · C 02:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I checked the newspaper archives and wasn't able to find any interviews or significant coverage.  Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete per G5 - created by sock of Anne Barrington .   Confirmed (by me) on Commons.  Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Sohaib Al-Malkawi : Couldn't find any articles or independent information about him online.  The article is mostly puffery .  Probably a COI - draftifying might be an alternative, though I can't find any coverage about him at all.  Clear friend a 💬 02:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism ,  and Jordan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: It is full on a promotional article, and if no sources can be found it should be axed.  Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 03:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I didn't want to write here since I wrote the article.  Anyway, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that since he's an Arabic figure when you search for him in Arabic (صهيب ملكاوي), you will find many sources.  From a promotional standpoint, I admit that the article contains some promotional words, which I have now deleted.  In terms of notability, I see that he fulfills the first rule.  He is seen as an important figure or widely cited by his peers or successors .  This is an interview of his on YouTube that shows it, and here's another one .  According to RanksArabia, a website that ranks according to the votes of the Arab public, Suhaib Al-Malkawi is ranked 30th among the best Arab media professionals , and 24th among the best broadcasters and program presenters on Al Jazeera .  He is one of the most prominent broadcasters on a channel considered to be one of the largest channels in the Arab world.  Clearfrienda mentioned that ""Probably a COI"" .  This is a bad assumption.  For some time now, I have been writing and contributing articles about important Arabic figures, poems, places... etc, here in the encyclopedia, there is a similarity with the family names.  Malkawi99 ( talk ) 05:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : probably meets G11, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS.  // Timothy :: talk 13:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Legendary Giant Beast Wolfman vs. Godzilla : Also per WP:NFILM : films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.  The subject also fails WP:N in general, having received no significant coverage in any reliable sources.  Of the four citations in the article, the first and second are to an unreliable fan site (SciFi Japan), the fourth is to YouTube, and the third is to Dread Central, a site of questionable reliability.  This is a 40-year-old, 26 minute duration, amateurish fan-film, and fan films are rarely notable for Wikipedia purposes.  The ""film"" itself, it should be noted, is either incomplete or incoherent, having no discernible plot, story line, or narrative structure.  Forty years after its ""debut,"" there is no evidence whatsoever that it will ever be completed/improved.  JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 10:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  JoJo Anthrax ( talk ) 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - As stated by the nom, this unreleased, unofficial fan film does not appear to pass WP:NFILM .  The coverage of it is scant, at best, with the Dread Central source being the closest it comes to actual coverage.  Searches did not turn up anything additional in reliable sources.  The film does not even appear to be notable enough to be merged over to the main Godzilla (franchise) page for a mention there.  If anyone is able to pull up any significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly Japanese sources that I might have missed, please ping me so I can take a look.  But, I did note that, as far as I can tell, the Japanese Wikipedia does not have an article on this fanfilm to draw any sources from, so the prospects probably aren't great.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Tianjin Rego International School : School was closed down in 2014.  Article was previously PRODed.  33ABGirl ( talk ) 09:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 09:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A search in English and Chinese in gnews yielded nothing.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  Would reconsider if there is Chinese coverage.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:35, 7 June 2023 (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 12:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly its Fails.  WP:NSCHOOL Monhiroe ( talk ) 08:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"List of Angolan co-produced films : This is a list of just three films, all of which are already also listed in the base List of Angolan films , and even that base list isn't so very long as to need separate sublists at all — so these three films can simply have their status as coprods mentioned in the notes column of the main list, without needing to stand alone as a separate list.  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Lists ,  and Angola .  Bearcat ( talk ) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete We already got List of Angolan films .  Dympies ( talk ) 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Just put them in List of Angolan films with a note in the appropriate column that they are co-produced.  nf utvol ( talk ) 19:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Citizen Soldier (band) : There's no need to skip the AfC Process and create a badly referenced article.  Nobody ( talk ) 07:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Nobody ( talk ) 07:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom.  ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 08:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nomination.  Not seeing any significant coverage.  -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non notable.  PROMO.  Llajwa ( talk ) 16:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to insufficient sources cited in the article to demonstrate WP:N .  Moreover, my own WP:BEFORE discovers nothing that changes that.  Chetsford ( talk ) 00:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Fails notability at this point.  speedy delete and undo the redirected draft.  - UtherSRG (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, delete.  Brianroswell ( talk ) 00:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Yuki Toma : I found a passing mention in Gekisaka and a transfer announcement from Hamamatsu University , the latter being non-independent due to being the university that he attended and played football for.  I can't find any independent significant coverage of him.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football ,  and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability.  If sources are found please ping me.  Giant Snowman 10:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – His JA Wikipedia is a stub despite being quite longer.  While searching on Google with romaji keyword (even Yūki Tōma and Tōma Yūki) might found other men with this name than this soccer player, failing WP:V , searching with his name in kanji (東間 勇気) on Google needs to be demonstrated for this article to be kept.  CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 12:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – No sources, fails in WP:V .  Svartner ( talk ) 02:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per  Spiderone and also seems to fail WP:GNG Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"JKFZ Cambridge International School : Page has previously been nominated for CSD .  There are no sources given on the page, with the exception of a link to the official school website at the bottom of the page in external links, which appears to be no longer available.  33ABGirl ( talk ) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Schools ,  and China .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Insufficient secondary sources in English – is this meant to imply that there are sufficient non-English secondary sources?  If so then keep .  small jars t c 18:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "" Insufficient secondary sources in English "" was bad wording on my part and was not meant to imply sufficient non-English sources.  Nonetheless, a search using the schools Chinese name ""江科附中"" (",delete
"List of international cricket centuries at the Harare Sports Club : Fails WP:NLIST , noted in statistical databases only (individual centuries are mentioned in news reports, but the topic of centuries at this ground (or most other grounds) is not the subject of significant non-statistical coverage.  Fram ( talk ) 09:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket , Lists ,  and Zimbabwe .  Fram ( talk ) 09:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR .  The precedent has been set that these lists of centuries articles are essentially just the search results from ESPNCricinfo.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTSTATS trivial intersection— there is no obvious reason centuries (a fairly common event in the grand scheme of cricket) + place scored (every cricket game is played somewhere, obviously) is important, let alone why INTERNATIONAL centuries are more important than local ones (disclaimer: I’m not a cricket nerd, I just know the basic rules and terminology, but that’s arguably a case for “not a niche sports almanac”).  Dronebogus ( talk ) 23:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom and other commenters so far.  WP:NOTSTATS .  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete there isn't significant coverage about centuries at this ground to meet WP:NLIST .  We don't need lists of centuries at every international cricket ground, only those where the list of centuries has significant non trivial coverage e.g. Lord's .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Embassy of Italy, Ottawa : LibStar ( talk ) 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Italy ,  and Canada .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Rivka Ladin : Attempts to find sources for notability in WP:BEFORE came up empty handed.  Cheers!  Fake scientist 8000 23:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women ,  and Computing .  Cheers!  Fake scientist 8000 23:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : also attempted WP:BEFORE and found nothing Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  At the very least, the article should mention the subject's current position/institution/company and major contributions to the field, and there aren't even any RS on that.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 20:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added 2 references proving she holds a patent, and published multiple papers about distributed computing.  She worked for Digital Equipment Corporation and Compaq .  She is (a retired) Director at Hewlett-Packard .  Geertivp ( talk ) 10:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think that the simple fact of holding a patent is anything to write home about - it depends whether the patent is widely used and whether it has been defended successfully in court.  The subject has contributed to several highly cited papers, but citations in computer science are so high that I don't know whether she passes WP:PROF#C1 on their basis.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , regretfully.  I am hesitant to delete any articles about Women in STEM, since there is such legion gender discrimination in those fields.  That having been said, there is too little about the person readily available online to make even a decent stub.  I would not oppose userfication, even if it's dumped in my user space.  Bearian ( talk ) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"William Roetzheim : He received a profile in Inc. in 2012, but nothing much since then.  He appears to have retired from entrepreneurship to try his hand at writing, for which he founded his own publishing company (Level 4 Press) to publish.  This article contains a large collection of unverified and unverifiable facts (including the fact that Roetzheim created an AI program for the US Navy prior to 1983, a dubious fact at best), and a long list of relatively meaningless awards (also unverified and unverifiable, and mostly for his Marotz company).  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  18:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople ,  and California .  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  18:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions .  WikiDan61 ChatMe!  ReadMe!!  18:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is incorrect.  Roetzheim is the CEO of a company called Level 4 Press.  See their website at www.Level4press.com.  Acastlerichard ( talk ) 20:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that the creator of this article ( MaryFrancisK",delete
"Orhan Dragaš : There are only five links, and the last one is the website of his own organization, International Security Institute.  HPfan4 ( talk ) 04:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Serbia .  AllyD ( talk ) 07:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR .  I Can't say this I'd any way near writing notable books; there was no review also.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Draim : The company's only product, Draim arena , is already at AfD and likely to be deleted on notability grounds as well, so merging is not a viable AtD.  Jfire ( talk ) 22:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games , Companies ,  and Sweden .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no good refs.  No relevance at least not enough to warrant an article as of today.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no sources in Swedish news archives at all and no good sourcing online.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 10:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hylics : -- Ap m h 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions .  Ap m h 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DuckDuckGo query yields mostly dictionary definitions, religious sites of indeterminate reliability, and info on the game of the same name.  Tempted to propose merge into or with related concept Pneumatic (Gnosticism) , but I haven't thought this through yet.  Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs ) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , cannot find sources/coverage relating to the word from Google, as per nom and Wp:WORDISSUBJECT Karnataka ( talk ) 20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Stephen Bartolin Jr. : Joeykai ( talk ) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Travel and tourism , Colorado , Michigan , Ohio , Tennessee ,  and West Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG , and likely WP:UPE .  He's the CEO of a hotel called The Broadmoor and the article was written by",delete
"PBM (band) : Since the former deletion, there is no source for passing WP: GNG and WP: NMUSIC .  Otuọcha ( talk ) 00:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music ,  and Michigan .  Otuọcha ( talk ) 00:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Per former nominations and deletions via AFD.  I commend WP: SALT Otuọcha ( talk ) 00:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and SALT if necessary.  I voted to delete in the 2020 AfD for this band and my reasoning is exactly the same now.  They have indeed released several albums and played many shows, but the reliable music media simply has not noticed.  And again, ""shared the stage with prominent musicians"" is irrelevant if it was at large festivals or if they were the cost-saving local opening act.  --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 02:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with Otuọcha and Doomsdayer: this band lacks significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources ( WP:GNG is not met); and it doesn't approach any of the alternative criteria at WP:NMUSIC .  However, this is only the first recreation after deletion, which occurred over 4 years ago.  I'm not sure this namespace is problematic enough to require WP:SALT .  JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets GNG, and I made some improvements.  Eastview2018 ( talk ) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relistiing to assess content changes since nomination.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : AllMusic reviews are iffy for reliability, the rest are promotional pieces.  This is the only mention of them I can find [20] , I suppose it's a RS. I don't see much of anything else.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : strong delete, I can't find any real coverage of this band from reliable outlets online.  InDimensional ( talk ) 13:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Hassan Ben Badida : It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again.  Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Morocco .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Higly unlikely to pass WP:GNG , the sources added seem to fail WP:RS .  The article is looking like WP:PROMOTION .  Drat8sub ( talk ) 15:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Living educational theory : There also seems to be *a lot* of synthesis and/or original research.  Finally, I think its notability is questionable; at the very least, I'm concerned that the article is overly focused on Barry's work instead of, say, Whitehead's.  BalinKingOfMoria ( talk ) 23:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  AllyD ( talk ) 06:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH .  Also, created mostly by an WP:SPA , which doesn't really contribute to objectivity attempt.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 12:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and WP:OR Karnataka ( talk ) 22:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Carl Frederik Waage Beck : Fails ARTIST , SIGCOV and GNG .  Nirva20 ( talk ) 04:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 ( talk ) 04:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Denmark .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Of the four references in the article, the first is self-published, the second is inaccessible, and the last two (the BBC and New York Times) don't even seem to mention this person.  Elspea756 ( talk ) 13:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject fails WP:GNG .  There is no reliable sourcing that the subject is part of the incident described in the article - Iraqi refugees removed from a Danish church).  -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"A Neumann & Associates : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete miles away from meeting WP:CORP .  SmartSE ( talk ) 00:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not pass WP:NCORP TipsyElephant ( talk ) 02:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not notable entity BoraVoro ( talk ) 15:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No sign of reliable third-party coverage.  Current sources are all self-written entries in listings.  Pichpich ( talk ) 22:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is no claim of notability and none of the sources that would be necessary to support the claim are here.  Alansohn ( talk ) 04:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Ramjas School, Anand Parbat : However, Ramjas School, Pusa Road also has a controversy (over fees) and Ramjas College seems notable.   All three are run by Ramjas Foundation.   So it might be worth creating a Ramjas Foundation page to link to all three (and any other Ramjas operated establishments).  Newhaven lad ( talk ) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and India .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations.  Fails WP:NSCHOOL .  RangersRus ( talk ) 13:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Namak Haraam (TV series) : Tag and Prod challenged by IP so here now at AfD.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  A simple search of this name takes me to Pakistani drama and to an Indian movie.  I am not able to find any reliable source on this Indian series.  The current sources on the page have no coverage and fails to merit this Indian series its own article.  Fails WP:N and WP:SIGCOV .  RangersRus ( talk ) 19:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG Donald D23 talk to me 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not even on IMDb.  Killarnee ( talk ) 22:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines; no relevant entries.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 20:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",delete
"Big Bear Grizzly: Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , United States of America ,  and California .  UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Big Bear Lake, California .  This paper dates back to 1941, and is clearly the newspaper of record for the city.  IAR , I do not like deleting such articles, since we are likely to cite them in coverage of topics relating to the city.  That said, I really struggled to find sources.  There is a paragraph on the newspaper's name and basic details in this book on newspaper names , but that's not quite WP:SIGCOV .  There is coverage of ownership change here , but it only mentions the newspaper once as part of a group, so that doesn't count either.  This 1978 article (continued here ) talks about someone being allegedly fired because of the newspaper's reporting, but there's nothing we'd use it for in the article per WP:NOTNEWS , so it seems like it'd be cheating a bit to try to use it for notability.  There is almost surely significant coverage in Big Bear: Bearly Remembered , a 319-page history of the city, but I haven't been able to access it ( offline sources count , if they can be proved to exist ).  The best bet for saving this would be to get access to that book, and to hope it leads to a second source somewhere.  Taking stock of all that, what we have is a topic that's notable in the generic, non-jargon sense, but where the sourcing doesn't quite add up to Wikipedia notability — yet, from what we can access online.  The paper also clearly deserves coverage in the city's article (not mentioned there currently, but it's standard practice to cover news organizations in city articles; also keep in mind that, with a population of 5,000 people, the due bar is not high).  These factors make it very ripe for merging as an ATD .  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found three sources that provide information on this newspaper and added two of them to the article.  See talk page.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those look like unreliable database entries to me.  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 23:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Agree with Sdkb 's asessment above.  Totnes Times was another recent similar merge.  Willing to change to keep if SIGCOV is found.  — siro χ o 23:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Democratic Taiwan: In summary, the article lacks reliable third-party sources for an effective introduction.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 02:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's profoundly difficult to search for sources as someone who doesn't read much Chinese because '民主台灣' appears to be a generic term as well.  In absence of improved sources during this discussion, I think a merge to Organization for the Support of Democratic Movement in Taiwan would suffice for now.  — siro χ o 07:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the Chinese article being tagged with a notability template and my inability to find suitable Chinese sources, I have initiated a deletion discussion on the English Wikipedia.  The Chinese article is also likely to be nominated for deletion tomorrow.  日期20220626 ( talk ) 10:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 10:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge concur with",merge
"土城: Therefore, these dab pages could be merged , like that in Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) (from a RfD outcome ) and Ni Hao .  Because it's unnecessary to keep separate dab pages in the similar case, I also propose to disambiguate entries in CJKV dab pages together with their major translation if the Chinese characters also hold the major place in dab page of this translation.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I choose to remove all of the bundled nominated articles per WP:BUNDLE that An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled—nominate it separately .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 17:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As an alternative option, Tucheng (disambiguation) has to be expanded to entries which was actually transliterated from ""土城"" and Tucheng District , the primary topic of ""Tucheng"" will also be that of ""土城"".  Thus, 土城 will be moved to 土城 (disambiguation) and the base name will be turned into a primary redirect.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 14:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations , China ,  and South Korea .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  Maybe we also need to review if the various Chinese-language titled dab pages are duplicating existing English-language titled dab pages like this AfD for instance, frequently saw multiple of such recently in Page Curation, all created by the same user.  — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝 ) 11:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Paper9oll : User:NmWTfs85lXusaybq has added several other pages to this AfD.  You may want to update your comment.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 15:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As far as I can tell nothing has changed since the previous discussion .  Redirects from foreign languages are well-established ( WP:RLOTE ).  Ideally this page would redirect to a transliteration, but in this case it appears there's no single transliteration that's valid for all targets.  If Toseong Station is not a valid entry for some reason, then we can merge to Tucheng (disambiguation) .  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's clarify that the previous discussion did not end with any kind of decision.  The nomination was withdrawn by the initiator in order ""to create a broader discussion for deleting all pages in this category."" - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really.  The rationale, scope, and suggested outcome of the proposal have all been changed.  As long as the title of these dab pages hold a major place in each other, they could be merged together, such as Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) , in which Nanzen-ji is a different transliteration of ""南禪寺"" from ""Nanchan Temple"".  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 15:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see you've now added a whole list of pages to this AfD, but you seem to be proposing merging instead of deletion.  If that's the proposal, AfD is not the right place for it.  In any case, I think the case for keeping is even stronger for some of the others.  Take 台東 , for instance – ""Taitung"" is only a valid transliteration for the topics related to the Chinese language, not the ones related to Japanese.  If the merge took place, would we need to add the relevant entries from Taito (disambiguation) to the Taitung page?  That seems unhelpful for readers.  Keep all per WP:TRAINWRECK .  Feel free to make individual merge proposals in cases where you think it's appropriate.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that 台東 has no major transliteration and both Taito (disambiguation) and Taitung exists, it could be kept as it is.  While the other nominated CJKV dab pages do have benefit to get merged with the only dab page of its transliteration.  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 16:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As for the entries of disambiguation page in 台東 , not all entries in these pages are transliterated from ""台東"".  Thus, you have to add every matched entries directly into 台東 unless you can reorganized a section in Taito (disambiguation) and Taitung that only consisted with entries of ""台東"".  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 16:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Toseong station says the Hanja is ""土城驛"".  The other entries in 土城 are for Chinese-related topics and have the Tucheng prefix: Tucheng District Tucheng Line, Taipei Metro Tucheng metro station Tucheng Park Tucheng station (Tianjin Metro) Since ""土城"" has two transliterations (""Tucheng"" and ""Toseong""), 土城 is a necessary disambiguation page.  Cunard ( talk ) 11:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A CJKV dab page with more than two transliterations doesn't have to be one with no primary topic, such as 九龍 (disambiguation) (""Jiulong"", ""Kowloon"", ""Cửu Long"", ""Guryong"", ""Kūron"" and ""Kuro""), 昭和 (disambiguation) (""Shōwa"" and ""Zhaohe"") and 安康 (disambiguation) (""Angang"", ""Ankang"" and ""Ankō"").  Tucheng District or Tucheng (disambiguation) is clearly the primary topic with respect to usage in this case.  There were originally only two topics Tucheng (disambiguation) and Toseong station here while I expanded the former because not all of its entries are transliterated from 土城.  However, as the precedence Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) I provided, it's easy for 土城 to be merged and redirected into Tucheng (disambiguation) per WP:ONEOTHER , otherwise it could be moved to 土城 (disambiguation) and leave the base name as a primary redirect to Tucheng District .  NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 12:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  I acknowledge the twin transliterations involved, but that can easily be handled on the target DAB page, with something like, "" 土城 may also refer to: Toseong station "", or similar language.  As it is, the page is a redundant fork.  Owen× ☎ 17:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I just added Toseong station to the ""See also"" section in Tucheng (disambiguation) .  Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, this link belongs on that page, if only for the shared ""土城"" name.  Hopefully, this would also make the merge decision easier.  Owen× ☎ 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: THere doesn't appear to be a pressing need to close this, so relisting for more discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Query: I do not understand the rationale for CJK entries on the EN Wikipedia.  Serious question: How is this encyclopedic content for an English-language audience?   Is this not more appropriate to host at EN Wiktionary?  If someone runs across a CJK string and doesn't understand it, I would expect them to look that up in a dictionary first, and from there (from that dictionary entry) decide  1) which language they are interested in, and  2) whether they want to know about the word (lexical information appropriate for a dictionary), or the concept or thing referred to by that word, as described in English (subject-matter information possibly appropriate for an encyclopedia).  Are we really intent on including pages for potentially any and every title in the ZH, JA, and KO Wikipedias?  If so, we are basically reproducing a lot of information that is often already hosted at Wiktionary.   This strikes me as a lot of work -- both the initial build-out, and then the ongoing maintenance work -- for no appreciable benefit.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some information is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force .  CJKV titles are sometimes appropriate as redirects, per longstanding practice described at WP:RLOTE , but in cases where they are ambiguous between pages related to two or more languages, the usual solution is to make them disambiguation pages.  If you disagree with the broader practice of catering to foreign-language search terms for topics related to that language, that might be something to discuss at WT:RLOTE , or maybe at some related policy page.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 02:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There is no sense in  keeping an article bearing a title in Chinese, since, right away, the article would be impossible for the overwhelming majority of English Wikipedia users to search & find.  Therefore, we either locate an ""acceptable transliteration"" or the article gets defenestrated.  Keep in mind that a decent transliteration would suffice, since we can create Redirects to it from the other versions.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Huawei Mate 8: A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Huawei Mate series but I was unsure about that, especially as this is wholly unsourced.  Boleyn ( talk ) 07:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Technology ,  and Computing .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete or merge' per nomination.  Artem.G ( talk ) 11:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Kyle Katarn: Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 21:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While the sourcing in this article IS indeed terrible, a cursory glance at Google News shows a large amount of discussion, albeit it can be hard to see the trees amongst the Valnet forest. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Merge A closer examination of the google sources shows that there's not actually that much said about him as a character, at least enough to really work for SIGCOV. If they utilize him in the films or current canon that may change, but for now it doesn't feel like it's there.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Star Wars: Jedi Knight .  I am unconvinced that he is standalone notable - SIGCOV could not be found.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge to Star Wars: Jedi Knight .  Majority of article is in-universe content and reception is pretty threadbare.  Beating a 40-year-old game character in a fan poll is hardly worth writing home about.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of rampage killers (workplace violence in the military): Fails WP:NLIST , as there is not RS coverage of the items on the list being covered as a group, and this is just a WP:OR list of items.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 05:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Crime ,  and Military .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of rampage killers per nom, since there doesn't seem to be any source on the notability of this grouping that I can find.  List of rampage killers is itself a hopeless mess of OR and ambiguity (it lumps together mass shooters, aircraft hijackings, certain terrorist attacks, and at least one disgraced shaman who poisoned his village ), but it's easier to clean up one overbroad list than two.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  There is no value in this list and it is most certainly not discussed as a group in RS.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Major League Baseball 2K9 Fantasy All-Stars: https://web.archive.org/web/20090428142706/http://nds.gamezone.com:80/gamesell/pro4013.htm QuietCicada ( talk ) 21:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Baseball .  QuietCicada ( talk ) 21:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Major League Baseball 2K9#DS spin-off per WP:ATD .  The game doesn't seem notable, but is worthy of mention.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Major League Baseball 2K9#DS spin-off per WP:ATD .  This game doesn't have WP:GNG coverage to support a standalone article.  User:Let'srun 22:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of most watched television interviews: Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 10:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 10:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm unable to find enough sources to satisfy WP:NLIST .  I was able to find one source in The Standard (Kenya) but it's not a very strong source.  The only other coverage I could find is about the controversy surrounding the Andrew Tate/Tucker Carlson interview which doesn't help satisfy WP:NLIST either.  Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of most-watched television broadcasts .  The original version of this page actually had more sources than the current version.  The sourced version of it continued up to 2021, until they were completely gutted by this revision .  The ""citations"" (which at that point were just numbers encased by brackets) were completely removed here .  As older versions of the article still wouldn't meet WP:NLIST , the revision right before the sources were broken should be merged with the article I mentioned.  Deauthorized .  ( talk ) 15:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  10:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of most-watched television broadcasts as suggested by Deauthorized ( talk · contribs ).  The lack of  references is a problem.  Knitsey ( talk ) 14:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Xuanchuan: So I think it would be better to merge into Propaganda in China#Terminology .  ときさき くるみ not because they are easy , but because they are hard 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and China .  ときさき くるみ not because they are easy , but because they are hard 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  Especially if you are the one to do the merger - you are a good and careful editor.  JArthur1984 ( talk ) 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose owing to unnecessary wordiness.  Merging Propaganda in China (7726 words) and Xuanchuan (1560 words) would result in 9286 words, which exceeds the Article size guidelines .  Keahapana ( talk ) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Keahapana : This is not a major problem, and given that a lot of the content is in fact duplicated and a significant portion of the xuanchuan content is unsourced, it is entirely possible to trim it down to meet the standard.  ときさき くるみ not because they are easy , but because they are hard 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Propaganda in China#Terminology per Tokisaki Kurumi.   This is just the Chinese word for ""propaganda"", and the sources listed are all discussion of propaganda in China rather than the word specifically.   We are well served by a breif discussion at Propaganda in China#Terminology and mentions in other relevant articles.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 23:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Propaganda_in_China#Terminology as proposed.   This overlaps with that section, and not enough here to make it work doing a fork.  There are entire paragraphs in this article that have nothing to do with China or Chinese which can be deleted.  Oblivy ( talk ) 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Governor of Kherson Oblast (Russia): I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast#Government per my comments in the previous AfD, which I think reflect even more on this article considering the novelty of this disputed subnational entity.  Next time, consider using WP:PROMERGE instead.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Article is a one-member list, cites only a single, WP:primary source.  No evidence of notability as a subject.   — Michael Z .  18:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of Socialist Equality Party election results: The article creator posted a number of sources on the talk page, but the only one to even mention results was this local source , though only briefly, about one candidate who got five votes.  Fails WP:NLIST .  Fram ( talk ) 13:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Politics ,  and United States of America .  Fram ( talk ) 13:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Socialist Equality Party (United States) : Some of the candidates who ran could possibly be mentioned in the article on the SEP; if there is no natural way to fit them in or this violates I guideline I am failing to think of at the moment, deletion is also fine with me.  Tartar Torte 14:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Socialist Equality Party (United States) .  Carrite ( talk ) 15:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll be WP:BOLD and merge, this into the SEP article, since I'm the article creator.  SocDoneLeft ( talk ) 00:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fram : Merged!  SocDoneLeft ( talk ) 00:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Spellbinder (paper-and-pencil game): No evidence of notability.  * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find reliable sources, but I expect they existed back in the day.   At the least a selective merge to Richard Bartle (so we end up with a paragraph there) seems best.  I'd love to keep this if anyone can find sources that count toward WP:N.  Hobit ( talk ) 03:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Richard Bartle per above suggestion.  // Timothy :: talk 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Allende stamps: Vanjagenije (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the existing entry on Salvador Allende under the Memorials section.  No need for a separate article on such a trivial item.  nf utvol ( talk ) 01:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Salvador Allende as per WP:PAGEDECIDE .  Specifically, I would suggest renaming the 'Memorials' section on the Salvador Allende article to 'Legacy', with two sub-sections, one being the current content in this section (titled 'Memorials') and the other being the content of the AfD-nominated article (titled 'Stamps').  Redtree21 ( talk ) 02:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Chile .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Salvador Allende, it fails to establish individual notability (and I agree with the proposal made by Redtree21 above).  Unknown-Tree🌲?  ( talk ) 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey statistical leaders: Nothing seems to indicate the notability of its subject, as previously noted on the talk page.  The article is also built primarily from a primary source from Michigan State.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 12:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 12:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge partially to Michigan State Spartans men's ice hockey#Statistical leaders .  Maybe just the top 5 in each category/breakdown.  Sources aren't there for notability of these statistical leaders, and probably won't find much outside of school mentioning them together.  WikiVirus C (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WikiVirusC : I'd be happy to perform the merge if we can find a reliable source for this information.  Like I said, until today there were merge tags on the pages advocating for this change, but the inability to verify anything is what made me bring this to AfD.  If no other source mentions this subject, we shouldn't be including this in the article at all per WP:WEIGHT .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 16:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's already in the main article though at the section I linked, although not the entirety of it.  Primary source are used as the source, which is typically fine aboutself references, but not for notability in a standalone.  If you think that section should be removed completely from there, then that is different discussion.  WikiVirus C (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the properly source information into the parent article on the team.  This fails WP:NLIST with only databases as sources.  Flibirigit ( talk ) 15:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as noted.  I'll also mention there are other similar ""University ice hockey team statistical leaders"" pages that could be included in this AfD as well, as they all likely will fall under the same rationale.  Kaiser matias ( talk ) 02:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kaiser matias : You're absolutely right.  I just took a look at the other pages created by Kkuchnir , the creator of this article.  Turns out they've made nearly 300 of these ""statistical leaders"" articles since 2020.  From the few that I've glanced at so far, it seems that they all have the same issues as this one.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 05:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language: And it fails WP:LSC (as noted since last August).  It's just one big mess that hasn't been fixed for over a decade, and may not be fixable.  The ""number of countries' where language X is official just doesn't seem that relevant in the first place. It's not some ""competition"". I see no use for this list whatsoever. Edit: The best solution might be WP:TNT because of WP:NOW , and wait for someone to start over properly and show with WP:RS that there is a purpose for this list, rather than us struggling to find a purpose amongst this (seemingly useless) mess. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Law . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment List of countries by the number of recognized official languages seems like a closely related list which is properly supported by WP:RS , but its scope and added value are equally dubious. It may be worth comparing the two. If the sheer number of languages is regarded as irrelevant, then I suppose that list should be AfD'd next. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : can't see any reason to delete this, and the reasons given are a confused mess. On sources, I've added a couple of citations; obviously, it'd be nice to have more, but there is no doubt that sources exist. The charge of OR appears entirely misplaced. Cleanup is never a reason for deletion. On the supposed ""vagueness"", the list selection criterion is razor-sharp: it is quite clear from the text what belongs here; and the purpose seems entirely encyclopedic, these are on one view the world's major languages. If we deleted all poorly-cited lists from Wikipedia ... the encyclopedia would be a lot smaller and less informative. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there is no doubt that sources exist WP:MUSTBESOURCES The charge of OR appears entirely misplaced Why? E.g. the fact that Partially recognized or de facto independent countries like Artsakh, which is recognised by zero UN member states , are presented here as sovereign countries in the lead section, is a massive WP:OR / WP:SYNTH problem. Cleanup is never a reason for deletion True, not in itself; I guess I should have said WP:NOW or WP:TNT instead. It's been a mess towards our readers for over a decade and nobody has fixed it, so it's better delete and allow for the possibility to start over, if at all. list selection criterion is razor-sharp then what does ""recognized"" and ""official language"" mean? Is ""Greek"" ""recognized"" as an ""official language"" in ""Italy"", for example? Depends on your definitions of those four variables. I could make an argument either way. The fact that it says de jure or de facto official is already a major stumbling block. the world's major languages since when is that the scope of the list? It just says ""languages"". And what makes you think the current list is representative? I can name a couple of languages which, depending on definitions, are ""recognized"" as ""official languages"" in more than 2 ""countries"", but are not in this list. If we deleted all poorly-cited lists from Wikipedia WP:OTHERSTUFF . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 18:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This belongs in an encyclopedia.  If you sincerely doubt any of the information, you can click on any nation and see what official languages it has. D r e a m Focus 15:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This belongs in an encyclopedia WP:BELONG . If you sincerely doubt any of the information, you can click on any nation and see Articles should normally be able to provide references for their own claims and not rely on other articles to do the work ( WP:CIRC ). An exception could be made for easily verifiable list memberships per WP:CSC #1, but in this case it's more complicated than that. The example I gave above illustrates that: Is ""Greek"" ""recognized"" as an ""official language"" in ""Italy""? Depends on your definitions of those four variables. I could make an argument either way. Without clear criteria, anyone could reach opposite conclusions. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Chiswick. -- Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of official languages by country and territory , and for the love of the gods, rename to something more sensible (just plain List of official languages would make more sense -- that list can also be subsumed in the ""by country"" one).  This specific cross-categorization doesn't seem to be particularly notable on its own, and this is essentially just a re-collating of the information already present in the main article, simply ordered by the number of occurrences.  It's a fairly small table that can comfortably fit in the main article, and we don't need separate lists for every single possible ""by Y"" , especially when the ""by Y"" doesn't seem to be a particularly notable categorization. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 17:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm open to merging, but we'll have to come up with a sustainable way of doing that. More here if you're interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment it's an odd list, some countries aren't recognized by others, yet are in the list (South Ossetia), so I'm not sure we can keep the list without some clear guidelines. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of official languages by country and territory . Aggregating this information by number doesn't really add any significant information. Also, there's a lot of potential apples and oranges here: What is the criterion for inclusion of countries with minimal recognition by UN countries? Is the same definition of ""official language"" applied for every entry? (not an academic question; the OP and I are currently discussing the status of Dutch based on differing definitions of ""official language"") What does ""recognized"" mean here? If an official language is only de facto official (which according to some definitions is a contradictio eo ipso, s. point 2), where does its ""recognition"" come from if not by some kind of legal regulation, which would turn it de jure official? What about pluricentric languages that are single language from a descriptive linguistic viewpoint, but are distinct by the very criterion that we use here, i.e. official status? E.g. Hindustani (aka Hindi–Urdu) is not an official language anywhere in the world: it's Hindi in India and Urdu in Pakistan. When used for offcial purposes, they are very distinct from each other. The same holds for Malay: the Standard Malay of Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore is quite different from the Standard Malay- based national language of Indonesia in the official context; in Indonesia, the term ""Malay"" is only used for vernacular varieties of Malay which are considered regional languages. While AFD is not about cleanup, I consider this list per se unmaintainable as it requires universally accepted criteria that simply don't exist. In a non-aggregated form (e.g. the proposed merge target), we can at least add notes to specify the details about how a language X is considered official in country Y, or use parentheses for problematic cases. – Austronesier ( talk ) 11:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Austronesier completely agree with all points you made. As I said above, I'm open to merging, but we'll have to come up with a sustainable way of doing that. I've made a point about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory . I'd love your input. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 15:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There seems to be general consensus that the countries listed as partially recognized or de facto independent are Palestine , Kosovo , Taiwan , Western Sahara , Northern Cyprus , Abkhazia , South Ossetia , Transnistria , Artsakh and Somaliland Atavoidturk ( talk ) 16:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean 'There seems to be general consensus'? The list just currently mentions these items, there is no 'consensus' anywhere that it should list exactly these items. This is just WP:OR . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i don't think this is formalized at all, and likely is a case of circular referencing, but this is general what i have seen cited as the partially recognized or de facto countries on the internet. c.f. List of partially recognized states , Montevideo Convention , Declarative theory of statehood Atavoidturk ( talk ) 13:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, well if that is true we need WP:RS for it. As far as I know, the usual standard for statehood is being a UN member state, and being recognised by most other UN member states. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 21:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to List of official languages by country and territory as an editorial decision.  Cleanup is needed, but I agree that ""this is the type of list that should be in an encyclopedia"".  The likes of Babbel and World Atlas discuss this topic.  And while there is an argument those are PR-driven blog posts, it is still coverage that I could not find for List of largest languages without official status . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. We'd have a consensus if ""keep or merge"" was an option for a close. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: If we are going for a Merge, I think we shouldn't just look at these 2 lists. There are about 22 wildly WP:OVERLAPping WP:REDUNDANTFORK lists/sections about ""official languages"" on English Wikipedia right now. I'm trying to get people interested in seeing the broader picture of potential Merge options here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 06:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete: I'm unconvinced by the arguments that this can be kept and still be encyclopedic, even if rewritten. What counts as an ""official language"" or a ""country"" is too disputable/inconsistent to be the basis of quantification as suggested here. ( t · c ) buidhe 00:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 13:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the proposed merge target is different enough that they don't have to be combined, though that is still preferable to deletion. I think the ""official"" standards use are appropriate but can be subject to normal discussion. Reywas92 Talk 13:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Reywas92 I'm open to certain mergers, but then we should do it properly. If you're interested in further merge discussions, please come and have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory , where I'm trying to address issue in its entirety. This list is just a symptom of the larger problem. You input is appreciated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 15:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dronebogus For you the same invitation. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 07:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of official languages because it seems like information that can be covered there. No need to duplicate stuff at weird alternate titles. Dronebogus ( talk ) 06:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Boldly relisting for a 3rd time to come to consensus on keep or merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or just redirect , per Austronesier and others above, without prejudice to any future general RfC on our official-languages-list coverage. While this seems like a naturally interesting topic and some sources have been added, the lack of cited sources about the topic (i.e. about ranking languages in this particular manner) raises considerable LISTN and maintainability questions. There are a lot of thorny problems around ""what is a country"", ""what is a language"", and ""what is official"" that would need to be grappled with in a coherent way for the totals in the list to be meaningful.  And the fact that the list hasn't been maintained for lo these many years is a pretty strong indication that it isn't suddenly going to be maintained.  Merging seems a bit suboptimal here given the size and unwieldiness of the lists, but perhaps there is a sensible way to whittle it down.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge I lean keep per Reywas92.  I'd also note that this AfD shouldn't apply to any RfCs regarding language information per Visviva.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Visviva I agree with pretty much everything you say.  Did you see that I am making preparations for an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Official languages lists ?  Because I hadn't mentioned it here so far, and you haven't commented on it (yet), but you seem to be aware of it.  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I must have followed the link you posted to WT:WikiProject Lists and read your pre-RfC discussion there.  I didn't realize you hadn't mentioned it here.  (Regarding your question just below,  what I think both SportingFlyer and I are saying is that whatever the outcome of this AFD might be, it shouldn't constrain the possible outcomes of the RfC. At least that's what I meant.)-- Visviva ( talk ) 17:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah ok, now I understand, thanks!!  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 17:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SportingFlyer What do you mean by this AfD shouldn't apply to any RfCs regarding language information per Visviva ?  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there's a subsequent RfC saying this shouldn't be on the site, this AfD's result could be ignored if kept.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying!  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 01:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  I cannot tell exactly which article to merge it to, but I’m supportive of Nederlandse Leeuw’s efforts to rationalise this cluster of related articles.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"2000 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit: Appears to fail WP:NEVENT.  Cited sources (which are rather dubious in terms of WP:RS) are just simple score results with no prose or independent analysis.  Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix ( t · c ) buidhe 21:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion?  -- ThiagoSimoes ( talk ) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By all means send that article to AfD.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France , Germany , Netherlands , Russia ,  and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix as an WP:ATD .  // Timothy :: talk 14:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of Sabrina the Teenage Witch books, CDs and DVDs: Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Film , Literature ,  and Lists .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lists of various sorts of things are kept individually for various authors and franchises.  The argument for deletion is, at best, an argument for breaking a comprehensive list into two or more specific lists, e.g. on books and TV/video.  Jclemens ( talk ) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The argument is to keep none of it.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Smerge to the main article.   Agree that this is mostly just cruft without justification for a whole standalone list, even combined.   A sentence or two about the TV movies can comfortably fit there, and would be appropriate, especially since they link to specific articles for them.   The season DVD release years could always be added to the existing table, but that's probably overkill, especially broken down by region.   If sourceable, a note could be added that there have been a series of books written based on the series, but we don't need to be listing every single one of them.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 23:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Maybe an expansion to a full list of media for the franchise could be an idea, for example something similar to List of Scooby-Doo media .  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree this isn’t the purpose of Wikipedia.  We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, we’re a discriminate collection of knowledge .  Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  This list fails NLIST given the context of NOTCATALOGUE.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge what?  and to where?  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Presumably to Sabrina the Teenage Witch , however I'm not sure.  JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 08:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sabrina the Teenage Witch - obviously fails GNG but I don't see the harm in having at the aforementioned article with cites.  – Davey 2010 Talk 22:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Other than the TV movies, which already appear in the parent article, the rest appears to be fancruft.  I don't know how knowing every single home video/DVD release for every region in the world, and their release dates, can possibly be encyclopedic.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because it tells the reader more videos, books etc were released - Anyone reading the article now probably only believe a few or one were released  when in fact over 40 odd were released – Davey 2010 Talk 11:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sabrina the Teenage Witch#In other media , ideally with some cleanup and sourcing.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arguably the only stuff worth merging is the stuff that is already merged (the films).  The rest of it is both unsourced and not notable.  Ajf773 ( talk ) 19:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Death and funeral of Henry Kissinger: the only important parts of this are already echoed at Henry Kissinger#Death .  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Politics , United States of America ,  and Connecticut .  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  There's nothing notable about the death itself.  Even the section on his page will likely be truncated as soon as it isn't breaking news.  Zebradreams07 ( talk ) 23:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm undecided.  Leaning keep or Merge and then redirect - I think the death was sufficiently covered it may justify a standalone article.  The current state of an article is totally irrelevant to whether or not we nominate it for AFD.  On notability alone, this probably passes.  Though, I personally would consider merge the appropriate path.  It likely warrants a standalone article on notability, but this does not necessarily mean it is the most appropriate avenue.  Merging relevant content into the Death section of the subject is probably better than a standalone article.  I personally feel this should have been a merge discussion rather than AFD.  Kind of a weird spot though.  — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, why I nominated this article for deletion if I wasn't sure, better said, I left the article intact and I wasn't deliberately putting in the deletion template, with the respect that you deserve, ok 8.242.167.228 ( talk ) 23:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the notable portion already exists in Henry Kissinger .  Nothing to merge, and an unlikely search term for a redir.  Owen× ☎ 23:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maintain , this article is very good and don't deserve erased, guys.  8.242.167.228 ( talk ) 23:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename I don't think the funeral merits a dedicated article, however I do think having a separate page to include more national and international reactions for such a controversial figure would make sense.  Expanding the article and renaming to either Death of Henry Kissinger or Reactions to the death of Henry Kissinger could work.  (the second one has already been used for similar circumstances, see Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II or Reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden ) -- jonas ( talk ) 23:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree with you if not for the fact that they're all just brief comments and the amount of them (right now, at least) don't compare to either of the articles you linked.  both were pretty much world events; Henry Kissinger's death was fairly minor compared to the two.  Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 01:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge if not expanded, move if expanded The existing content in the article is basically what's on Henry Kissinger , but if the article gets significantly expanded (which is quite likely), the article should be kept and moved to Reactions to the death of Henry Kissinger per jonas .  ❤History Theorist❤ 23:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you doubt, so, why I nominated this article for deletion if I wasn't sure, better said, I left the article intact and I wasn't deliberately putting in the deletion template, with the respect that you deserve, ok 8.242.167.228 ( talk ) 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Henry Kissinger - Madeleine Albright , Colin Powell , Warren Christopher , Alexander Haig had their death details incorporated into their bio articles.  — Maile ( talk ) 04:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete Obviously we do not need a separate article for the topic and we do not need to compile platitutes by unrelated people.  Those that are actually more relevant can be summarized in the main article, and this is not comparable to Elizabeth II.  Reywas92 Talk 05:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this can all be duly covered at his bio.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Re-direct into Kissinger's bio page.  GoodDay ( talk ) 05:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect As I feel it is a better outlet for AfD that an article be redirected not deleted, the remainder of this article should be merged into the appropriate section of the main Henry Kissinger article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Henry Kissinger#Death .  I agree with Conyo14 and others that there is no need for a separate article at this time, but a redirect with any relevant content merged to the appropriate section would be useful.  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 18:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge ,as others have said Inspector Semenych ( talk ) 18:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect As an WP:ATD : It's a valid search term and title that would likely be recreates as a redirect anyways.  Redirects like this title are are created all the time.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 22:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems like a redirect to Henry Kissinger#Death makes sense here.  SWinxy ( talk ) 23:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per others above ~ Gwennie 🐈 ｟ 💬 📋 ｠ 02:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no significance outside of the subject themself.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 07:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per others Wiki O'Ryan ( talk ) 23:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge would indeed be the wisest choice here.  TH1980 ( talk ) 02:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , I can see no significance of this article outside of the news cycle and the biography of Kissinger, Bacus15 ( talk ) 12:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per others Ryme071 ( talk ) 20:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - There's barely an article here.  It consists of 3 sentences and then a reactions section.  -- Cosmic6811 🍁 ( T · C ) 05:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a trimmed down version per others above, avoid turning it into a memorial.  There is no need or sourcing to support a stand alone article.  // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since all there is to Henry's singular page is ""quotes"", and even though it's developing, his funeral might be somewhere soon but the death of George H. W Bush has pictures of the Rotunda, state funeral and military salutes, in other ""Death and funeral"" wikipedia pages of others like Pope John Paul II.  There are pallbearers taking the coffin of John Paul, in these pages.  They describe how they died either in the page or in their own article but Henry's only cause of death on his death and funeral and Wikipedia page is nothing, barebone editing.  No natural causes or something.  In the article, it literally says ""also stated that the funeral would be private "" which essentially makes the entire page not at all a good page.  Nowhere near a Featured nether a Good Article.  70.167.194.163 ( talk ) 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge This article is mostly random quotes that could be merged into the main article.  If it had more substantial content then it might be worth keeping.  Mori Calliope fan talk 20:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as I don't see much content here worthy of being merged; Henry Kissinger#Death already has the relevant reactions.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 22:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There hasn't been significant developments other than immediate reactions from public figures, and the funeral has been kept private with few details, it looks like also there won't be a memorial service as initially planned so a slimmed down version of this article could easily be fit into the main subject's article.  See for example: Rosalynn Carter's section on how even a public memorial service didn't even need a full article.  Hyperba21 ( talk ) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Lei Wulong: Even checking sources like Scholar just brings up a few small mentions but nothing with meat on them.  This fails notability unfortunately.  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  The Kotaku source is good, but other than that, it's too weak, sadly.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Unfortunately the reception has no teeth, just the usual cookie-cutter character-ranking content and even less total than Lucky Chloe (though the bizarre comparison to Jar Jar Binks is admittedly remarkable).  Seconding the notion that Kotaku is the only thing worth salvaging.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 07:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge : One of the few Tekken character AFDs I can actually get behind.  He does seem to have a little notoriety in being based on Jackie Chan , and maybe with one or two more good sources, I would argue for a keep, but for the time being, I'm unopposed to a merge.  MoonJet ( talk ) 10:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Mac Beathaidh mac Ainmire: Single EL but no references.  Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Poetry , History ,  and Ireland .  UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ""Little is known"" about the person, means there is no sourcing.  I can't find anything in Gscholar, Books or Jstor we could use.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or, failing that, redirect to Ollamh Érenn .  If all that can be said about a subject is that they lived, held a title/post/role and then died, it would seem that they do not meet any applicable criteria.  The short pieces of text that we have in the article (copied/pasted from the Irish annals ) could just as easily be covered in the Ollamh Érenn article.  Not seeing the need for a standalone article on one such office/title-holder...  Guliolopez ( talk ) 15:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ollamh Érenn : as an WP:ATD .  There is simply no coverage of this person at all, save for extremely passing mentions in the four medieval annals.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge (to Ollamh Érenn ).  Note that there are multiple possible spellings of both Beathaidh and Ainmire.  Srnec ( talk ) 11:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to lack of online sources contemporary to the subject.  Better yet, due to lack of sources altogether.  Note: One would advise caution about Merging text unsupported by sources, since it is customary in these parts to defenestrate said texts rather than moving them about.  But a Redirect cannot be excluded.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] lack of online sources contemporary to the subject .  The subject died long before the internet.  All the contemporary sources cited in the article are available online.  Just click through to the articles.  Srnec ( talk ) 20:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - seems like a worthwhile section on a different page, if one can be agreed.  It's not inconceivable that more could be found if one looked in offline archives and libraries.  As/when someone does that, maybe there would be enough to satisfy the notability criteria.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete One of the lines in the article is ""Little is known of his life, other than his obituary"" so via WP:NOTMEMORIAL delete.  Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  05:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ollamh Érenn .  Spleodrach ( talk ) 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Michael Tarbox: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Michael Tarbox Tarbox Ramblers .  Failed to find significant coverage for the individual, only trivial mention of him as part of the band or coverage of other people with the same name.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 21:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Tutwakhamoe : , what are you suggesting here?  Your redirect target is the same as the current article.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I have made a mistake, I meant redirect to Tarbox Ramblers .  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 06:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I think the merge is ok, seems to be more well-known for the musical group.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] merge and redirect to Tarbox Ramblers .   Could add a separate section on solo works to include his album, but otherwise his career (and even the single WP:RS citation ) is bound up with that group.  Oblivy ( talk ) 05:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mege with Tarbox Ramblers .  Subject is non-notable aside from the band, but some content could be included in the band article.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 18:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.  Also wp:not.  Only ""Stats only"" sources.  North8000 ( talk ) 19:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time: Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election , Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election , Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 ( talk ) 16:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1958 Canadian federal election , which is quite short and can accomodate it without the need for a WP:SPLIT .  Reywas92 Talk 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Reywas92.  We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include.  -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Reywas92.  — Joeyconnick ( talk ) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Legend: Legacy of the Dragons: I searched on Google news and it's all just pages about different games with the same name.  Also, this page is written like an advertisement : things like ""The most notable difference in Legend: Legacy of the Dragons to most other games of this genre is the fight system which is animated and allows for great tactical depth."" -  ""great tactical depth"" is subjective.  Finally, most of the article is about game mechanics, not reception or development or anything real-world related.  Jannaultheal ( talk ) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to VK (company) (i.e. by creating a ""Games"" section).  It got mentioned here and here and here , which is enough to show it exists and merit a mention in the article, but doesn't appear standalone notable, though other language sources may exist for it.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per sources brought by ZVCQFX.  Merge discussion can be left to other venue like the talk pages.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 04:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seawolf35 T -- C 06:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm.  Disagree with the assessment that it should be kept since only GamesTM is WP:SIGCOV .  OceanHok ( talk ) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as above.  The sources lack reliable significant coverage about the game itself.  Of the above sources, none review the game.  Only the Games Industry article is a reliable source that describes the content of the game.  There is enough to adequately merge into the developer's article.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 03:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"GNOME Panel: As such, it may be appropriate to consider merging the information into the GNOME or deletion.  ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha ( 🧾 - 💬 ) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software .  ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha ( 🧾 - 💬 ) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 19:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] MERGE into GNOME .  Agree with nominator's reasons.  Bikerose ( talk ) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with GNOME : Lacks sources for a standalone article but still an important part of Gnome 1 and 2 and should be mentioned.  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Bore pitch: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This might be at the wrong title , but I'm not sure why we'd need to remove an article explaining a mechanical engineering parameter.  I got true positives for both ""bore pitch"" and ""bore spacing"" at Google Scholar, TWL, Gale Academic, and Springer.  Got results for ""bore spacing"" at Jstor.  Close to twenty inbound links to the article, and I'm not seeing a suitable merge target, with the caveat that I'm not a mechanical engineering.  I think this is clearly an engineering concept we should explain somewhere, even if it's not important enough to earn its own academic studies or book chapters.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 00:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Bore (engine) .  The Bore article is very short and sweet, but this is clearly a closely related concept that doesn't need a separate article.  Some of the content is unencyclopedic but the topic should be at least mentioned at target.  -- ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge never goes out fo style.  Two short articles related to each other are ripe for a merger.  Prefer to merge over deletion.  Bearian ( talk ) 01:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"KBRO-LD: Most references are to the FCC website.  Could merge into Dish Network .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colorado .  Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closing admin.  Please could you look at a suggestion I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPDC-LP for an alternative to deletion if it comes to that.  Thanks Karl Twist ( talk ) 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations : it is listed there, and a redirect there would seems like a valid alternative to deletion , though at the moment no programming information is listed there (which is pretty much all that could be merged there).  The Dish Network marketing the station is currently used for does not seem worthy of a merger there (and without that, a redirect there would bet too much of a surprise ).  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different proposed Merge target articles.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations , which, unlike Dish Network , mentions this topic.  It's basically Dish's ATSC 3.0 sandbox.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 16:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Skartaris: Plot summary and few notes about media appearances.  Fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE failed to find anything of use.  Best WP:ATD I can think of would be to redirect this to the comic series it is the setting of.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Comics and animation .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the Publication History section to Warlord (DC Comics) , which has some useful information.  The rest is trivial, and the location itself does not appear to pass GNG.  Rhino131 ( talk ) 13:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Warlord (DC Comics) : Almost all of the sources in the article are various comics, and the brief mentions in marginally reliable sources are little better.  ― Susmuffin Talk 02:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with the extradimensional realms section of List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 17:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Warlord (DC Comics) .  Some light merging from the ""Publication History"" might be warranted, but that is about it.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"2020 North Carolina's 11th congressional district election: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_North_Carolina#District_11 , most of the content is there already anyway; individual congressional elections generally don't need standalone articles.  Reywas92 Talk 20:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Reywas92 and nom - not especially notable.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge No separate articles for other congressional districts too.  Killarnee ( talk ) 22:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to 2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_North_Carolina#District_11 per Reywas92 and others.  Clearly no need for a standalone article .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to be enough content for a standalone article.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is about the 11th congressional district election, should all other individual congressional elections get an own article too?  Or what's so special about this district?  Killarnee ( talk ) 01:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Masaaki Ueki: A bare number of sources (two) and no corresponding Japanese article strongly suggest he does not meet WP:GNG in addition to clearly failing WP:NSPORT .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts ,  and Japan .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I haven't had a chance to do any sort of research so not ready to give an opinion yet.  However, I am leaning keep simply on the basis that there's little reason to believe that OP did a WP:BEFORE search that included Japanese-language sources .  If he had, he would have quickly run across the corresponding Japanese-language article which the nomination asserts does not exist.  DCsansei ( talk ) 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OOPS!  WP:TROUT moment for me here.  I copied the name listed in the article, which (had a space) at the time.  The article did not have a space, so I missed it and assumed there wasn't an article.  I've struck that from the nom.  Looking at that article, there's only one source and its WP:ABOUTSELF , so I think the nom is still good, at least.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough.  I haven't been able to turn up much of anything here.  It's odd given what's seemingly verifiable about his importance within Karate as head of Japan Karate Association but not much in the way of coverage of any of that.  I don't want to ! vote delete since I think the odds that there are sources offline in Japanese are very high but can't demonstrate that at this point.  DCsansei ( talk ) 10:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Japan Karate Association which he is chief instructor of [143] .  There likely is enough to write a biography of Ueki but I don't have access to Japanese newspaper archives (which are largely not digitized).  Fwiw, likely that this book published by Kodansha by one of his contemporaries in JKA covers him.  There is this coverage of his visit to New Zealand.  Would not be opposed to keeping and happy to revisit if more is found.  DCsansei ( talk ) 11:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  06:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Japan Karate Association There's no evidence given that there's significant independent coverage to justify an individual article, but he is mentioned three times in the JKA article.   The individual article can be recreated if better references are found.   Meanwhile, he's linked to the organization he's most closely associated with.  Papaursa ( talk ) 02:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Grenada and the International Monetary Fund: WP:BEFORE doesn't show much that couldn't simply be merged to Grenada#Economy at absolute best.  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , Business ,  and Grenada .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 09:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I think we maybe need to look a bit deeper for sources as I think there may well be academic references which directly address the subject such as 1 and 2 JMWt ( talk ) 09:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article would have to be be entirely supported on the first source then JMWt .  As I said in the nomination, I don't see a reason for an independent article; the second would be far better served being used in Grenada#Economy .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well that's an opinion.  As far as I'm concerned in the main we are trying to think about policy, and I can't really see a good reason why there is a lack of notability of a page describing a country's relations with the IMF - when there is academic study describing it as important.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - other than the notability question, this is a very encyclopedic article.  The IMF is a reliable source; the question is independence for reliability purposes; I could possibly be persuaded that it's sufficient.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The IMF sources fall into the category of ""reliable but not independent""; in a case like this, it is valid for use in the article, but I'm not sure you could judge notability merely on that.  On the other hand, the Kirton source above seems to indicate there is more likely to be notability than not (though it is quite outdated).  Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Curbon7 : personally I don't see how an economic analysis of four/five months in 1983 to be sufficient to establish notability; why do you?  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 08:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What I was getting at, and perhaps did not explain well-enough, is that a 23-page scholarly analysis in a reputable journal is an indication that there may be other similar sources (granted, 1983 was a hell of a year for Grenada ); I was not making a definitive statement that it alone establishes notability.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 09:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In fairness there are more recent academic journal papers describing the longer term impacts of the IMF intervention.  JMWt ( talk ) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article is well-written and encyclopaedic.  I think it passes GNG easily as written and the only real problem is a lack of sources.  I believe that Curbon7 's argument toward RSs-yet-to-be-found is also valuable.  I do not think that deletion will improve Wikipedia.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  22:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : I think the best option is to condense relevant parts into Economy of Grenada .  I'm happy to do this, if others agree; just ping me.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, this is not the same as the nom's suggestion to merge it into the economy section of Granada , which I would oppose. -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist, we have an editor arguing to Keep this article and ones advocating a Merge, either to Economy of Grenada or to Grenada#Economy .  Any last thoughts about this?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Lin Zhijian's paper plagiarism case: Many of the sources are very low quality, and the article's level of detail seems idiosyncratic, unencyclopedic, and more than a little POV if treatment of plagiarism by other public figures in articles is anything to go by.  I feel I have little choice than to bring it to AfD, I'm not even sure what else needs to be said about the plagiarism on Lin's own article.  Remsense 诉 06:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Lin Chih-chien for all the reasons you give.   Policies and guidelines may include WP:SUSTAINED and WP:POVFORK .   As you say there's not a lot more to be said on Lin's article, although that section of his article could use a bit of editing.  Oblivy ( talk ) 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Politics ,  and Education .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per User:Oblivy.  -- Wish for Good ( talk ) 04:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Cleanup is needed (including mispelling of Chih-chien as Zhijian), but there are arguably RS covering this incident, so it seems to pass WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic from the subject's biography.  (Most sources are in Chinese, unfortunately, but for example Taipei Times covered this in multiple dedicated articles: [26] , [27] , [28] - note are cited, in our article which unfortunately relies solely on Chinese sources, likely due to being a translation from Chinese Wikipedia).  We have many similar articles, see Category:Plagiarism controversies .  What we need is a review of sources by someone familiar with Chinese (Taiwanese) outlets, in terms of which are reliable.  PS.  The incident is mentioned in at least one academic, English article: Liao, D. C. (2023).  "" Party Turnover"" on the Move?  Assessing and Forecasting the Dynamics of Taiwan's Politics after the 2022 Local Elections.  American Journal of Chinese Studies, 30(1).  (I can't link it due to EBSCO being link unfriendly and paywalled, but it comes up in Google Scholar query here .  -- Piotrus at Hanyang | reply here 04:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't really disputed that the subject passes WP:GNG , but could you articulate why the subject should have its own article and isn't best treated in a section of Lin Chih-chien per WP:PAGEDECIDE ?  Notability is not the only criterion for whether a page should exist.  Remsense 诉 07:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Page size and WP:DUE (particularly in BLP context) are all relevant considerations.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a tad troubling if the best solution is to have a very underdeveloped base BLP and a very well-developed article about an exclusively negative aspect of that BLP.  I do not think this is in keeping with the spirit of NPOV if we let the abstraction of a separation in pages result in the total content of material covering a BLP be totally lopsided like this.  See the examples at WP:SPINOFF .  Remsense 诉 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I tend to agree with @ Remsense except I don't agree it's a particularly ""well-developed article"", just a long one.  I think any merge would have to cut it down quite a bit.   Lin's article is relatively short at about 13K and this one is about 50K.  Even if all of the text was ported over (something I'd 100% oppose for WP:DUE reasons) it still wouldn't be beyond page size guidelines.  Note that the plagiarism article is entirely about Lin, not about some larger issue of which this incident was emblematic.  There's a sentence fragment about strengthened anti-plagiarism measures at the school, and a weak attempt to blame the DPP's overall showing on him.  The latter is only supported by a source that regurgitates a press conference in which he apologized.  Nothing is gained by separating the two.  Oblivy ( talk ) 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge due to NPOV concerns and because the article doesn't cover anything that could not be discussed in the main article on the subject.  Jake Wartenberg ( talk ) 14:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Easy Allies: Described as website, however main output appear to be videos and livestreams.  Only notable source is blog Kotaku, which mentions former GameTrailers staff.  Merge into GameTrailers subsection may be viable.  IgelRM ( talk ) 01:28, 5 April 2023 (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/2023 April 5 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Video games , Companies ,  and California .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , while somewhat notable within the context of GT, I don't think it merits its own article for the moment.  -- ProtoDrake ( talk ) 19:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 08:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Nom's rationale seems sound - there are few sources online about them.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zxcvbnm.  Timur9008 ( talk ) 13:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds: Information could likely just be included in the city or county's page, which even then would seemingly amount to ""The city also has a fairgrounds"".  A separate article could potentially be made for the Santa Cruz County Fair - though this also seems like it would best be included in the greater Santa Cruz, California article.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 23:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Watsonville, California § Culture which already covers the subject.  — siro χ o 23:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP there is absolutely no reason to merge this article Evangp ( talk ) 04:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Evangp I see you are the creator of this article.  Do you have any particular reason why the contents of this article can not / should not exist within the greater city or county pages?  There doesn't seem to be much of anything distinguishing the fairgrounds as independently notable, and it's hard (in my opinion) to discern what this article really provides, especially as it has remained essentially unchanged for 10~ years.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Watsonville, California#Culture .  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 09:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"System Shock Infinite: A WP:BEFORE yields only three reliable articles out there from Rock Paper Shotgun [40] , PC Gamer [41] and GameStar [42] .  The GameStar source does provide some good coverage and thoughts on the game's features and faults.  The RPS source describes the concept and plot in a paragraph but doesn't assess it beyond stating that it's ""fanfic-y"".  The PC Gamer article briefly announces there's an update for it and assesses that it's a ""neat concept"".   I feel there just isn't enough variety of independent coverage in these sources beyond describing what it is.  Thanks in advance for any thoughts.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 05:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 05:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to System Shock 2 .  It got a mention in Kotaku as well, but SIGCOV is limited to GameStar, which doesn't pass muster in my book.  However, it is at least worthy of a mention.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with System Shock : As there is some sourcing talking about this mod, we could probably put a mention that it exists and was reviewed.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 12:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  OceanHok ( talk ) 11:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Teaching as Leadership: fails notability guidelines for books .  lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  lettherebedarklight 晚安 11:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No independent sources.  Maproom ( talk ) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep It's got a review here [10] , and it got cited in Malaysian sources [11] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete When one of your two article sources is Teach For America for a book published by the Chief Knowledge Office at Teach For America, you're in the weeds.  WP:BEFORE shows more affiliate links than you can shake a stick at, but no evidence of depth of review or impact.  An ATD would be a redirect to Teach for America ...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge to Teach for America as a new L3 section, otherwise keep per Oaktree b.  This does appear to have attracted roughly the bare minimum of coverage required by WP:NBOOK , namely having been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself .  More prevalent, though, seems to be coverage that talks about ""Teaching as Leadership"" as a philosophical framework of Teach for America, of which the book is merely a prominent representation, e.g. [12] , [13] , [14] .  To my mind we would best serve the reader by following those sources, and having a section in the Teach for America article that discusses the TAL framework with reference to the TAL book.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per sources uncovered plus 311 citations on Google scholar.  Something is notable about this book.  If that fully hinges on it's place in ""Teach for America"" and the framework of the same name, then merge seems fine.  — siro χ o 05:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ siroxo : may i ask where you got the number of citations?  lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hopefully this Google scholar page [15] works?  Also, WP:ACADEMIC#Citation metrics has some caveats about Google scholar citation counts if you haven't seen it yet — siro χ o 09:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i haven't a clue what you're seeing, but i'm getting only 6 results.  lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you able to see a ""cited by <number>"" beneath the first result there?  — siro χ o 09:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] oh, yep.  but what does this have to do with the notability of a book?  lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like, enough academics used this book in some capacity to their research that if we say its ""not notable"" we may be missing something.  Since we're discussing it I've dived in a bit more, and found a 340 word book review by Joey Estes in Childhood Education(Vol. 88, Issue 6) , so there's one example of something that can turn up in a citation of a book.  — siro χ o 10:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Teach for America per Visviva.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Kadabra: Any discussion that was there is barebones and extremely limited, with the most reaction being to one particular Pokedex entry and in all fairness all the same reaction.  WP:BEFORE didn't provide anything else either, and when listicle and extremely brief sources were cleaned out there wasn't anything left.  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Addendum: Discussion seems to lean towards possibly moving this to Kadabra controversy or at the very least moving the information to Uri Geller 's page on here. I think either option would be fine as an alternative.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 00:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam - we went over this 2 years ago and everyone decided that Kadabra was the only notable Pokemon there. Stuff like this , this and this are definitive proof it's notable, and whether it's due to a controversy or by its own merits is irrelevant. At most it's a discussion for a potential move to Kadabra controversy , but some page on this should exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the very least the argument can be made that the controversy is the notable aspect and not the Pokemon itself, but it's still something that can be summarized briefly in a sentence or two. Why would you feel a whole article is necessary?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's been news coverage over decades, so I feel like this is indicative of an unnecessary rush to merge things that may be notable unto themselves. There's not really a specific reason I think it's necessary , I just also don't agree it should be forced into a merge. I think my views are best summed up with WP:NOTPAPER - if it's minor, but it's notable, Wikipedia doesn't have to combine it to ""save space"" or some such. There's space for most anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But it's still just one singular event, and even then looking at the sources there's not a lot to say. It can be summed up in a single paragraph, and the other aspects of Kadabra as a fictional character have nothing to do with it.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 06:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this were before there was a bunch of news coverage about how Geller took back his accusations, I'd probably agree with you. I think that shows WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and importance. The fact that this has been an issue that fans have cared deeply about for 20 years and enough to force a well-known figure to walk something back is unusual for most characters, much less an individual Pokemon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur with Zx's argument after some debate. I wouldn't be opposed to a move to a ""Kadabra controversy"" page, or a potential merge to Geller 's own article, but the information here is inherently notable. I feel the focus being on the Pokemon may be a bit misplaced, given the focus on the controversy more than anything else. Kadabra did have some controversy besides that, but I don't know if it's enough to merit separation. As an aside, I went searching for additional sources a while back and found these: It's a Dark World - Google Books These are the creepiest Pokemon to ever exist - WIN.gg But they're admittedly rather iffy, and I don't know if that's even close to enough to help the article substantially. If anyone performs a search and finds anything not in the article, then it might help its case. Regardless, I'm willing to change my vote depending on how the discussion goes, but for now I'll concur with a Weak Keep vote. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking into it, win.gg appears to not be listed on WP:VG/RS ; however, my observation is that it does not appear to have an editorial policy, and the staff's credentials are not evident. I would contend that it is almost certainly not reliable. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 12:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, it's a very iffy source, but I felt it would be good to at least reference its existence just in case. Doesn't seem like it'll be too handy now, though. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per as hashed out 2 years ago and determined notable by standards that have not appreciably changed since. Jclemens ( talk ) 23:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Kadabra is notable for a single event. I also find that a ""Kadabra controversy"" article would run afoul of recent decisions regarding controversy articles. For something that can easily be summed up in a few sentences - ""[Whomever got sued] was sued by Uri Geller for allegedly stealing his spoon bending as part of creating the design for Kadabra. This led to Kadabra not being featured in the Pokémon Trading Card Game for years in order to avoid controversy. Geller ultimately gave permission for Nintendo to resume printing of the card after Pokémon fan comments convinced him to do so.""  The article relies exclusively on this event to assert notability; the concept and creation section's only creation info is that Kadabra once had a different name, and the rest of the Reception has nothing of note. It's either listicles that all say the same thing, a non-notable and unverified instance of a preacher calling out Kadabra as Satanic, and additional details tied to the Geller case. Are we truly saying that a Pokémon is notable solely based on a single event? It seems to me like an extremely low bar for notability at that rate. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep consensus was to keep 2 years ago and that Kadabra is especially notable of the 3 Pokemon included in that AFD. Not much has changed since then. FYI the nominator blanked large parts of the reception section prior to nominating it for deletion . While some of the removal was fair enough, I've restored the sourcing which I believe to be more than a ""trivial mention"" which is the litmus test used for WP:SIGCOV . As part of the blanking rationale it was said that listicles can't be used. I believe that as long as their is some level of discussion about the character a listicle is fine to include per SIGCOV which states the article subject ""does not need to be the main topic of the source material"". This is notwithstanding that SIGCOV is purely a notability guideline and does not dictate MOS, i.e. article content. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 08:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now hold on, I outright stated at the beginning I removed sources that were mostly trivial or unusable, and you restored two (2): one is an Inverse article repeating the ""kid can turn into Kadabra is creepy!"" sentiment in the very same manner as two of the previous entries, and the other is ScreenRant which is doing exactly the same thing , and per WP:VG/S shouldn't be used for notability more often than not. With [12] and [13] saying the same thing, are we really arguing repeated lists commenting about the same single Pokedex entry makes it notable? Previous AfDs on this same sort of subject have shown that doesn't hold much water.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Point taken re ScreenRant (though I do question whether WP:VG has the power to override a WP:RSN discussion that Screen Rant is usable for everything except controversial statements in BLPs . I do not agree with your other point though. Surely multiple reliable sources independently saying the same thing about something makes said thing more notable, not less. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's more a case of all the sources saying exactly the same sentiment on exactly the same thing, and it doesn't help ""disturbing pokedex entry lists"" are to Pokemon what ""Top 10 Hotties lists"" are to female video game characters when it comes to media outlets. If they said different things (especially about different entries) I would agree but they could easily just be bulletpoint chained behind one encompassing ref.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Lawsuits section of Uri Geller . There have been several AfD nominations for Pokemon entries recently. In terms of notability, the consensus for these sort of determinations seems to be whether there are independent and reliable sources that offer some perspective about the Pokemon external to the work, often its design or reception. Sources with trivial reception (i.e. listicles stating it's the best, it's ""scary"", or it's ""cool"") tend not to be seen as a strong case for notability, which makes up most of this article's 'Reception' section.  I'm not sure this is a Snorlax -type article where anything significant is being said in independent sources about Kadabra itself, how it was conceived, what impact it has had on popular culture, and anything in-depth about its reception.  The sourcing is generally poor.  Arguments that the AfD has already been considered should note the discussion was for Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam , which had three times the sources of the current article.  In this case, I think the only thing establishing notability is the Geller controversy, which does seem to have engendered some mainstream attention, such as People , CBS , and BBC , but this is an unusual case where the notability of the subject matter is being argued for its controversy revolving around someone else.  Given Geller's litigious reputation and coverage in his article, that episode is appropriate to cover there.  Without that section, I think the article would not be notable in its current state.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment After going through the reception and cleaning it up, I found multiple cases where the text was somewhat padded, as well as some text that was not true to what was written in the source.  Aside from the Geller sources, which are easily summed up in a single paragraph, you have a preacher whose criticisms of Kadabra were reported on by only one newspaper; a handful of sources reacting to Pokedex entries and making roughly the same commentary; and a user poll.  I've not yet looked into the sources provided in the AfD, however.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 12:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Cukie Gherkin.  Only the lawsuit section has anything substantial and independent.  I removed the line about the preacher taking issue with it as WP:UNDUE .  SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 15:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pokemon Trading Card Game , where the relevant controversy can be covered.  If Kadabra were a BLP, this would be a BLP1E which wouldn’t necessarily require an article on its own.   That aside, that’s all that’s really noteworthy about Kadabra, and putting it in the card game article highlights its impact there.  Red Phoenix talk 17:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the Lawsuits section of Uri Geller or Pokemon Trading Card Game.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 18:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above, as there is good information in lawsuits but not needed as an article on it's own.  Utopes ( talk / cont ) 05:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a lot of the coverage isn't really about this Pokemon, and there is a better target to cover it.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Sha Tin Junior School: See WP:MILL .  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of English Schools Foundation schools .  Pasmorade ( talk ) 19:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to English Schools Foundation .  WP:MILL is an essay and is not sufficient reason to delete.  However, it is interesting to note that the article currently cites zero sources, which is a red flag.  Before deciding to delete, we perform a WP:BEFORE search, which shows that Sha Tin Junior School is frequently mentioned in the South China Morning Post .  However, after checking a dozen or so of these articles, it appears that most of these articles are brief mentions.  So far, I haven't been able to find one that focuses in depth on Sha Tin Junior School; the newspaper typically covers STJS alongside other ESF schools, and so redirecting to English Schools Foundation seems apt.  I don't agree with redirecting to List of English Schools Foundation schools , as it seems unclear whether that list meets the criteria for a stand-alone list, and the other article offers a lot more depth about the subject.  Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to English Schools Foundation#Schools per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion .  I did not find significant coverage about Sha Tin Junior School ( traditional Chinese : 沙田小學 ; simplified Chinese : 沙田小学 ) in my searches for sources.  Cunard ( talk ) 09:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Mary Gloria Lawson: No independent, third-party, reliable sources present, with the exception of a brief article from the AP regarding her death.  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law ,  and Louisiana .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, sadly, there isn't much coverage.  [16] is what I found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni , not enough to support an independent article in my opinion but worth keeping a reference on the list.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I agree that this article should be merged into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni as there are not enough useable sources to support an independent article.  Paul H. ( talk ) 19:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni per Indefensible and Paul H. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into SULC , same reasons as above.  Kalethan ( talk ) 18:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NBASIC .  If more sources are found, I would be pleased to reconsider my ! vote.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Southern University Law School#Notable alumni Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Probka Restaurant Group: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it.  Some coverage, but not enough.  Boleyn ( talk ) 15:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies ,  and Russia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Aram Mnatsakanov as he's primarily notable for this group.  Examples how they're discussed in the sources togeter: 1 , 2 -- PaulT2022 ( talk ) 00:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This seems to be a promotion of non-notable enterprise.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 11:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Aram Mnatsakanov - seems like the most logical decision as per WP:ATD .  As it stands, this topic has no independent notability.  HighKing ++ 20:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"AS/NZS 3788: TarnishedPath talk 11:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia .  TarnishedPath talk 11:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete My PROD was removed with no improvement.  No indication this generic standard is notable – there's a lot of standards out there and would need sources and explanation beyond statement of existence.  Reywas92 Talk 13:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Standards Australia - Follow-on to AS3959 .  Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), the subject does not pass WP:GNG .  It clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability.   This is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Many standards, including this one, are adopted by government agencies and therefore have the force of law.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The result would be identical if it were an actual law.  On its own, it is simply not notable.  The Standards Australia article is the right home for this info.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This does not make them notable in and of themselves.  Please refer to WP:KITCHENSINK .  Wikipedia is not a random collection of information.  TarnishedPath talk 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I could not find any coverage that would meet GNG.  The fact that many standards have the force of law is irrelevant to satisfying GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge maybe into Hydrostatic test NealeWellington ( talk ) 10:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Multiple Merge targets proposed here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  We are just trying to settle on one Merge target article here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to hydrostatic test , seems the more appropriate redirect.  Deus et lex ( talk ) 05:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Wolastoq: While some have proposed the river be renamed Wolastoq , governments in Canada and the US have not done so.  It seems clear that the widely accepted name is ""Saint John River"".  This article has been discussed at WP:CANADA and there seems to be a consensus, at least there, that this page should be deleted or merged into Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) .  Some editors there said that once this page is a redirect it should be WP:SALTed to prevent re-creation.  Darryl Kerrigan ( talk ) 01:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 01:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Canada ,  and Maine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I invite attention to this discussion to understand the origin of this article.  The status of this river as an international boundary artificially splits the region's previous history as a single first nation with important contributions to preservation of the Acadian way of life.  I am of the opinion this material might be integrated into the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article from which it was removed by Cornellier .  Failure to keep this information together needlessly fragments background circumstances important to understanding of that history.  This situation may justify application of WP:IAR to the WP:WikiProject Rivers guidelines.  Thewellman ( talk ) 03:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't really understand this point of view.  A river being an international boundary does not preclude coverage of subjects that cross that international boundary.  JM ( talk ) 08:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) .  Salting seems necessary, given the political nature of the differing names.  G. Timothy Walton ( talk ) 05:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge, and salt as a WP:POVFORK rewrite of the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article covering the exact same subject but from a certain POV.  Even the first sentence of the article makes it an obvious POVFORK, covering the same exact subject as Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) in a First Nations POV rather than the conventional geography: Wolastoq (Maliseet-Passamaquoddy: “The River of the Good Wave”), changed in 1604 by Samuel de Champlain to Fleuve Saint-Jean (English: Saint John River), is a river flowing within the Dawnland region for approximately 418 miles (673 km) .  NPOV is a pillar, and having 2 articles about the same subject with one from NPOV and one from a First Nations POV violates that pillar.  JM ( talk ) 08:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (or Delete ) then salt.  Definate POV Fork.  Masterhatch ( talk ) 09:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SALTing this unique indigenous name in favor of the ambiguous term Saint John would reject a name used for thousands of years in favor of a recent identification used for a few centuries.   Rejection of the indigenous name would be a continuation of European Christian devaluation of the ethnicity of the river valley's indigenous people.   This river unified an early civilization as the Nile unified Egypt and the Tigris and Euphrates unified what is now know as Iraq.   A merged article entitled Wolastoq would uniquely identify this river while Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) could redirect modern users to the article including a history of the renaming.  Thewellman ( talk ) 18:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In English (and this is the English wikipedia) Saint John is the common name.  Wolastoq is the name in the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy language.  Deleting this article doesn't ""reject a name used for thousands of years in favor of a recent identification used for a few centuries"" as Wolastoq is not English.  If we had a Maliseet-Passamaquoddy language wiki, then it would make sense to name that river Wolastoq there.  Having two articles like this about the same subject is a clear POV fork.  Masterhatch ( talk ) 19:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:COMMONNAME for why that's wrong.  Saint John River (and its translations and transliterations) is the name used by most of the world now , including all provincial, state, and federal governments involved.  It doesn't matter what name was used hundreds of years ago, whether it was used for 10 years or 10,000 years, because it's not used now .  JM ( talk ) 20:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The official name in French is Rivière Saint-Jean; the fact we don't use it in the title here is the best parallel to this issue.  G. Timothy Walton ( talk ) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right (although to my knowledge it's fleuve Saint-Jean ), and the reason we don't use it in the title is because it is not the English common name.  This is English Wikipedia.  JM ( talk ) 21:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The comparison to the French version of the name isn't exactly apt.  There are efforts to rename the river in English by adopting the indigenous name as the official English (and perhaps French) name for the river.  It's just that those proposals haven't been successful yet (and might never be).  There has also been attempts to compromise by adopting ""Wolastoq Saint John"", but that hasn't happened yet either.  At the end of the day, the article should be where readers will look for it per WP:RF .  Though, I would suspect the other name should be mentioned in the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article perhaps in the history section where it could be mentioned that the river was known as Wolastoq prior to European colonization, in a section or paragraph about efforts to change the official name back to Wolastoq, or, if appropriate, in the lede.  The way to recognize the name is not to create a WP:POVFORK though. -- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk ) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, if the former common name pre-colonization and the attempts to change the name are notable, then they can be in the main article.  The comparison to the French name comes from the fact that neither name is the English common name, although of course there are no significant attempts to rename the river in English to its French name.  JM ( talk ) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if the name is officially changed, the wiki article might not change due to common name.  Examples are Turkey and Ivory Coast .  There are lots of other examples out there where the common name and official name aren't the same.  Anyways, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it if the name is ever officially changed.  Masterhatch ( talk ) 22:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course.  Wikipedia goes by common name, not official name.  JM ( talk ) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In the absence of persistent disruptive editing, I question both characterization of this river history as a POV fork, and it's relevance to present renaming discussions, since its creation was motivated solely to preserve, in intact format, material deleted from the Saint John River article by a single editor based on interpretation of WP:WikiProject Rivers guidelines.  Thewellman ( talk ) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because even the title and opening sentence are POV.  Paraphrasing, but ""Wolastoq is a river in the Dawnland"" is not at all in conventional geography.  Neither of those terms are common names.  If it weren't a POVFORK, it would say ""Saint John River is a river in New Brunswick and Maine"" or something.  Regardless if it's a POVFORK or not (although I believe it is), if material is deleted from the Saint John River article and there is a consensus to keep it out, then people shouldn't go create another article on the same river with that deleted material, because that makes two articles covering the same subject differently.  I notice that you've now voted merge, so you must see a similar problem by now.  JM ( talk ) 20:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As should be clear from this discussion , I preferred merge from the onset; but drafted this amplifying history article at the suggestion of the editor who deleted the material.   The consensus was to put the history in a different article.   Disagreement appears to have arisen about the title of that history article.  Thewellman ( talk ) 04:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge any relevant text, then salt.  ""Saint John River"" is the official name in both countries.   No need to confuse readers with two articles about the same topic.  Magnolia677 ( talk ) 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the Human history section of the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article, but retain as a redirect.  WP:SALTing this unique indigenous name, in the absence of persistent disruptive recreation, would be a disrespectful continuation of European Christian devaluation of the ethnicity of the river valley's indigenous people.  Thewellman ( talk ) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I don't agree with a merge nor do I think the article has to be a POV fork; it should be rewritten if possible.  It states ""it remains a cultural centre of the Wabanaki Confederacy to this day"" so if it was rewritten to support that, then it would be its unique article.  I wrote a similar article at Bdóte which explains how it is culturally significant to Dakota people and something similar could be done to this article if there's sources to support it.  oncamera (talk page) 21:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The difference is that your article seems to be on a subject that is not covered elsewhere, whereas this article is about the Saint John River under a different name but with a very conspicuous First Nations POV.  It can't be rewritten and saved because no matter how it is rewritten it still covers the exact same river under a different, and non-English, name.  JM ( talk ) 21:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the article covered why it's ""a cultural centre of the Wabanaki Confederacy to this day"", it would be its own article and not just covering the river.  I see on this site, Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada : ""as the river running the length of their territory, it has nurtured the Wolastoqiyik physically, culturally and spiritually over millennia. Tradition tells that the watershed itself was created by a great man who saved the people and brought water to them by felling a tree on the monster Aglebe’m, and the Gluskup stories record the creation of many of the river’s features;"" ""Wolastoq means “the Beautiful River” in the Maliseet language, while Wolastoqiyik means “the People of the Beautiful River”. While this territory includes many sites of settlement, communication, resource utilization, and spirituality, it is specifically the Wolastoq itself, its lakes and tributaries that connects these sites and unites the Wolastoqiyik as a nation. The watershed represents the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik and includes many sites of settlement, communication, resource utilization and spirituality. The many Indigenous place names throughout the watershed link past and present, complementing elders’ stories of traditional uses and evidence from archaeology. "" ""places along its length speak to the importance of “the Beautiful River” to the Wolastoqiyik over time and space, including their 17th-century habitation at Menahkwesh near the mouth of the river; their Grand Council Chamber and annual gathering spot on Kani Uten, an island at the head of tide; and on land located at the divide between the middle and upper parts of the river valley that became part of a Wolastoqkew reserve in 1801, at the upper part of the river, on River Road, Tobique First Nation.""  With more research on this topic, it can accurately cover Wolastoqiyik continued history to this location that belongs at this article name and not at Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) .  oncamera (talk page) 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There was a consensus here that language imitating or reflecting the practice of a First Nations ""land acknowledgement"" would be non-neutral and inappropriate on Canadian city articles.   I believe it could be extended to an article about a river.  Magnolia677 ( talk ) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh?  This isn't a land acknowledgement and has no relevancy to writing an article that explains the history and cultural significance that a tribe has to a sacred location; Native peoples' history is embedded in the land and the two are intrinsically connected.  Writing about the history, oral traditions that go back thousands of years is not the same as a white government putting a land acknowledgment on their website.  I can rewrite this article using sources that go over the bullet points listed above in the same format as Bdóte if it's not salted.  oncamera (talk page) 22:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The history or cultural significance of the river should be contained in the article about the river.  If that article gets so long that it can't be contained there, a neutral sub-article (ie fork) titled something like History of the Saint John River could be created.  But until that happens, historical, anthropological and cultural information should be in the main article.  If editors there can't be convinced that it belongs there, then a WP:POVFORK that looks at the river only from an indigenous perspective is not the answer. -- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk ) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wolastoq should be written beyond the river itself and include the Wolastoqiyik relationship to the river, valleys and tributaries since their geographical relationship isn't bound to simply the river itself per Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada , which is a Canadian government website. This article could even be redirected to Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada , which shouldn't be a redirect to the river. The Canadian government sees it as a ""Designation of National Historic Significance"", not as the river. oncamera (talk page) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The national historic site covers most of NB (thousands of square kms). It seems like a way of giving some limited recognition to the historic territory of the Maliseet and perhaps to drumb up tourism in the area. Why can't information about the Maliseet's historic territory and their relationship with it be dealt with in the article about them? Insofar as it relates to the river itself, in that article? This seems like a pretty obvious POV fork.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk ) 23:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada is different from Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) just like Pipestone National Monument is different from Pipestone, Minnesota .  As its recognized by the Canadian government as a significant heritage site, it's not a ""POV fork"" to write about Wolastoqiyik significance of Wolastoq as its own article.  oncamera (talk page) 00:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there is significant coverage and it's not OR, having an article about the national historic site is fine.  What's not fine is having an article about a river when there is already a pre-existing article about that same river except this new article frames it from a First Nations POV.  The article is about the river, not the historic site or the cultural area or the ethnic group.  JM ( talk ) 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are numerous sources for Wolastoq as a historic site that go into great scholarly detail: W∂last∂kwey (Maliseet) Homeland: Waterscapes and Continuity within the Lower St. John River Valley, 1784-1900 Wolastoqiyak Ajemseg, The People of the Beautiful River at Jemseg: Important Stories and Spoken Histories Wolastoqiyak Ajemseg: Archaeological Results Maliseet Cultivation and Climatic Resilience on the Wəlastəkw/St.  John River During the Little Ice Age oncamera (talk page) 02:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is a well-developed article, which has potential for further development as outlined above.  There are plenty cultural geography articles; no reason to eliminate this one.  Yuchitown ( talk ) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] This discussion isn't about what the article ""could be"", it's about what it is ""right now"", and if you read the article, it mostly documents the history and geography of the river, which duplicates content at Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) .  User:Yuchitown , why should we have two ""well-developed"" articles on exactly the same topic?   If your point is, in fact, that this river has unique mythical/religious significance to First Nations people, which some editors like User:Oncamera or User:Masterhatch are arguing, then this could be added to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) .  A discussion about the naming dispute could also be added to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) .   No one has said these topics are not important, or should not be included somewhere on Wikipedia.  It's just that...decisions on Wikipedia are not made based on feelings or politics or what ""could be"", they are based on what is in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers , and having two articles about exactly the same topic--one using a common, officially-recognized name, and one without--does not advance that cause.  Magnolia677 ( talk ) 11:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can start adding the new information about the cultural significance of the heritage site as I posted a number of sources to do so.  The heritage site is recognized by the Canadian government.  Your renaming rant seems to be about something neither I nor Yuchitown are talking about.  Please refrain from making strawman arguments against us.  oncamera (talk page) 11:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m voting “Keep” based on exactly what it now.  It’s well cited and notable.  Yuchitown ( talk ) 13:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] That's ignoring the fact that it has the exact same subject as another article but under a POV name.  Yes, it's well-cited and notable, but it's a duplicate article except with a POV.  JM ( talk ) 19:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge based on common, current name.  Intothat darkness 15:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Wolastoq National Historic Site or something, per oncamera and Yuchitown.  While the article does contain reduplicated content, it should be expanded and rewritten to be more about the river as a heritage site rather than a fork of the main article.  PersusjCP ( talk ) 18:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems that the Wolastoq National Historic Site is not a park or something but essentially the entire Canadian portion of the Saint John River Valley.  The government site describes a broad area including public, private and indiginous lands that make up [t]he entire drainage system has nurtured the Wolastoqiyik (ie the Maliseet ).  In my view this should be dealt with in the Maliseet article or the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article.  But if not, something like Wolastoq National Historic Site or Saint John River Valley (region) might be okay.  Leaving the article at its current title, is going to welcome an article that looks at the region/historic site only from an indigenous perspective.  That is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about.  If this article's content remains, it must do so somewhere where a WP:NPOV will be followed, and where the topic is covered from a broad perspective. -- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk ) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a thought, and I agree with ' Keep , but would it be easier to draftify and allow editors to make the changes suggested? I think we shouldn't ignore the significance of this historic cultural place to First Nations people. I could see if it was completely unsourced but that obviously isn't the case. I do think it should avoid being solely about the river or that risks being a fork of the main article. But I think what is proposed by oncamera and Yuchitown would make sure the article is original enough and display the historical significance of the river and site to First Nations people that would benefit the encyclopedia. The article subject is notable and while I don't believe the intention of those in opposition of keeping the article is to downplay its historical significance that often is the result to the detriment of Wikipedia, our readers, and our Indigenous editors who are here to improve Wikipedia in good faith while also increasing the visibility of topics that have an affect on their lives personally and their communities. There is no reason to be insensitive even if you oppose keeping the article. -- A Rose Wolf 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge into the Saint John River - a source review shows that none of the accessible sources actually discuss the primary topic here, the Wolastoq, making this mostly WP:SYNTH , and maintaining it means we would have two different articles on the same title. The COMMONNAME article has plenty of space for expansion as well. There's plenty of encyclopedic stuff here, but our policy on forks, along with the fact the sourcing doesn't exist to support this, means this should not be a stand-alone article at its current title. SportingFlyer T · C 23:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) . Volcano guy 18:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) then salt per @ G. Timothy Walton . B3251 ( talk ) 17:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Sack of Calpe (1637): Sources in article and found in before are not WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Source eval: Comments Source Fails SIGCOV.  Article event took place in 1637, book covers 1735-1830, has one sentence mention  1.  Bekkaoui, K. (2010-11-24).  White Women Captives in North Africa: Narratives of Enslavement, 1735-1830.  Springer.  p.  2. ISBN 978-0-230-29449-3.  Fails SIGCOV, a one sentence mention  2. ^ Street, Lucie (1986).  An Uncommon Sailor: A Portrait of Admiral Sir William Penn, English Naval Supremacy.  Kensal Press.  ISBN 978-0-946041-47-3.  Fails SIGCOV, a one sentence mention  3. ^ Friedman, Ellen G. (1983).  Spanish Captives in North Africa in the Early Modern Age.  University of Wisconsin Press.  ISBN 978-0-299-09380-8.  Fails SIGCOV, again a mention, nothing about the event  4. ^ Hershenzon, Daniel (2018-08-01).  The Captive Sea: Slavery, Communication, and Commerce in Early Modern Spain and the Mediterranean.  University of Pennsylvania Press.  ISBN 978-0-8122-9536-8.  Ping me if WP:THREE with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth about the event are found.  No objection to a consensus redirect, but only properly sourced material should be merged.  // Timothy :: talk 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Calpe#History as an WP:ATD .  Jfire ( talk ) 05:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , Algeria ,  and Spain .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First i would like to adress these sources [1]: ""In the Same year the Algerians raided the Spanish Village of Calpe taking 315 Captives mostly women and children. (this has no doubt a connection the event as it says the same year as Raid on Ceriale and Borghetto , which i made aswell (they both happend in 1637) [2]: ""In 1637, Calpe, The coasts of Valencia was razed to the group by corsairs"" now sure, you might say there is no saying of Algerians, but its most likely [[Corsairs of Algiers|Algerian Corsairs], we also see help from the moors which helps make this more clear. [3]: ""Calpe in Valencia was Attacked by Algerian Corsairs"" here we see a clear taking of algerian corsairs not only, that in the August of 1637, the Viceroy of Valencia found out about the raid on calpe. [4]: i admit, here we only have one small mention of the raid, but it gives a deciption of what type of ship was used 'Galleys' that is, but i would understand the removal of this. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ ( talk ) 09:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "" ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ ( talk ) 09:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Calpe#History .   The enslavement of 315 Spaniards ought to be a significant event, but we have so little detail or background in this article that it cannot be kept as a free-standing article, unless expanded to provide context or merged with an article on Algerian slave-raiding in Spain (or Europe).   However merging is a viable option.   At an earlier date the village had a population of only 350 people, so that the effect must have been to reduce its size considerably.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another possible merge/redirect target is Barbary slave trade .  — Srnec ( talk ) 03:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Gwinnett County Department of Parks and Recreation: TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This article was nominated for deletion 8 minutes after creation.  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And?  TheLongTone ( talk ) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (Struck per below) - The article's subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT .  Disclosure, I live in Gwinnett County and have written a few articles about Gwinnett-related topics.  I assume the reason for pointing out that there were eight minutes between creation and AfD nomination is that it's difficult to perform an adequate WP:BEFORE in such a short time period, and as the largest park system in the State of Georgia it's possible that sources exist.  While WP:AUD points out that local media is not necessarily a indiciation of notability, it does say that Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability and the two largest newspapers in the State of Georgia are The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Gwinnett Daily Post , both of which are reliable sources with significant coverage of the article's topic ( Atlanta Journal-Constitution : [9] [10] , Gwinnett Daily Post : [11] [12] ) This article's subject has also received significant coverage in non-local sources including the Associated Press (not directly about this article's subject but there is significant coverage) and Aquatics International .  - Aoidh ( talk ) 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I find the links provide no convincing reason to change my opinion.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These sources show notability through significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, meeting the relevant notability guidelines.  An AfD started eight minutes after article creation with no evidence of WP:BEFORE having been completed is not a compelling reason to delete an article for lack of notability in the face of evidence to the contrary.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Gwinnett County, Georgia , under the local government section, with the lengthy list in columns, lest we invite the creation of tens of thousands of bare-bones articles on county-level departments across the United States.  BD2412 T 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this point since even if notability is arguably met, the coverage doesn't lend itself to much more than the ~500 characters of prose currently in this article.  I've struck my bolded keep above I think a merge to Gwinnett County, Georgia is reasonable.  - Aoidh ( talk ) 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Gwinnett County, Georgia : Per above discussion.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  11:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"The Naturist Society: TNS is occasionally cited in the news for top nudist resorts, etc. but there's nothing in depth about their work or the organization itself.  The same is true for the magazine, whose only coverage appears to be via members of the society and writers tied with the publication.
 NB: While Lee Baxandall appears notable, it does not appear that it is for his work in this field, so I'm not sure a redirect makes sense.  Not opposed to it though.  Star Mississippi 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sexuality and gender ,  and Wisconsin .  Star Mississippi 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nude & Natural ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) bundled per note above.  Star Mississippi 00:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into - Naturism in the United States , due to not being wp:org .  A section on activists could be added, merging in the Lee Baxandall article also. -- WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 21:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps Baxandall has notability beyond naturism, and that article can stand alone.  The other two articles can be merges into.  Does that require a new discussion?  If not, I could do the merges.  WriterArtistDC ( talk ) 03:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Naturism in the United States .  — siro χ o 02:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance: TCBT1CSI ( talk ) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India .  TCBT1CSI ( talk ) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and Maharashtra .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Sun Life Financial#India Most of the article here is superlative and promotional filler, while the section in Sun Life about it is more focused and neutral.  Nate • ( chatter ) 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have made substantial improvements and added better sources and information.  Aditya Birla Sun Life is the second-biggest insurance company in the country and was the first to introduce the ULIP plan.  It won many awards and gets talked about in the media a lot.  I have also added some controversies for neutrality.  Its notable and meets NCORP.  ChaiSK ( talk ) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't see any improvements in this article at all; it remains full of pointless filler about a merger that never happened or came close to closing (and doesn't speak anything about how Sun Life itself thought about the idea), and there remains only one blue link in the entire body of the article below the lede, leaving the reader completely lost and confused about what on earth is being talked about here (what is ULIP?), a complete dismissal of their Internet presence (who goes to a branch to buy insurance? Branch count is nigh pointless these days), and the usual financial figures that are already out of date and I can easily ascertain will not be updated further.  And it also remains an orphan article with no incoming links.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AFD is not intended for cleanup.  If the financial figures are outdated or the article lacks Wikilinks, or if the article is orphaned because it is not linked to any other Wikipedia page, all these issues can be easily addressed through discussion on the article's talk page or by using various templates to highlight these issues.  We can either resolve these issues ourselves or leave them to others.  Wikipedia is a collaborative project.  Regarding financials, there are numerous articles available on the internet about financials, and they can be easily updated or expanded upon.  As you mentioned, ""What is ULIP,"" ULIP stands for Unit-Linked Insurance Plan, which is an insurance product that offers both insurance and investment benefits, and it is already Wikilinked.  Anyone can click on this blue link to learn more about it.  These issues can be resolved quite easily, and they should not be grounds for merging the article with another Wikipedia article.  ChaiSK ( talk ) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The reason is promotion and incorrect talk.  Clear.  GQO ( talk ) 6:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC) GQO , this comment makes no sense.  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:HEY .  It is among the top insurance companies listed in the NIFTY 50 index.  Being part of NIFTY 50 itself is more than enough to justify notability. -- Abualsarmad ( talk ) 01:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Incorrect validation.  The company is not included in any Indian stock exchange (BSE or NSE); being part of the NIFTY 50 is highly unlikely.  This vote could be a last-minute effort to rescue this article from deletion.  TCBT1CSI ( talk ) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: As per Abualsarmad & WP:HEY , the sources added to the article demonstrate notability.  Nitish shetty ( talk ) 12:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A vote in quick succession, attempting to defend/justify the previous 'keep' vote which came with an improper validation; without conducting own independent research to confirm that the company is genuinely not listed on any Indian stock exchange (failing WP:LISTED ) and therefore not included in the NIFTY 50.  Also, the recent revisions made by the article's creator are merely superficial changes and do not meet the standards outlined in WP:HEY .  TCBT1CSI ( talk ) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't inspire confidence in the article's notability when keep advocates just... make things up?  The company is not in the NIFTY 50, as can very easily be checked.  Not sure what Abualsarmad was thinking here?  – Tera tix ₵ 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Sun Life Financial#India seems like the sensible option as WP:ATD , none of the references in the article meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 10:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sun Life Financial#India .  The closer needs to know whether it is merge or redirect.  I think the first two paragraphs of the history could be merged with the target without unbalancing the target and without getting too specific.  This is a merge then.  The merge edsum in page history will also act as a flag to available page history should the target be expanded in the future.  It is not notable for an article of its own as we do not have sufficient sources or evidence of notability under NCORP.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"LZJB: I suggest merging it either to Jeff Bonwick or LZRW .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the articles suggested by Deltaspace.  I cannot find enough sourcing for this topic to merit its own article.  But that doesn't mean it should be nuked off the wiki, it could do with a mention in another article.  RetroCosmos ( talk ) 07:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , to ZFS .  This algorithm does crop up quite a lot in reliable sources, but only short snippets, discussed alongside the other compression algorithms available in ZFS.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  We have 3 different Merge target articles suggested and we need to get that down to 1.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – Per above: article does not merit its own.  The system ZFS makes most sense here in my opinion.  TLA (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Jeff Bonwick .  The unifying characteristic between these articles is their creator, IMO.  Jacona ( talk ) 14:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"HabiJax: As nominator I am neutral unless I comment otherwise below.  Original rationale follows: I'm trying to uphold the redirect.  I want to redirect it per WP:BRANCH .  The original article is too local in nature to qualify under WP:NONPROFIT and would not meet notability guidelines for organizations .  It's quite promotional and includes quite a bit of name drops.  Normally, I would AfD it, however given that there's a suitable target and we're expected to consider alternatives to deletion, I am suggesting re So, re-direct per WP:ATD-R with very selective merge as appropriate.  I am starting the discussion as the article creator is objecting the redirect.  (original nom by user Graywalls 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)) Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 16:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business ,  and Florida .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 16:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have rewritten the article.  While not a featured article, it has more than enough notability to prevent its deletion.  Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk ) 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not saying it should be eradicated entirely, but condensed down, merged and the page re-directed to the target.  Per WP:DIRECTORY , things like various partners are undue, especially sourced to the article company's own website.  Primary sources also do not count towards notability.  Repeated coverage by the same journalist or same publisher also only counts as one for the purpose of evaluating notability.  Graywalls ( talk ) 22:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge & redirect to Habitat for Humanity as I originally proposed, as WP:BRANCH clearly suggests As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area.  Graywalls ( talk ) 22:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Though substantial amount of contents have been added since the nomination, a lot of it is primary source such as Guidestar and the organization itself.  Graywalls ( talk ) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Contrary to what Graywalls says, the primary organization is not used as a source.  Guidestar is used to obtain the IRS Form 990 for the organization's statistics.  Most everything else from Guidestar has multiple sources.  As I previously stated, there is more than enough notability to prevent its deletion.  Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk ) 02:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mgreason : , where do you see substantial discussion about HabiJax beyond the chapter's local area that is by a party that is not involved with HabiJax?  Graywalls ( talk ) 04:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are two sources outside the First Coast : The London Times and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development .  However, Graywalls says "" WP:BRANCH clearly suggests , 'As a general rule, the individual chapters...are usually not considered notable enough .' It is not an absolute rule, and there is more than enough notability to prevent its deletion. Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk ) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The rebuttal you provided doesn't demonstrate relevance beyond the local area. Why would you provide a dead link in AfD discussion such that others have to go hunt for archive on their own? The Timesonline piece: https://web.archive.org/web/20090115112129/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5439388.ece does not really discuss HabiJax. The HUD source is a primary source PRESS RELEASE PR talk about their own office. Press releases never count towards notability. Even writing contents in article based on them is to be avoided. Graywalls ( talk ) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did provide two sources beyond the local area. You reject the London Times article because you had trouble accessing it. When I added the url to my rebuttal, it was not a dead link. You say it ""does not really discuss HabiJax"", but the subject of the article is the HabiJax project. Regarding the archived link to the Habitat for Humanity website: that was not a press release from HabiJax. It came from the national organization which should be considered a secondary source. It seems like you're splitting hairs.  I actually omitted another source: An HUD article . Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk ) 15:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just added four more sources beyond the local area. Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk ) 17:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would it be considered secondary? It's HUD taking about its previous employee being on board for Habitat for Humanity, very much like a father talking about his boy being in some sort of club being used as a source for the club. WP:USEPRIMARY Graywalls ( talk ) 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you use that logic, every author of every article might have some ulterior motive that disqualifies it from being a neutral source. Assume good faith. Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk ) 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not stated here but I'm assuming the target page for this Redirect would be Habitat for Humanity ? If you want a Merge or Redirect (or Keep), please spell it out. Right now, we need more than the two participants to weigh in. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (!vote updated after following discussion and cleanup) Merge to Habitat for Humanity or Weak keep Here's a very long article with SIGCOV in Planning magazine, based in Chicago and published by American Planning Association . [27] . It discusses issues around the subject's constructions in some depth, but also discusses how those issues reflect on the parent org. At over 3300 words total I think this is pretty good evidence that the subject is, itself, notable. — siro χ o 05:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you describe how it is written such that it is about Habitat of Humanity of Jacksonville rather than just Habitat of Humanity? For example, does it talk about Habitat of Humanity active that happens to be in Jacksonville, or does it talk about it in terms of HabiJax activity? I can't access the source. so sorry. Graywalls ( talk ) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It regularly distinguishes the actions of the HabiJax organization and responses to it. Sometimes it will explain how the actions of the smaller organization relate to the larger one, noting how the larger org works, and distinguishing HabiJax from it. It discusses in depth construction at ""Fairway Oaks"" entirely in the context of HabiJax, no mention of the parent org. It discusses the city of Jacksonville's response to this and why the controversy is unusual, both locally and within the larger scope of the parent org and the country. I guess, you could think of this article as treating the subject as a case study. I would say, at the very least, Fairway Oaks meets WP:N based on this and the sources already in the article, and as such, a delete would not be ideal for the encyclopedia. I would reserve a complex ""repurpose"" outcome for cases where I don't see notability. I don't personally see a need to fragment the topic to cover only the one housing development, given that the coverage of such an article would focus on this articles subject anyways, and there is other coverage of the subject. As such, I lean toward keeping this article. — siro χ o 22:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was not intended as a delete in the first place. I re-directed, but Mgreason objected. I wasn't really sure how to process it, so I did a redirect for discussion but Ivanvector suggests that's not how to do it, so they opened it as an AfD. Intention has been to merge into Habitat for Humanity and do a section for HabiJax there. Graywalls ( talk ) 23:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, the current HabiJax article is far from perfect, but the Habitat for Humanity article is a mess, nobody's fault, just slowly grew that way over several years.  While I'm not fundamentally opposed to such a merge, I don't see how it would improve things in their current state. For example, it would take a fair bit of research to evaluate DUE weight to the Fairway Oaks topic within that broader topic, etc. If you're actively cleaning up that article (I saw you made a few improvements), thank you for that. Maybe it will soon reach a state where a merge would be a better outcome. I am in support of cleanup efforts. I am hesitate to prescribe a merge in this situation when it isn't strictly necessary because it could make the current state worse, and harder to clean up. — siro χ o 23:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo : , the target has been almost completely cleaned up. Please check. Graywalls ( talk ) 22:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. It looks much better. I'm not opposed to a merge at this point. I think Fairway Oaks and maybe the Superbuild can be merged pretty safely without getting too UNDUE. Maybe some other verifiable information like a bit about the HabiJax CEO. Not sure on some of it. I specifically worry the ""Tiny houses"" section might be a bit UNDUE in either article, and possibly astroturfed. Generally, there's been some major astroturfing about tiny houses over the past several years, and in this article it's all from one local source and funded by one named ""Tiny House Fund"".  — siro χ o 04:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  Would you mind reflecting your input to your ! vote?  Graywalls ( talk ) 07:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Forgot to ping.  @ Siroxo I heard if you just add the ping at the end of the comment, it won't go through.  Is that so?  Graywalls ( talk ) 07:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Help:Notifications says you need to ping and sign, so that might be why it doesn't work if you only add it without signing again in the same edit.  I'm not 100% sure tho.  — siro χ o 07:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Spartaz Humbug!  16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment WP:CHAIN makes a quite compelling argument.  Graywalls ( talk ) 19:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment WP:CHAIN makes a quite compelling argument if the subject is not notable .  As the guidelines state, In rare cases, an individual location will have (history) that makes it notable .  I've yet to be convinced this as an example of a rare case.  Graywalls ( talk ) 00:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Embassy of the United States, Lomé: Fails WP:ORG .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa ,  and United States of America .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the sizes of the articles, I think a Merge to Togo–United States relations probably suffices by WP:NOPAGE .  — siro χ o 02:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"2023 Starbucks strike: There was also an unrelated strike by staff on a different issue in November 2023, so the title ""2023 Starbucks strike"" could also relate to this.  LibStar ( talk ) 23:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Business ,  and United States of America .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes .  While it was in the news, it wasn't sustained coverage as the strike was mostly symbolic in nature.  Star Mississippi 01:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename 2023 Starbucks strikes to include both major strikes.  They both received significant coverage but are better handled together than separately. -- User:Namiba 03:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As the page creator, I have no objection to renaming the page and expanding the scope. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sexuality and gender .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes per Star Mississippi, not extensive enough to need standalone article.  Reywas92 Talk 16:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes , Definitely a case of no enduring coverage, at least in the current timeframe; may be notable in the wider context of Starbucks labor relations, but isn't on its own.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect per above.  So, there sources on the matter, but in comparison to the larger scale of union strikes across Starbucks, I feel the smaller ones in 2023 don't amount to much SIGCOV.  However, the section in Starbucks unions works well.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or Rename per the above reasons.  Both seem like reasonable options in my opinion.  - User:LoomCreek 01:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes .  A four-sentence article about a weeklong strike is not needed.  Persingo ( talk ) 01:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect as per above.  The article itself isn't too long and would be a good fit in the Starbucks_unions#Strikes section of the Union's article.  i2n 2z 08:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Shaktawat: A standalone article on this topic is not required here as it is one of the clan of Rajput caste.  Though it lacks content too, but whatever it contains should be moved into Rajput article and this page should be deleted. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 17:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions .  Admantine123 ( talk ) 17:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Rajput per above.  -- Wyndhan Han ( talk ) 11:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Ian Long: Article sourced to owned media (Lulu), no pass of WP:GNG evident from WP:BEFORE, which purely reveals networked vendors of Blob Tree books.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Education ,  and United Kingdom .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Blob Tree - it seems the subject of the page does not have a public profile and hence is not notable.  I note that even editors who work on the page have had difficulty verifying basic details, so the fairest thing to do seems, IMO, to redirect until as such time as reliable sources come available to create a properly referenced page.  JMWt ( talk ) 12:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Blob Tree seems a good outcome.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 13:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Having taken a look, I'd worry about whether Blob Tree passes WP:GNG...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Apologies for these issues, I am responsible for part of this.  I must note at least with the Blob Tree page that this went through the articles for creation process and was deemed suitable.  I cannot comment on the author Ian Long as strongly however his notability is inheritable precisely from this connection.  I appreciate a redirect to the Blob Tree may be suitable at this time, but I do believe there is sufficient information and reputable sources for both pages, they just have not been added so far but instead needing improvement.  If others can take the time to gather information and improve this page, it may prove a more helpful result in the long term.  Wikijohnword ( talk ) 17:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand your logic here.  Notability specifically is not inherited, the fact that a book he wrote is considered notable does not therefore mean the author is notable.  You are welcome to find the RS to show that this person is notable even if the page is deleted at this time, of course.  JMWt ( talk ) 16:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Blob Tree.   Entire statement of notability for the author comes from the invention and Blob Tree isn't a Cotton Gin where people have done independent work on the inventor.  Nicely written article though, so it should merge nicely into the other article.  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Electoral firsts in Guernsey: Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Politics ,  and Lists .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to States of Guernsey#History – information is sourced and can reasonably be noted there.  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 02:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No room for ""firsts"" because it is trivial.  Shankargb ( talk ) 01:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Ultraman Belial: Fails WP:GNG.  AfD'ing it to end the edit war.  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 22:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Television .  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 22:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see, then if you don't mind, may I downsize the page?  Even if the verdict is unchanged, at least I tried.  Zero stylinx ( talk ) 03:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can definitely improve the article while it's here at AfD.  The most important thing is to identify reliable independent sources that cover this topic.  There are a lot of sources in the article right now — I don't read Japanese, so I don't know how to evaluate them.  What do you think the best sources are?  Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked over other 3 character articles that are related with this, but oh god all of the sources that were used were also primary sources.  🥒 Greenish Pickle!  🥒 ( 🔔 ) 05:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject, and this is critical, lacks independent notability.  A decision to Merge the text to Mega Monster Battle: Ultra Galaxy , after a serious trimming, would be not unwelcome and perhaps preferable to a plain Redirect.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with the List of Mega Monster Battle characters instead, I can relocate some of Belial's story to that column easily.  Zero stylinx ( talk ) 14:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, not bad at all that.  - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of rulers of the Janjero state of Gimirra: WP:UNSOURCED for 19 years.  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 15:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions .  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 15:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I check the history and it the creation of this article is not recorded so you wouldn't know whether it has been created by an expert Adler3 ( talk ) 15:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility ,  and Ethiopia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no sources , no dates (not even estimates) in much of the timeline, even the blue links don't point anywhere relevant.  Redirect to Kingdom of Yamma .  -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kingdom of Yamma for potential sourcing.  Srnec ( talk ) 01:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kingdom of Yamma , to which Janjero is a redirect.   We do not have enough content to justify a separate rulers article; and most of the rulers listed are redlinks.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Kingdom of Yamma .  As there's no sources currently in the article and none have been put up in this AfD there's no verified content to merge.  The blue Wikilink for Tureta points to an area of Nigeria and Duka to a village in Hungary.  Rupples ( talk ) 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Amantia peruana infasciata: Author declines to merge to the species article.  - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions .  UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are many subspecies based articles.  If you want to remove them the why not remove all of them?  See Category:subspecies Uploader1234567890 ( talk ) 14:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, subspecies are not inherently notable.  That doesn't mean no subspecies are notable, just that the notability of a subspecies must be demonstrated.  Your argument is WP:WHATABOUTISM and that doesn't fly here.  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Amantia peruana , as with Amantia peruana peruana .  There isn't any new information in each subspecies article that isn't in the species article, except an unsourced sentence about etymology.  It would be great to see additional information about the subspecies, but it would still be more appropriate for a merged article presenting all the information in one place rather than three separate articles with a high level of duplication.  Mgp28 ( talk ) 22:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an acceptable (and expected) WP:ATD .  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Mgp28 's rationale, but I think WP:PM would have been a better venue for this.  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 19:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merger was proposed but rejected by the author.  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ UtherSRG : Just because someone wrote the first version of a page doesn't mean they WP:OWN it.  They can't unilaterally reject merging it, any more than they can unilaterally reject its deletion.  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 02:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Metroid (fictional species): Trying to find sources to indicate it's important on its own has proven a bit fruitless which is, by and far, not helped by them sharing the series name.  Ultimately I feel this would be better merged into the character list for now, the sources just aren't there.  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Creator keep Passes WP:GNG , Metroids have SIGCOV in Aliens in Popular Culture p. 183-184, Good Game , and Destructoid , among others.  While slim, it shows an AfD is not merited.  Per WP:NOTMERGE , ""Merging should be avoided if: The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short ."" ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Aliens book seen here in a preview seems to be discussing the Metroid universe as a whole, not the individual species in that significant a detail.  Good Game is a series recap with a tongue in cheek comment at the end, and the Destructoid article is 90% a quotation of official sources with very little reaction at all. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is that page 184 is excluded from the preview; I assume it has the most discussion of the Metroid species with only a bit on pages 183 and 185.  This is a common issue with book sources; per WP:OFFLINE .  However, AfDs should not be biased against books.  The book provably has an independent reaction from a secondary sourced author, specifically stating that Metroids demonstrate the cosmic balance should not be meddled with.  A tongue-in-cheek comment from a reliably sourced article does not render it totally null and void.  It's clear that it is a factual description of the Metroids' history from a reliable secondary source unlinked to Nintendo.  In terms of further sources, I discovered a physics paper written about the realworld feasibility of Metroid Prime's abilities ingame.  I assume there's even more stuff out there.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ .  The Metroids seem like a notable topic, even if their article is stubby right now.  The article needs some serious work, but I feel it's got the potential for further expansion.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , or draftify otherwise.  There is enough for its own page.  マリオマリオ ( talk ) 18:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Aliens in Popular Culture p. 183-185 discusses the game series and Samus.  The species is mentioned, but is not a subject of any real discussion or analysis.   The ""physics paper"" is ""written, refereed and edited by undergraduate students"".  ""I assume there's even more stuff out there."" = WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES Charcoal feather ( talk ) 12:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Is there a particular reason why the information here cannot be mentioned in summary style in the main series article?  The article right now feels like something from a fan wikia rather than a proper Wikipedia article.  Independent notability is not established here at all.  It is only mentioned when the press is running an article about the wider Metroid series.  OceanHok ( talk ) 11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I agree with OceanHok here that the article at present doesn't demonstrate why it can't be effectively summarized in a parent article.  The sources given don't really seem to focus on the Metroid enough to meet SIGCOV.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge at the parent article.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 22:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting because no one has specified a target article to Merge to.  There is Metroid , Metroid (video game) and probably other articles related to this series.  I'm happy to Merge once you identify the target.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I'll be changing my vote to Merge given what's been said by other commenters.  I agree that you could probably fit this whole thing into the Characters of Metroid article.  Still, I wouldn't be opposed to this article coming back should sources end up turning up in the future.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : If it is to be merged, Characters in the Metroid series#Metroids would undoubtedly be the best option here.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Characters in the Metroid series#Metroids .  Without any other context, I would say coverage meets the threshold of WP:GNG and the presumption of notability is met...but many of the other editors make a good point that the actual volume of the coverage itself can easily be summarized in either the main series article as well as the characters' page.  A standalone page would be redundant.  Haleth ( talk ) 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : A page on the Baby Metroid ( Metroid ) character specifically has merits, reusing the special information from this Metroid (fictional species) page as background along with the extensive writing there has been on the mother-child relationship between Samus Aran and the Baby Metroid in the series, which served as the basis for Metroid: Other M .  マリオマリオ ( talk ) 18:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Columbiana Centre shooting: Last edited 6 months ago.  I think a merge into Columbiana Centre would be sufficient.  What does everyone think?  Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk ) 01:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like a merge request would have been easier than a whole AfD, but now that we're here, merge and redirect .  Not like there's much content to lose.  A bunch of people got shot and then the center got sued, would better fit there.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 16:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge any applicable info not already in the target article to Columbiana Centre .  Sourcing is routine news coverage of the event and its aftermath, which does not indicate notability.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"CSS Manassas (clipper): We've got the short DANFS entry, which is what the article consists of (public domain copying).  Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies simply repackages the DANFS info into other words.  This US gov't public domain source has Former USLHT Minot, now known as CSS Manassas, is placed under the command of Lieutenant William H. Murdaugh, CSN by Flag-Officer Samuel Barron, CSN.  Though her final disposition is unknown, she is known to have seen service off North Carolina for  the Confederates as Manassas into early 1862.  While that source does solve DANFS' confusion about the lack of a revenue cutter named Minot by stating that she was a lighthouse tender, this CS service was either almost entirely undocumented or rather insignificant.  Nothing in Trotter's Ironclads and Columbiads ; nor in Barrett's Civil War in North Carolina .  Aside from the two above, I can only find passing mentions to its seizure.  Searching for this vessel as the lighthouse tender Minot also turns up no further in-depth coverage.  The fact that I could turn up what I could for CSS Junaluska but almost nothing for this one reinforces my belief that there is simply not enough known about this vessel to indicate notability.  Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and North Carolina .  Hog Farm Talk 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Transportation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy .  Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of ships of the Confederate States Navy .  The editor who created this is a sock, and was just blocked.  The sock master account has also just been globally locked.  I don't see any encyclopedia advantage in keeping this.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also see: AFD White Cloud (steamship) .  Same blocked sock created both.  — Maile ( talk ) 02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The status of that editor is irrelevant here.  - Davidships ( talk ) 14:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into CSS Manassas , unless more sources are found.  The DANFS covers both ships in one entry, so we should probably do the same.  𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 02:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge content into CSS Manassas (with or without leaving a redirect); it is important that this vessel's existence is included to avoid confusion betweeen the two vessels.  The content may yet garner some modest expansion - the late Tim Colton found a little data on Minot here (60ldt, built 1857 [for the United States Lighthouse Board] and sold in 1860).  - Davidships ( talk ) 14:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the CSS Manassas article per Davidships.  -- Euryalus ( talk ) 09:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of ESPN College Football personalities: Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As with sources per WP:RS , most of these are about the game and if they do, barely offering much to establish notability.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television ,  and American football .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Indiscriminate and WP:LISTCRUFT , and Wikipedia is not a directory.  💥 Casualty • Hop along.  • 18:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to College Football on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD .  Agree with nom about everything except WP:NOTTVGUIDE .  This is a list of personalities to which I do not see how this would be a tv guide, so that policy is out.  I don't find the list covers WP:LISTN exclusively.  It's good to return to the main article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Hordern Gap: Not all geographical features on maps of Antarctica are notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica .  JMWt ( talk ) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Even if this wasn't notable, the information would be merged Mount Coates , Mount Hordern or the David Range .  If the USGS has documented these features then we should too, it's just basic common sense to merge information into parent articles rather than obliterating any mention of them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nonsense.  We have notability criteria for a reason, otherwise all features which exist on any map anywhere in the world would be notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is wide consensus on here that geographical features documented by government institutions are considered notable though.  It's just using basic common sense to merge the information which you seem to lack.  Wikipedia is not better off eradicating mention of these features, whether anybody is living in these places or not.  ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope.  WP:GEONATURAL .  Please stop telling me how to think and use ""common sense"".  JMWt ( talk ) 11:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This appears to be an attempt to extend the (frankly, bad) automatic notability conferred by GEOLAND on to uninhabited places which, being uninhabited, do not fall within GEOLAND.  FOARP ( talk ) 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No it isn't.  But you would find if you proposed at the village pump to delete all of these stubs you wouln't be successful and would find that many editors don't have a problem with articles on geographical features which are documented in government sources.  With these it's more a case of finding the best way to present the information.  I would support a merger of the ones which can't be expanded into parent articles.  If there are concerns about the reliability of the source, then that's an issue to be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard.  ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, there's a strong consensus that is quite the opposite, since the GNIS mess and the mass article creators.   We know your views on this Dr. Blofeld , but after all of the kerfuffle you should really recognize that you don't speak for a consensus.  Uncle G ( talk ) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Per WP:GEONATURAL for natural feature we need sufficient sourcing to be able to write an encyclopaedia article.  Multiple sources are needed to sustain an encyclopedia article, in this case we have only one source (GNIS).  Folding in sub-features that are also sourced to GNIS gets us no closer to notability, not least because notability is not inherited.  WP:BEFORE has to be proportionate to the amount of effort expended to write the article in the first place, which in this case was practically zero since this article was apparently created by bot or bot-like editing ( 190 articles were created by Dr. Blofeld on the same day as this one ).  FOARP ( talk ) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A search on ""Hordern Gap"" 1962 shows various sources.  The gap was used, photographed and discussed by the 1957, 1958 and 1962–63 expeditions.  Any traveller in this part of the Antarctic will be interested in what Wikipedia has to say.  It passes WP:GEONATURAL .  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 16:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We all can Google.  Unless you actually have sources for us to discuss, then you cannot possibly ! vote that WP:GEONATURAL has been met.  JMWt ( talk ) 16:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's start with Alberts 1995 , p. 343 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAlberts1995 ( help ) then.   It tells us who mapped this, where it is, some expeditions that passed through it, and who named it and why.   Then there's the original 1965 ANARE report.   An excellent case that this is encyclopaedic is that it is in another encyclopaedia , namely Stewart 1990 , p. 470 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStewart1990 ( help ) .  Uncle G ( talk ) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alberts, Fred G. (1995).  ""Hordern Gap"".  Geographic Names of the Antarctic (PDF) (2nd ed.).  National Science Foundation.  Stewart, John (1990).  ""Hordern Gap"".  Antarctica: An Encyclopedia .  Vol.  1.  McFarland.  ISBN 9780899505978 .  we know there was a scientific trip.  That's not a sign in itself that a geographical feature it described very briefly was notable.  It was an expedition in places where likely nobody had been before and few since - they named lots of things.  And we don't normally take notability from other encyclopedias.  JMWt ( talk ) 18:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, things being in other encyclopaedias and so should be in this encyclopaedia has been a fairly strong argument since somewhere around 2003.  Uncle G ( talk ) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, but the entry I can read is a short-single-paragraph entry , not really SIGCOV.  I can't see the Stewart reference but if it's the same level of coverage I'm not seeing how WP:GEONATURAL is met.  FOARP ( talk ) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think so.  But let's say for the sake of argument you are right.  You have a primary reference from the National Science Foundation which we can't use for notability, for fairly obvious reasons.  And we have a secondary encyclopedia.  So at best you are offering two sources,  of which only one is really a secondary source.  Which isn't enough for inclusion.  In reality we commonly do not consider encyclopedia entries as notable in AfD debates.  If we did, this would simplify hundreds of sports pages (for example) for people who only appear in old encyclopedia.  JMWt ( talk ) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm right because I was there at the time, and I've made the it's-encyclopaedic-because-it-is-in-other-encyclopaedias-and- constructing-a-both-generalist-and-specialist-encyclopaedia-is-what-we're-about argument at AFD.   ☺ I don't think that you know what a primary source is.   It's isn't Fred G. Alberts's Names .   Primary sources would be the original historical sources, the maps and records somewhere in Australia, or Norway.   There is in fact no reason that we cannot evaluate Fred G. Alberts's Names for the purpose of notability.   Fred G. Alberts didn't name the thing, and is quite clearly wholly independent from it.   Xe didn't even come from the same countries as the people who named the thing, or go on the expeditions.   Xe compiled and edited xyr compilation of named Antartica things over the decades afterwards, and xyr source is a secondary source.   It tells you in its introduction that it was constructed by ""collection and analysis of names data from historical and contemporary sources"".  And yes, we can and regularly do include topics that have enough coverage in old encyclopaedias.   Not that 1995 in any way falls under that heading.   Indeed, including people that have already gone through the filter of making it into encyclopaedias is a Hell of a lot better than the way that our biographical articles are often constructed.   It's a Hell of a lot easier to have an encyclopaedic biography all laid out to show the way, rather than the so-often-used living persons method of throwing huge piles of tidbit or incidental press mentions together.  Uncle G ( talk ) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Frankly, GNIS-based stuff is entirely zappable, in my view.   The GNIS is wholly unreliable except for coördiates, and not even for them some of the time.   Its process is quite broken.   Starting again without the GNIS involvement is the best course of action.   This is only tempered here in that the GNIS text has been copied almost word for word from the 1965 ANARE report, Horden Gap from the entry on page 68 and Gap Nunatak from the entry on page 56.   We simply need to cite the actual report, and things like the Alberts and Stewart encyclopaedias, which were actually listed first in Britannica' s bibliography for Antartica for a couple of decades and are obviously the sources to go to (although there have been two more encyclopaedias since, that Google Books doesn't know about), instead of the bloody GNIS.  Uncle G ( talk ) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But the report itself is of an expedition, no?  It's a primary source JMWt ( talk ) 20:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added cite links to the other encyclopedia, and a bit about the 1962–63 expedition.  I did not remove the GNIS links.  GNIS is not always accurate, but usually gets coordinates right.  I agree with Uncle G that if a reputable encyclopedia like Geographic Names of the Antarctic thinks a topic deserves a paragraph or so, that is a good reason to assume the topic deserves a Wikipedia article.  We have plenty of room.  To JMWt 's point, a report by the leader of an expedition would be a primary source for an article on the expedition, but a valid secondary source for things the expedition found.  Aymatth2 ( talk ) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Psst, Aymatth2 !",merge
"Iron Cobra: Likely can just be a paragraph or two in her article.  Zim Zala Bim talk 22:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Canada .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Becky Johnson .   No standalone RS found.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , ideal ATD for such a subject.  There's a bit there already so it might be a light merge, including probably the awards and nominations.  — siro χ o 03:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Becky Johnson per above.  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Takamaka Rum: It seems rather awkward that instead of the plantation having its own dedicated page, the brand is represented solely.  Moreover, the page lacks reliable sources and is being developed by a banned editor exclusively focused on promoting this rum brand.  Charlie ( talk ) 14:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  Charlie ( talk ) 14:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I have created a Wikipedia page for La Plaine St. André .  I am open for merge and include any non-promotional content from Takamaka Rum on the La Plaine page.  Charlie ( talk ) 15:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources .  Many are interviews with the founders/""rum maker"", blog-based reviews or press releases, so don't count towards notability.  These may be Ok though: [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] .  Fair coverage, but would like to hear other views before making a decision.  Rupples ( talk ) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Could merge a portion to the plantation article as discussed.  This appears largely PROMO.  Mentioned in plenty of travel guides in Gbooks, but the are all only a few lines only.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to La Plaine St. André .  That makes more sense for the subject, , which doesn't seem to be notable.  Valereee ( talk ) 14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to La Plaine St. André , now that an article exists on it.  X ( talk ) 22:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Dr. Bosconovitch: GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Fury and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunimitsu (Tekken) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlatorNator ( talk • contribs ) 23:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters .  Not independently notable.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters per above.  // Timothy :: talk 01:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters .  Unsourced except for the reception section which is literally all run-of-the-mill listicles.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 17:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters per all.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of World Rugby Sevens Series broadcasters: In addition, several of the entries are unsourced.  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports ,  and Rugby union .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to SVNS and World Rugby Women's Sevens Series articles All the information in the article can be merged to the parent articles, neither of which are so long that it needs a content fork.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 11:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to SVNS & Women's SVNS .  Content would need to be updated before this happens as most of it is out of date.  LouisOrr27 ( talk ) 01:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Unica NetTracker: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet ,  and Software .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : does anyone have a copy of Kevin Roebuck's 2011 Web Analytics: High-impact Strategies - What You Need to Know Definitions, Adoptions, Impact, Benefits, Maturity, Vendors ( ISBN 978-1-74304-640-1 )?   Apparently, the tracker received some coverage there.  The textbook itself is included in the esteemed ACM digital library.  Owen× ☎ 01:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Unica Corporation .  Abandoned stub about a minor utility that was abandoned over a decade ago.  Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Unica Corporation : sounds like a good AtD.  Owen× ☎ 21:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"London to New York Air Route: We already have an article at transatlantic flight that should cover this.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Aviation , England ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the article as it stands seems to be largely WP:SYNTH .  The sources cited do not directly describe this route per se, and I see no sign that the route meets WP:GNG any more than the hundreds of other key routes between major city pairs.  The Translatlantic flight article has sufficient mention of the route and a standalone page is not justified, per WP:NOPAGE .  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 09:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : I feel like it is the best to merge it with the Transatlantic Flight article.  The route does have a lot of history of being a way of connecting North America to Europe, or just being a way for people to go to London but modern planes with great engineering like the Airbus A321 and Boeing 767 and 777s have the range to do JFK-LGA with no stops, as compared to the Comet 70.167.194.163 ( talk ) 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for the Merge option suggested by the IP editor.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Transatlantic flight page.  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Transatlantic flight page.  Bduke ( talk ) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Embassy of the United States, Belmopan: Fails WP:ORG /.  LibStar ( talk ) 00:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Belize ,  and United States of America .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Belize–United States relations , both articles are currently pretty short.  — siro χ o 03:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Siroxolo.  Yilloslime ( talk ) 23:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of College Football on ABC personalities: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  Also, this list is mostly unsourced per WP:RS , barring two WP:PRIMARY and a wiki page, none of those asserting notability.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Television ,  and American football .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to College Football on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD .  Agree with nom about everything except WP:NOTTVGUIDE .  This is a list of personalities to which I do not see how this would be a tv guide, so that policy is out.  I don't find the list covers WP:LISTN exclusively.  It's good to return to the main article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"2013 Peshawar mosque attack: LibStar ( talk ) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism ,  and Pakistan .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 , given the same rationale I gave with the last few AfDs (it's a terror attack so should probably be noted overall in terms of their security situation, likely mentioned somewhere in overall discussions of the issue).  As with most of these cases, if there is later coverage it's almost certainly not in English, so this is difficult to evaluate.  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013 .  No analytic coverage that warrants this event having a stand alone article.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"The Wizard Sniffer: It lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to justify and fill out a standalone article.  It cites clearly user-generated reviews in the vast majority of the reception section rather than actual critics.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Yeah, there's not really anything else to add.  The game isn't notable, and I don't see why it should have got deproded.  λ Negative MP1 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The game won five XYZZY Awards and won two awards in the 2017 Interactive Fiction Competition , which are the two most notable competitions for this type of work, and thus distinguishes itself in its genre.  The genre is obscure which accounts for the sparse supply of sources.  If the subject does not warrant its own article then redirect to Interactive_fiction#Notable_works to preserve history instead of deleting.  -- Bensin ( talk ) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ... and as for sources, I added the review in The Short Game, which adding to Sarah Laskow's and Lynda Clark 's reviews, totals the number to three in addition to the three at the Interactive Fiction Database. No sources contradict eachother. -- Bensin ( talk ) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Short Game does not appear to be a reliable source.  In fact it admits that it is fan run, with one person in the About Us being ""the only person with any real credentials"", something that is obvious even from a quick browse of the site.  This is not the kind of sourcing we want on Wikipedia.  The ability to tell whether a source is reliable is required , as well as being able to judge what topic needs an article, and your recent articles have been less than stellar.  For example, Clue (information) ?  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nor are the articles static.  I can't see your username in the history of Clue (information) .  If you are certain you know its flaws you are welcome to add to it and improve it.  The Short Game has made content for over 10 years, and has produced over 400 episodes which all appear to be around one hour each.  If they lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they lack experience now.  Their body of work makes them pretty much experts, and they are certainly more experts than any junior reviewer writing for a large media corporation.  -- Bensin ( talk ) 17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Their body of work makes them experts"" there are many unreliable sources with a large body of work listed at WP:Perennial sources such as the Daily Mail, being long-running does not really have a bearing on reliability.  But even if we assumed it counted as SIGCOV, that's only one piece of SIGCOV which is insufficient to pass GNG.  I am not sure if there is anything to improve there as the concept of a ""clue"" is not notable.  If you think it is, you offered no real proof in that regard.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You yourself considered Atlas Obscura to be SIGCOV, until I added the reference to The Short Game.  Then you edited your statement above with an edit comment without rationale.  [14] (It would have been better had you instead added a new post where you transparently stated that you had changed your mind and explained why, rather than editing an existing post to make it seem like that was your stance all along.) There's also the review by Lynda Clark.  That makes three SIGCOV in addition to the rest of the sources, which all corroborate each other.  Interactive fiction is a small art form and sources are inherently hard to come by, even for a game like this that won both of the two most prominent competitions for interactive fiction.  If you still think sourcing is a problem, then I suggest you add {{Expert needed}} at the top of the article so it can be improved upon rather than deleted.  Or request sources for any statement in the article that you think is unsourced and that a reader cannot verify and assess themselves (hint: there aren't any).  Regarding Clue (information) (a central concept in many games throughout history), feel free to improve it directly or point out weaknesses on that article's talk page.  But that article is not relevant to this discussion here.  -- Bensin ( talk ) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Zero WP:SIGCOV .  🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Had there been zero significant coverage, I would have agreed with you, and I would not have created the article. But that is simply not the case. -- Bensin ( talk ) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge to Interactive fiction .  Buster Hudson appears to be a relatively known author by the sources.  IgelRM ( talk ) 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If it's not going to be mentioned in the interactive fiction article, a redirect would not be very helpful.  (And I doubt it should, the whole ""notable works"" section is already verging on listcruft).  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree.  There is only a handful of IF games that is in the intersection of winning both IFC and XYZZY and they are worth mentioning.  -- Bensin ( talk ) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to Interactive_fiction#Notable_works as an alternative to deletion . I think it's just below notability. Atlas Obscura is a reliable source per WP:AOARTICLES and although Medium.com is generally unreliable per WP:MEDIUM , I think Clark qualifies as a ""subject matter expert"" since she is listed as ""PhD Researcher in Interactive Fiction at Nottingham Trent University "". Interactive Fiction Competition might be a notable award, but the fact it won doesn't alone count towards notability, it needs some coverage to go along with it. I just think two pieces of SIGCOV is not enough for notability. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Mika1h and Bensin.  I changed my vote to Delete as I find no notability, and the small mention that it gets in Interactive fiction is enough.  MK at your service.  12:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you elaborate on why you agree to a mention in the article Interactive fiction but oppose a redirect to that article?  -- Bensin ( talk ) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just meant that it doesn't need to be redirected to the article. It's mentioned in the Interactive fiction and I feel thats enough. MK at your service. 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't follow. Is there a reason why you think there should not be a redirect from The Wizard Sniffer to Interactive fiction? If there is a redirect, the edit history is preserved and the article can be easily improved by anyone if new sources emerge. If the article is deleted, there's a risk that someone not familiar with the process of undeleting articles will start from scratch rather than building on what already exists. -- Bensin ( talk ) 21:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I think one or two sentences about Hudson can be incorporated on Interactive fiction based on the Atlas Obscura article.  I partially did not say delete as preserving edit history may be convenient.  IgelRM ( talk ) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be helpful if other participants commented on the replies to their arguments above.  -- Bensin ( talk ) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"1884 Wabash football team: The only source in the article gives this team merely a brief mention, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better.  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana .  Let'srun ( talk ) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The article was created as a sub-stub almost 10 years ago with a single sentence -- ""The 1884 Wabash Little Giants football team represented Wabash College during the 1884 college football season.""  The only addition since then has been a notation that the ""Little Giants"" nickname wasn't adopted until 20 years ago.  Nothing of encyclopedic value is lost by deleting this.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 03:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Per the article having been a WP:STUB for 9 years, and only having one citation.  Mjks28 ( talk ) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  These are not reasons for deletion.  For that reason, the person closing the discussion will unfortunately not take your stated opinion into regard, so please feel free to revise - and please read WP:DISCUSSAFD first.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think only having one citation qualifies as a reason, no?  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the single citation had sufficient depth, it might be OK, but the source presented here lacks the needed depth.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - All material is included in the Wabash College article.  Leaving a redirect would be a painless courtesy.  Carrite ( talk ) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It's true that being a Stub article is not a reason to delete an article.  We have thousands and thousands of stub articles.  Relisting to see if there is support for Rediretion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  North America 1000 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The actual and valid reasons for deletion here are set forth in the nom: The article lacks anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV and thus plainly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS .  As for redirecting, that would undermine the utility of red link in our comprehensive system of team templates.  E.g., Template:Wabash Little Giants football navbox .  A redlink tells us that a season article does not exist.  We could theoretically fill in all of those redlinks with redirects, but then the utility of the templates is massively undercut and we end up with team templates that are a useless loop redirecting to the main team article.  (A minor program like Wabash (Division III!) has very few notable seasons, and the blue links in the template allow the viewer to zero in on those seasons. )  Please do not redirect.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Wabash football, 1884–1889 .  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A merge can't be closed to a target which doesn't currently exist.  Also, would that target meet the notability guidelines (GNG and NSEASONS)?  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let'srun, my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines.  It would be more productive for you to examine such possibilities before creating an AfD like this.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines We would need more than an assumption.  Can you provide a couple sources?  Cbl62 ( talk ) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cbl62, you how to answer this question for yourself.  See: 1889 Indiana Hoosiers football team .  There's lots of other stuff on Newspapers.com.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unless someone wants to take the time to create a well-sourced redirect target, redirect is not an available or permissible option here.  For that reason, I remain in the ""delete"" camp.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We need an existing target article, not a hypothetical one that could be created in the future.  L iz Read!  Talk!  02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wabash football, 1884–1889 has been created.  More coverage can be found, but search at Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library is currently down.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the proposed decade target on the assumption Wabash is a football team we care about the seasons for.  There's not enough available for this season to have a stand-alone article, there's not even that much to merge, but it's better to maintain a complete set of the information somewhere using the guidance at WP:NSEASONS which allows multiple seasons to be smushed into one.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What info still needs to be merged?  I think if anything a redirect would suffice.  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The single game result can be included somewhere.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It already is under 1884, no?  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As with the other AfD, I didn't notice the merge had already happened.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 (there's nothing to merge, it's already there).  Thanks to User:Jweiss11 for creating a suitable target article.  Cbl62 ( talk ) 21:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Wabash football, 1884–1889 since the season article does not appear to be notable enough for standalone inclusion.  Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Asuka Kazama: Still lacking third-party sources.  Merging it into List of Tekken characters seems the way.  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge There is WP:SIGCOV in Den of Geek , which doesn't appear featured in the article at all.  However, all other sources appear to be sentence-long mentions or shorter.  With a single significant source, it does not appear to merit a standalone page.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters per nom.  The above Den of Geek is the best of the sources, but a single source is not enough to justify a standalone article per GNG.  At best this is an unnecesssary CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk 20:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Rubik's Cube in popular culture: This is half a list of said random media featuring this toy (ex. ""In the South Park episode ""The Coon"" a Rubik's 3x3x3 cube is seen.""; in fact the entire article as often happens started as "" a list of cultural references involving the Rubik's Cub"" - something that WP:TVTROPES handles better [54] anyway) and trivia about its popularity such as "" almost 40,000 entries on YouTube featuring tutorials and video clips of quick solutions"" or ""there was a Google Doodle about it"".  Given that the main article on Rubik's Cube has no reception, I think we may entertain merging some stuff there (said trivia about its popularity), to such a section (as it can arguably constitute a section of the article, but not an article itself), but there is no need to keep this as a stand-alone article/list (due to failing aforementioned GNG/NLIST policies for stand-alone stuff).  Final damning evidence: not a single source seems to discuss the broad concept of ""Rubik's Cube in popular culture"", nor is the term ""popular culture"" mentioned in the article outside the title and categories, which also suggests this article as framed is a big piece of WP:OR .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games , Popular culture ,  and Lists .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  This is way better than most pop culture lists.  Good chunks of of it is actually about Rubik's Cube rather incidental pop culture references.  The Liberty Science Center exhibit should be merged, as well as some of the lead.  Much of § Art could be merged too.  Perhaps more.  — siro χ o 19:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Rubik's Cube , though only the 'Art' section has encyclopedic value.  The rest are pretty unremarkable WP:IPC .  SWinxy ( talk ) 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge To the main article.  REDISCOVERBHARAT ( talk ) 12:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Midlands Junior League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply.  Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England .  Owen× ☎ 00:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Non notable junior competition - Delete .  Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: As a contested PROD, this does not qualify for soft-deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Midlands Rugby League Premier Division , as was done for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midlands Rugby League Division One .  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Walsh90210 , that is not an appropriate target article as it is a Redirect.  It should be appearing with a green font color.  L iz Read!  Talk!  07:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That page was merged to Midlands Rugby League a few hours after my comment; presumably that would be the merge target now.   That is, ""selective"" merge; other than that the league exists (and some senior teams have junior teams in the league) there is no content to merge.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Mint Velvet : Most coverage discussing the brand is actually coverage of its founder, Liz Houghton.  In a brief search I found only two detailed writeups: this piece in Vogue which reads like a press release, and this article indicating the brand was acquired by another company in 2019.  What little content is here could easily be merged to Liz Houghton .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United Kingdom .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Liz Houghton as per WP:ATD .  HighKing ++ 15:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Materials World : website claims that it's ""widely accepted as the leading publication in its field, promoting the latest developments and new technologies"" but I haven't been able to locate anything that would confirm this and I haven't been able to find anything that cites this zine at all.  article has had one singular source for 3 years (added 11 years after its creation in 2009 by what seems to be a single-purpose account as it made the one singular edit creating this page and then disappeared ) and the body has remained almost completely the same since its creation.  — darling ( talk ) 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Engineering ,  and Environment .  — darling ( talk ) 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Seems like it's had no real edits since it was created and there's nothing I can find online in terms of coverage.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to IOM3 .  This is a real scholarly periodical: take a look at the sample issue on the Taylor & Francis website here .  Skimming the table of contents is enough to see that this is a serious publication featuring prominent scholars at reputable institutions.  Looking further for coverage of it I found that the description mimics (maybe too closely -- I'm too tired to pursue that thought) the material on the IOM3 website here , explaining that Materials World is their publication.  So my thinking is that the magazine itself is not independently notable so far as I can tell, but at least the core description of it should be moved from this page to the page for IOM3.  - Astrophobe ( talk ) 02:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to IOM3#Activities where the magazine's mentioned under the publications subheading and it's a membership journal.  Wouldn't advise merging the article text because as the contributor above says it's almost a replication of the Institute's blurb.  Rupples ( talk ) 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"The Politics of Uncertainty : Can a redirect work here?  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  20:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The book seemingly has reception, but that section is horribly written.  I can't make out what ""For [10] this volume illuminates"" is supposed to mean.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to Andy Stirling , the co-editor, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion .  Although the book is cited in numerous articles and books , I did not find book reviews or other significant coverage of the book in my searches for sources.  The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline .  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article.  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.  Cunard ( talk ) 08:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for this input.  I tried to improve the obscure paragraph noted by User:Geschichte .  Other than that I regret that I have not much to add to what written in the talk page.  The book is well cited as you note, and its presence on the pages of Wikipedia may encourage others to join the discussion on this important topic.  Best!  Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk ) 05:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect as suggested by Cunard.  I was able to access several of the citations in the ""reception"" section, but they are simple citations of the work, not reviews or a particular indication of lasting influence.  The first sentence, For[10] this volume illuminates how governments and private actors... is citing an article on the same topic, which says of this book nothing more than: STS scholars also argue that many governmental and organisational bodies (e.g. insurance) that attempt to deal with non-knowledge formulate uncertainty as risk and so, by rendering non-knowledge into calculable risk, reduce the world in particular ways that favour managerialism and de-emphasise other ways of knowing and living (Scoones & Stirling, 2020).  The second footnote in reception is a podcast, non-RS The third footnote in reception, attached to the statement The book is cited in debates about sustainability transition and transformation refers to this sentence and footnote: Hence, the issue sometimes is not around changing policy for the better but instead fighting a malignant transformation [1] , footnoting [1] At this juncture, we argue that it is important to embrace the inherent uncertainty in transformations and answer the questions put forth by Scoones and Stirling (2020) clearly before branding any transformation as benign or malign: ‘What methods, processes and mobilizations can tilt the balance towards more positive outcomes?'  The fourth footnote in reception has nothing in the source other than what's currently quoted in the article.  It's not nothing, but it's also not really enough coverage to write an effective article from.  I don't think any of these sources actually provide information for a reception section -- they are just very brief summaries of the main points of the book.  This is the sort of book that ought to be able to get two reviews.  ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 02:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect : This is usually the case.  I support that.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  07:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Andy Stirling , per Cunard and LEvalyn, as a viable ATD .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 18:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"2023 United States migrant surge : We don't know if this surge will continue to be notable long term.  Also, it appears there wasn't really a surge, just potential for one see [4] and [5] .  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 18:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Drafitfy until WP:RECENTISM subsides and WP:LASTING impact becomes clear.  Brandmeister talk 19:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] draftify : Seems like WP:NOTNEWS territory.  It also seems like a very small amount of people to call a surge, when immegration happens of a magnitude many times higher in other countries.  Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 19:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename — Clearly, there wasn't a surge, but cities have declared states of emergency.  One only needs to look at New York to see this is notable.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Title 42 expulsion .  I don't think this is notable in its own right ( WP:EVENTCRIT ), but it is an aspect of Title 42's history, and some of the major details in this article could be condensed down to a subsection in that one.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 20:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Title 42 expulsion , of which the article in question is arguably a WP:POVFORK .  We are not here for tabloid-led sensationalism about human migration.  GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 20:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as news reports are reporting that the anticipated surge never happened.  -- M asem ( t ) 14:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge This article creator has a habit of jumping to creating articles for events that are unnecessary and should be covered in a main article and only split when warranted. Reywas92 Talk 22:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Title 42 expulsion per all above, and nom. Cheers, atque supra ! Fake scientist 8000 03:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Title 42 expulsion per all above. Von bismarck ( talk ) 12:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Title 42 expulsions; there's not really enough here to support its own article, but covering the information can be done sufficiently there.  -- Jayron 32 18:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Title 42 expulsion , as per everyone else, a fork.  Slatersteven ( talk ) 14:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"KIV-7 : Fails coverage in secondary WP:RS to establish WP:GNG .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Politics ,  and Technology .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 20:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Lindsay Clancy : Fails WP:CRIMINAL .  Hirolovesswords ( talk ) 10:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Crime ,  and Massachusetts .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I think the information would be better used in the article about post-partum psychosis.  There is nothing terribly notable about this event, the aftermath section is perhaps more important.  This could be seen as at attempt to shame the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Postpartum psychosis , as per Oaktree b .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Pick tapping : Highly doubtful that it would ever warrant enough material to go beyond stub class, as it is simply a minor offshoot of the regular tapping technique.  Mac Dreamstate ( talk ) 22:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Tapping : as a section, while contrasting the difference with two-handed tapping.  Owen× ☎ 23:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"2024 European Cricket League : Seems unlikely there is coverage of the games to ! keep this so suggest merge winners to appropriate section of European Cricket League .  JMWt ( talk ) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Europe .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to European Cricket League#Seasons and winners as not notable enough for a dedicated article.  Would also support doing this for the 2019, 2022 and 2023 season articles too.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Individual seasons don't have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG .  Robo Cric Let's chat 14:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to European Cricket League#Seasons and winners Per Joseph2302 and others, not enough coverage for season articles.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 20:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Birbhum Pharmacy School : CptViraj ( talk ) 05:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge anything useful with Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology .  Division of that university  — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting just to be sure this is an appropriate target article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge per rsjaffe.  Mccapra ( talk ) 04:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Dudley (Street Fighter) : It seems like this article might be also relying to the listicles for ex.  ""Top 10 satisying character"" or included at the list of the worst character"" unlike Balrog (Street Fighter) or Fei Long (which were notable).  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters .  Only hits were databases, list articles and character rankings.  Doesn't appear notable enough to warrant a separate article.  Merko ( talk ) 08:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters .  All game guides and listicles.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 20:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters per WP:PRESERVE .  The mentions here do not rise to WP:SIGCOV for a stand-alone article.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Street Fighter characters per above.  // Timothy :: talk 11:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (soundtrack) : Practically all of the sources used in the article are either unreliable or situational (which usually can't be used for notability).  Film Music Reporter usually isn't reliable as per this discussion .  Screen Rant cannot be used to demonstrate notability per WP:VG/S .  Doing a WP:BEFORE check, I don't see any reliable sources that specifically covers the soundtrack.  Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 23:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Music ,  and Video games .  Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 23:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge back to film article.  Very little to be said beyond a track list and an exhaustive list of ""Songs that aren't on the soundtrack but appear in the movie anyways"" which doesn't really fit the scope of such a spin out article.  Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep You have reviews of the soundtrack (like this one ), but particular songs or aspects of the score are mentioned in the film reviews.  Lilke Roger Ebert 's for example, who did not like particularly the film but states : ""Parents will enjoy some retro songs harking back to their middle school days like “ It’s Tricky ” or “ This is How We Do It .”  Grandparents are not overlooked; the soundtrack also features Andy Williams and Norah Jones.""  So, yes, this soundtrack is quite notable, overall or for particular songs , and even the original score can be sourced .  And a dedicated page was therefore a good idea, as there is material to write a good page. — MY, OH, MY !  09:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Zanoboard Reviews"" is not a reliable source source, and passing mentions from movie reviews is a pretty weak argument for splitting out an article like this.  This isn't much of an argument for independent notability.  Sergecross73 msg me 10:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Newsweek articles from 2013–present are generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK .  I'm not sure about Theprp.com as a reliable source but it doesn't seem to have a lot on it's about us page .  Also, please don't edit my nomination reasoning as you did here .  Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 12:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What the PRP is to the music world is probably on par with what the screenrants, gamerants, and thegamers websites are to the video game world - situationally usable but not an ideal source or much of an argument for notability.  Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge To film article.  It's not really notable outside of the film.  Blitzfan51 the manager 13:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply : Just replying here to User:Pizzaplayer219 on the last part of their comment above : the insertion by me of a link in your text was obviously unintentional and I did not mean to edit anything in your text.  But, as I said in reply to the template you left on my tp, sincerely sorry for that.  17:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC) — MY, OH, MY !  [ reply ] Comment : While I am it: there is also have this review of the soundtrack( in French), for example, and their site is quite reliable.  Independently, the size of the main article (film) plus the fact that the page on the soundtrack has a partially list-like format would make, if remerged, the page not easily readable (let alone convenient to expand).  I am sure it is not necessary to direct anyone to WP pages about this.  — MY, OH, MY !  17:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What are their credentials for being reliable?  Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I wanted to ! vote Keep, but the sourcing isn't there.  I guess it wasn't as impactful as the first film's soundtrack.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment No opinion here, but I'd like to note that Film Music Reporter is considered a reliable source, and is used on many high-quality articles (including GAs and FAs).  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 18:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is that a film thing then?  It isn't listed at WP:RSMUSIC .  Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know if there have been any actual discussions, but there is certainly WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for this, at least on film articles.  It's usually only used to source track listing and album release dates anyway, which I assume they directly get from the studios/labels.  Essentially, they're a press release outlet.  (Can't be used to prove notability, obviously.)  InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 17:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above.  AryKun ( talk ) 06:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Entarisi ala benziyor : Aintabli ( talk ) 02:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Dance , Music , Albania , Armenia , Greece ,  and Turkey .  Aintabli ( talk ) 02:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Karsilamas .  The article doesn't need to have a separate page.  Since it is mentioned that it is a form of Karsilamas , I propose the article be merged.  killer bee 05:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Red Devil (comics) : No secondary RS at all.  No showing of SIGCOV.  Doesn't meet GNG.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as unnotable and unsourced useless article El Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to participants: This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet.  Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 01:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Blue Devil (DC Comics) – Whilst I would advocate for keeping it, it sadly does not have enough real world info, so it should be redirected to the Blue Comics page (as it's part of that), and someday someone can improve the article and add more sources and real world info 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 22:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation : microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 14:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Promotional tone is not valid grounds on its own for deletion: that's an issue can be cleaned up, unless an article is blatant advertising and needs a complete rewrite, in which case speedy deletion G11 is used.  Although the article doesn't currently make it clear, the company was closed in 2002 [11] , so advertising seems unlikely.  As the article clearly asserts notability per WP:CORP , can nominator please clarify their rationale for deletion?  Wikishovel ( talk ) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd like to point out a few things regarding the significance of iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation: The page has been in existence for nearly two decades, and while some references might be disappearing due to the age of the company, it doesn't diminish the historical importance of the content.  iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was foundational to the streaming industry.  It's widely recognized within the industry that this company was a precursor to the streaming giants we see today, such as Netflix, Apple, Hulu, and others.  Its influence was global.  The mention of 60 million streams, which is cited, underscores its significance.  To put it in perspective, during its prime, this was more traffic than major platforms like Yahoo.  Rather than just suggesting it be deleted, please suggest how to make it better or be more specific.  Given these points, it's evident that the company played a pivotal role in the evolution of online streaming, and its page serves as a historical reference, not an advertisement.  nilslahr ( talk ) 15:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's this magazine article about the iBeam multimedia portal: [12] -- Mika1h ( talk ) 00:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The current tone of the article is entirely inappropriate (see also: WP:NPOV , section: Impartial tone, subsection WP:SUBJECTIVE ), which is not too surprising given its lifted straight from the press releases used as references.  Contra Wikishovel, I believe this is a clear WP:DEL-REASON #4 even if it doesn't meet #1.  It may be theoretically possible to write an article that does not have such inappropriate tone even sourced mostly from press releases .  I don't think this is a G11, which would be subject to deletion in draftspace also, so if someone wants to make the attempt, no objections.  But this is not suitable for mainspace.  Delete .  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 04:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications , which is was merged into; and a mention that if a company is dead, WP:PROMO can't be obviously invoked unless you have a modified DeLorean in your driveway.  Nate • ( chatter ) 16:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree that promotional or otherwise non-neutral tone belongs on the encyclopedia, even if the entity being promoted could not possibly stand to be affected.  The legal reason why we would not allow advertising is because it's a deceptive way of gaining financial advantage ( WP:COVERT ), and we extend that to well beyond what is required by law because  a) we don't like it,  b) an abundance of caution, and  c) it being a good general principle.  Same as copyright here.  But even were it perfectly fine and dandy otherwise, PROMO is fundamentally unencyclopedic and a clear violation of NPOV.  For example, if someone created an article with the following text, it should be deleted under G11 because it is an ad even though FooBar Corporation does not exist and could not possibly benefit from advertising: About FooBar FooBar Corporation is the next-generation leader in widget innovation.  Our cutting-edge widgets are used by millions of people around the globe, and we are committed to providing our customers with the best possible products and services.  FooBar widgets are known for their state-of-the-art technology, sleek design, and intuitive user interface.  We use only the highest quality materials and components in our widgets, and we back our products with a satisfaction guarantee.  If you are looking for the most innovative and user-friendly widgets on the market, look no further than FooBar Corporation.  Our widgets are sure to revolutionise your workflow and exceed your expectations.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 13:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The concerns regarding the promotional tone of the article are valid and should be addressed through editing, not deletion.  The historical significance of IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation in the development of streaming media technology is well-documented and notable for several reasons: The company's closure in 2002 indicates that the article is not serving a promotional purpose but is a historical record.  IBEAM's technological contributions, such as global load balancing and edge networking, are substantiated by patents and their adoption in the industry, which is a testament to their significance.  The partnerships and roles in major streaming events that IBEAM held are a matter of public record and contribute to the notability of the company.  While the article may source from press releases, the information presented is factual and relevant to the company's technological advancements and industry impact.  Credible sources like Streaming Media Magazine provide an objective perspective on these contributions.  Preserving information about defunct companies is crucial for historical accuracy and understanding industry evolution.  The loss of sources over time should encourage us to maintain and enhance the article rather than remove it.  Given these points, the IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation article warrants retention and improvement.  It provides valuable historical insight into the early days of streaming media, a pivotal aspect of today's internet.  Deletion would result in a significant gap in the historical context for readers interested in the evolution of streaming technology.  Nilslahr ( talk ) 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is somewhat a moot point, but you should probably properly disclose your COI, by the way.  You can find how to do so at WP:DISCLOSE .  Are you committing to fixing things up yourself or are you expecting other people to do it for you?  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:CORP : no in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Corporations have higher requirements for sources to combat just the kind of promotional content we see in this article.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 00:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications as per WP:ATD and suggestion above and then Delete .  This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing ""Independent Content"" showing in-depth information *on the company* .   ""Independent content"", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  The tone of the article is entirely inappropriate and is PEACOCK and PROMO.  Just the first couple of sentences alone raise the following issues: iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was a Media Streaming Company .  Established in 1998, iBEAM was instrumental [ according to whom? ] in the invention [ according to whom? ] of the Content Delivery Network for Streaming Media.  The company played a pivotal role [ according to whom? ] in aiding giants [ peacock prose ] like Real Networks and Microsoft in scaling their services.  [ according to whom? ] iBEAM was responsible [ according to whom? ] for introducing groundbreaking [ peacock prose ] technologies such as global load balancing, edge networking, distributed streaming, and digital data satellite delivery [ according to whom? ] .  None of the references meet the criteria and perhaps due to the age of the company I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria.  HighKing ++ 14:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise : Enough to verify that the book exists, but not much else.  There's probably a good merge/redirect target somewhere but I can't think of one.  Author Lora Johnson , maybe?  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature .  PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Star Trek technical manuals as WP:Alternative to deletion as suitable target for a topic which does not fullfill the notability requirements but does appear in a number of secondary sources (e.g. TV Zone #22 , with a minor comment on canonicity beyond acknowledging its pure existence).  Daranios ( talk ) 11:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge The book exists and has some mentions.  Without SIGCOV it can be listed at List of Star Trek technical manuals as an alternative to deletion.  Jontesta ( talk ) 21:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This shouldn't be a stand-alone article.   It's unclear to me whether any information other than the title should be included at List of Star Trek technical manuals , no preference between an attempt to merge content and a redirect to a one-line entry on that page.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above.  This article is suitable for Memory Alpha or the Great Link.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 17:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Pokémon Unite at the 2023 Pokémon World Championships : Fails WP:GNG .  At best, a very limited amount of this information should be merged to 2023 Pokémon World Championships .  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 14:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 14:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet .  — Karnataka talk 14:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into 2013 Pokémon World Championships per nomination, the championship as a whole is notable, but not the Unite competitions as a separate event.  -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 14:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per AlexandraAVX. Unlikely to meet have enough sourcing to sustain its own article, but it can be covered in the parent article, which is quite short usually.  -- Patar knight - chat / contributions 16:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , although the main page of 2023 Pokémon World Championships can get exhaustive and only concern a limited pool of people to read all of it.  There are 8 events for 4 games.  Sqldf03 ( talk ) 04:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Samuel Alito flag display controversy : Esolo5002 ( talk ) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Politics , Christianity , United States of America , New Jersey ,  and Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Samuel Alito .  It’s notable when a Supreme Court justice who is hearing cases related to an attempted government coup is flying flags that are well established by news coverage to support that coup in front of his house.  Also, the article is well-sourced enough to establish the notability of the topic.  But it’s more confusing to wiki visitors to have a separate article for it, because when they come here looking for this, they’re going to be looking for it under his name.  This topic belongs under a “controversies” section in the main article.  Ruth Bader Yinzburg ( talk ) 22:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Samuel Alito : I agree that this event is currently notable, but I don't think it passes the 10YT .  I think it should be selectively merged to Samuel Alito#Ethical questions without prejudice to potentially creating a controversies sub-article for Alito, since he seems to be racking them up recently.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Samuel Alito I too think this could be contained within a ""controversies"" section in the main article.  -- Enos733 ( talk ) 05:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Aside from how the controversy is affecting Alito's reputation, this event has spawned new analysis of the Pine Tree Flag 's use by Christian nationalists , whether political affiliations necessitate recusal, and the practice of blaming evidence of wrongdoing on spouses. While the most recent SCOTUS controversy of Clarence Thomas ' nondisclosure of finances is located within the ""Personal life"" section of his article, financial conflicts of interest are far simpler to summarize than whether particular symbols suggest bias based on their historical and contemporary meanings.  Thus, the current format of a minor summary in Alito's article with a ""See also"" tag to this dedicated article is preferable.  BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Samuel Alito per rationale of Ruth Bader Yinzburg and voorts.  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Rational behind Ruth Bader Yinzburg's comment suggests a title issue.  This continues to receive coverage and the contents would not be entirely covered under a section in Alito's article.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could '''merge'' it.  Althought, it has been on the news a lot, maybe an article about it not all that needed.  Cwater1 ( talk ) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per RBY and voorts.  It could become notable as events develop, but at the moment it's better in the main article (actually, I only came here because I was looking for info on this, and the first place I went was the main article).  Reading pro 256 talk to me contribs 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Samuel Alito per WP:NOTNEWS .  Partofthemachine ( talk ) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Divided consciousness : It is fully redundant with Dissociation (psychology) .  Kate the mochii ( talk ) 17:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Ernest Hilgard as an WP:ATD .  Even if the topic is notable (which looks questionable to me based on a quick search), the material is probably better covered on Hilgard's page.  Suriname0 ( talk ) 01:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jesus Christ no get a grip on reality and read some Carl Jung this is important, DO NOT DELETE 2601:205:4000:22A0:B9B6:2B98:D0A4:FEE5 ( talk ) 09:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Ernest Hilgard .  The current state of the article leaves a lot to be desired.  Every significant claim is either left unsourced, or neatly ornamented with {{ citation needed }} .  The independent article gives undue weight to a theory that is poorly researched.  However, a merge would appropriately re-frame the subject as a hypothesis by a notable psychologist, rather than a notable subject and theory in and of itself.  Agentdoge ( talk ) 20:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge to Ernest Hilgard , although that looks challenging to do.  The ensuing redirect, however, should probably be pointed to Dissociation (psychology) (where both Jung and Hilgard get some coverage) per the principle of least astonishment.  Alternatively, given that the merge is nontrivial, perhaps we could just redirect to Dissociation (psychology) and leave a pointer on Talk:Ernest Hilgard for any future editors who might be interested in figuring out whether and how to merge this content.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Suicide Slum : The article is just a pure plot summary.  My BEFORE shows a few passing mentions in the context of black superheroes in the USA, but nothing that meets SIGCOV; the best I see about the location in here : ""vividly realized streets and alleys of Suicide Slum, DC’s fictional version of Manhattan’s Lower East Side "" but that's again just half a sentence.  Unless anyone can find something better, I think we can only redirect this to List_of_DC_Universe_locations per WP:ATD .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Comics and animation ,  and United States of America .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Metropolis (comics) - While it may have started out as a fictionalized version of a New York slum, it has been featured as a part of Metropolis for over fifty years now, and is, in fact, already covered on our article on that fictional city.  I agree with the nominations assessment of the lack of notability for this fictional location, but would advocate Metropolis (comics) being the target for a redirect rather than List of DC Universe locations .  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Metropolis (comics) per above.  AryKun ( talk ) 19:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with it's section at Metropolis (comics) in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 22:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to WP:PRESERVE .  No separate notability from the main topic about the wider fictional location.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 00:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Miracle Star : Previously deleted in an AfD, but immediately recreated.  Donald D23 talk to me 14:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation ,  and China .  Donald D23 talk to me 14:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""famously referred to""...  Yikes .  Could it be merge d/redirected to one of the sections of The Amazing World of Gumball ?  The actual show is clearly non-notable in its' own right but Refs 3 & 4 suggest it might be worth a mention there.  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to The Amazing World of Gumball (season 5)#The Copycats , where Miracle Star is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion .  Cunard ( talk ) 09:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect to The Amazing World of Gumball (season 5)#The Copycats , as per Cunard.  Tube · of · Light 10:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Kunimitsu (Tekken) : GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.  Bosconovitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Fury — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlatorNator ( talk • contribs ) 23:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak merge to List of Tekken characters .  Just barely fails to have independent notability.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters .  Very little seen about her besides WP:MILL announcements, and her reception section doesn't suggest she was spoken about indepth.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters per above.  // Timothy :: talk 01:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : A borderline case, IMO.  Admittedly, much of the reception section is cited to listicles and the like, but we have the Den of Geek source, and the one from Heavy.com, as well as one from CBR.  There's a couple from Screen Rant in there, but these sources were put in before the current consensus that Screen Rant is not to be used to establish notability.  She's definitely not the most notable Tekken character, but I would say she passes, just barely.  MoonJet ( talk ) 04:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Tekken characters .  Only fifteen sources in the article overall and there's no viable reception, with a search bringing up mostly news announcements about her then-upcoming appearance in Tekken 7 season 4.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 17:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Peera Garhi Chowk : After Proposed deletion removed, unable to find references to verify this place and to establish notability .  JoeNMLC ( talk ) 19:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Delhi .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Peeragarhi metro station .  Peera Garhi Chowk is a major intersection in Delhi.  It is not automatically notable and the article serves very little purpose in its current state.  On the other hand, mentioning this major intersection that is adjacent to the metro station will be a welcome addition for the target.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Robert Garcia (Art of Fighting) : Despite being written long, sources were mostly from trivia mentions.  Also at reception section, those were full of passing mentions and some listicles, thus showing zero WP:SIGCOV .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 13:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Art of Fighting#Characters , does not demonstrate standalone notability. When it was created, no effort was made to demonstrate notability whatsoever. it lacked secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you not word it that way Zx? There was a clear attempt to find sources by whoever wrote it, but standards have improved and things are different. I reckon you wouldn't care for someone saying that about something you built based off what was seen as the standard to do things at the time. And it's not the first time you've commented like that (i.e. saying an article was more suitable for Fandom's site and had zero effort).-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 00:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, corrected.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks,  — Amakuru ( talk ) 13:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Art of Fighting#Characters per nom.  While the ""Reception"" section looks lengthy with a multitude of sources, actually looking into it shows that these sources are extremely trivial (oftentimes a single sentence) mentions of the character, generally in the context of an overall review/overview of the games he appeared in.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all, as an alternative to deletion.  The sources are pretty thin but can be preserved in some form.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of secondary schools of Rupandehi district : I can't find anything to suggest that the secondary schools in this district are a distinctive enough phenomenon to require an exhaustive list of every single one of them.  The list itself doesn't seem to meet any of the three purposes listed under WP:LISTPURP either.  Similar deletions have taken place with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Misiones, Paraguay , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Gombe State and even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Venezuela , a list of schools in an entire country rather than just a small district.  In my view, List of schools in Nepal is sufficient and we shouldn't be encouraging people to do directory lists for each of the 77 districts.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Lists ,  and Nepal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Fails WP:NLIST .  Most of the schools do not have their own articles and no further context is provided on the list.  33ABGirl ( talk ) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge only blue link entries to List of schools in Nepal#Rupandehi District .  Ajf773 ( talk ) 21:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge .  I am not persuaded by the nom's LISTN argument.  I am no scholar of Rupandehi district matters.  But simply on the face of it, the claim that secondary schooling in Rupandehi (or any comparable geographical area) has never received significant independent coverage is an extraordinary one that I have difficulty believing was intended seriously.  The precedents cited in the nom strike me as more of a monument to AFD's perpetuation of systemic bias than anything else.  That said, there's no obvious reason for this district alone to be split off from the rest of the List of schools in Nepal at this stage in its development, so merging it there seems fine.   However, I see no indication that the Nepal list is intended to be restricted to bluelinks (indeed bluelinks seem to be a distinct minority).  So if merged, I would advocate merging the entire list.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What about the WP:NOTDIR argument that I led with?  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess I don't quite understand it.  None of the bullet points under NOTDIR would seem to apply (unless we're going to say that all bare lists are violations of bullet #1, which would be quite a shift).  And in general, given encyclopedic subject matter, a comprehensive list is going to be of greater value to the project and the reader than a non-comprehensive one.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also pertinent here.  To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.  Nobody asking for this article to be kept has provided the necessary independent sources to demonstrate this requires a stand-alone article.  The content is verifiable through the government source but that alone isn't sufficient.  We don't simply create an article just to mirror a drop-down list from a government website.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"2022 Road Safety World Series squads : We generally only have separate articles for major international cricket events like the Cricket World Cup , not for relatively obscure tournaments like this one.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm also nominating the following article for the same reason (another season squad article for same tournament): 2020–21 Road Safety World Series squads ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , South Africa , Bangladesh , Sri Lanka , England , Australia , New Zealand ,  and Caribbean .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm dubious about whether the articles about the tournaments themselves should exist, but I imagine there was almost certainly enough coverage of them in India for them to remain - but then we could get ourselves into a situation where we allow articles on really insignificant things at this rate.  As for these articles listing a bunch of has beens topping up their retirement money in a beer and pretzels made for TV tournament?  Delete .  Clearly.  Not even close.  Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 14:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Squad articles aren't needed in separate pages.  The information can be concisely moved into a table on the main article.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - to the main article Road Safety World Series in a smaller table.  Will improve and expand the main article.  Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 19:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Unnecessary fluffery, for an event of dubious notability.  StickyWicket ( talk ) 20:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Agree with Vinegarymass911 .  Merge to the main article Road Safety World Series .  Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 05:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"University of California, Washington Center : Seems unlikely that a university internship programme is notable - I can't find refs that would meet the GNG.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  JMWt ( talk ) 07:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C. .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Most sources I found are primary sources published by UCI or other institutions. Would also be open to merge to University of California, Irvine . -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 15:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Pamela Meyer Davis : Could easily be merged into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges .  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politics ,  and Illinois .  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  ― ""Ghost of Dan Gurney"" (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges per WP:BLP1E .  Fails WP:GNG , standalone page not warranted.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Berman Jewish Policy Archive : Fails WP:GNG and no WP:SIGVCOV about the archive per a WP:BEFORE Longhornsg ( talk ) 07:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  Longhornsg ( talk ) 07:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Stanford University Graduate School of Education .  killer bee 09:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Light merge to above target.  There's a bit of promo and outdated information in the article that should not be merged.  — siro χ o 10:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science , California ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"List of targeted killings by Israel : This new article is the same scope and duplicative.  Open to a discussion about whether List of targeted killings by Israel (to match the main article Targeted killing by Israel ) or List of Israeli assassinations is the better merge target.  My preference is for the former.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 17:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Query: How duplicative is the content?  I'm sure there's some overlap, but there is also likely some grey area between targeted killing and assassination, and it's possible that these lists aggregate events that are described with one term or the other, but are not described as both in the sources, which could raise questions about how best to reconcile the content.  How was the assessment that these lists are in fact duplicative reached (I haven't had time to go over it myself), and what is the extent?  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just went through the lists, item by item, and there's about 80% overlap.  The targeting killings list has a couple (eg Bahtini) that are not on the more comprehensive and inclusive assassination list, but I chalk that up to the outdated nature of the assassinations list, rather than a definitional or source-driven purposeful differentiation that would preclude their addition (for example, I would expect to see Iranian scientists as ""assassinations,"" while Hamas military commanders as ""targeted killings"", but the lists make no such distinction).  Open to other opinions, but from my perusal of both the targeted killings and assassinations lists, there's no clear rhyme or reason why an entry may be on one, or both).  As assassinations are a subset of targeted killings, it may be easier just to fold everything on to the latter page.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 18:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Israel .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge, provided that the merged page is moved to List of assassinations and targeted killings by Israel See https://academic.oup.com/book/4558/chapter/146658764 Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a healthy academic and policy debate about assassinations and targeted killings.  I would note that the opinion of Miller, a philosopher, does not reflect the consensus of international law and terrorism experts, who generally place assassinations as a subset of targeted killings.  No reason to use the longer name, when we can use a more concise and inclusive term.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 18:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think there is a consensus for this.  As the Miller source also states: ""targeted killing needs to be distinguished from assassination, a practice that is typically unlawful.""  Not minor.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 05:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If anything, targeted killing is more like a subset of assassination that has been deemed somewhat legally permissible in certain circumstances, but still occupies a very grey area.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 05:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] who generally place assassinations as a subset of targeted killings The sources given at Assassination#Targeted killing also suggest that the two are distinct so not only Miller.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on the assessment of the overlap, I think I would also support a merge to List of Israeli assassinations alongside a retitling as List of assassinations and targeted killings by Israel , since I have to side with Miller in agreeing that ""Targeted killings and assassinations are closely related, but not identical, phenomena"" .  The assassination of militant leaders might often fall under the definition of targeted killings, but there are also entries in these lists that it would be inappropriate to shoehorn into a 'targeted killing' definition.  This includes, for example, the killing of Kamal Nasser , a politician and poet, as well as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists , i.e.: individuals who represent a somewhat hypothetical and very much indirect threat versus individuals who might be reasonably be  construed as combatants.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 05:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ""Israeli assassinations"" and ""assassinations by Israel"" are not the same thing.  The first could be any assassination in Israel as well as assassinations carried out by Israeli individuals and authorities.  The second is narrower and is about assassinations carried out by the Israeli authorities.  I recommend going for the article title that best describes the killings to be included in the article/list scope.  Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me ) 07:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per nom.  Orientls ( talk ) 17:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Board Wages : BEFORE searches give where to watch and a few passing mentions when describing the TV series this stems from.  Karnataka ( talk ) 19:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Karnataka ( talk ) 19:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge .  I think this individual episode is notable.  If it isn't, I would merge the plot summary into the article on the series or the first season.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreed.  And the article also an independent reference.  Rillington ( talk ) 09:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you mean you agree with the statement that the invidiual is notable, or that the article should be merged?  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes .  There's no plot summary there so some of this article's details could go there, and episode titles are suitable search targets and should be kept as redirects.  I don't see enough to warrant a standalone article.  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Natural delimitation between the Pacific and South Atlantic oceans by the Shackleton Fracture Zone : Unlikely that anyone would search for this title, seems like it can be deleted with no loss of information on en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Geography .  JMWt ( talk ) 14:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge Just do it WP:BOLD .  Reywas92 Talk 14:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree - Merge Go ahead and merge it.  Banks Irk ( talk ) 14:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Agree with nomination, this article serves no useful purpose.  Paul H. ( talk ) 00:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge BOLDly with Shackleton Fracture Zone as described above.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 18:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think on the opposite, maybe the information should be lowered on the Shackleton Fracture Zone article about the theory itself, and keep the theory and the geographic features separated mostly. -- Janitoalevic ( talk ) 20:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"Rock Howard : Despite well written, sources were mostly from trivia mentions.  Also at reception section, those were full of passing mentions and listicles, thus showing zero WP:SIGCOV .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 12:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 12:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 12:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Fatal Fury characters .  This is precisely the kind of info you'd expect to see in a FANDOM article on the character, but does not pass Wikipedia's more stringent notability standards with significant coverage.  Standards evolved from 2009 where a sentence or two in reviews mentioning a character was thought to be enough.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Trying to search for further statements turned up nothing really tangible. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",merge
"JJ Lin: Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions .  Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - apologies, nominated the wrong browser tab.  Figuring out how to ""officially"" retract now.  Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 12:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:WDAFD Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 12:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Mid-Life Crustacean: Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk ) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"List of Undertale and Deltarune characters: There are brief mentions in reviews praising how the characters were written, but nothing substantial enough for a full list when a significant amount of them have no sourcing.  I did some searching around online and found that many of the characters lack any significant material on their creation and reception.  Even if it is found that the characters are notable as a whole, the article is still largely unsourced and needs to be rewritten.  The Night Watch (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists .  The Night Watch (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not really sure where the whole ""needs rewriting"" thing comes from - MOS:PLOT states that ""The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations"".  I feel there is a misunderstanding of what exactly requires sourcing and what doesn't.  The page could stand to be expanded with more context, but it's not so barren of sources to fall under GAMECRUFT.  Obviously, people are welcome to add more context, I just wanted to start a page for what (has been raised in numerous deletion discussions) is a very clearly notable  cast of characters that has been discussed as a group.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't this list get started like within the month?  Honestly, kind of surprised this got put into AfD so soon.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the bigger issue is that it's 99% regurgitated plot points and 1% out-of-universe commentary.  Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure why you're quoting MOS:PLOT when this is a list of characters that should include information on their conception, design, and reception and not just a plot summary.  Although there are elements of the plot that could be included on the page and do not require inline citations, the article and its characters are excessively based upon said plot sourcing and there is still not an adequate amount of material that I could find on the game's characters as a whole.  Just mentions in reviews all basically saying that the characters were ""all well written and very unique"" is not enough material to satisfy NLIST, because there is no other significant material to work with.  If several scholarly sources discussing the characters of Undertale and Deltarune does come up, that would be enough to satisfy NLIST.  But at the moment, I'm just not seeing it.  The Night Watch (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some sources that would hopefully address the issue, though I am all but certain there's more out there.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but give the page time to improve .  I agree with User:Zxcvbnm — it's ""a very clearly notable cast of characters that has been discussed as a group""; it's just that this list page is quite new (it's literally only about a month old) and needs a little bit of time to expand its bibliography and descriptions (instead of being insta-deleted).  Paintspot Infez ( talk ) 20:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'll be honest, I'm slightly iffy about the Deltarune half of the article.  But Undertale's end has several papers with multiple citations discussing them on Google Scholar here .  And that's coming from looking at the papers themselves.  I will openly state these sources should have been worked in *before* the article was pushed out like this, but at the same time there's at least clear discussion too and the Sans (Undertale) AfD clearly demonstrated there is interest in a list of characters for this game. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Video games .  silviaASH ( inquire within ) 03:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : At least for the time being.  The sources, while far from ideal, are at the very least adequate to meet the GNG, and the article is new.  As such I would wait at least a short while to allow its improvement , before saying it needs to be deleted.  If it is ultimately deemed to be unsatisfactory for mainspace and does not see any significant improvement before this AfD ends, it should be draftified, rather than deleted, and permitted to be recreated at a later date.  silviaASH ( inquire within ) 03:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep.  This article was made fairly recently and many sources have been found on the subject.  It should have time to improve before it's put up for deletion.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 03:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Characters of X are routinely permitted when X is a notable media franchise with, well, characters.  Jclemens ( talk ) 04:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Creator keep I can't say I understand the rationale behind the nomination, as it suggests that plot summary needs to be sourced when, by Wikipedia policy, it does not.  And if it wasn't clear before, it is quite obvious now that sources do discuss the characters both individually and as a group, making the rationale that it does not pass WP:LISTN soundly refuted.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Vijay Vasant Tambay: Sources are lacking.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 04:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination .  There are sources, just not currently in this article.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 07:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Survival of the Fittest (TV series): Tagged for notability since 2018.  PROD removed with comment, ""Presented by Laura Whitmore , notable figure"".   But, notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED .   Rationale to keep must be based on the notability of the series, not the person in the series.  Donald D23 talk to me 19:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Donald D23 talk to me 19:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  O'Connor, Sorcha (2018-09-24).  ""Laura Whitmore's Survival of the Fittest show axed after just one series"" .  Irish Independent .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 .  Retrieved 2023-11-24 .  The article notes: ""It was dubbed the 'winter Love Island' but reality TV series Survival Of The Fittest - fronted by Laura Whitmore - has been dumped by ITV after just one series. ... The dating show with a twist saw 12 singletons head to South Africa where they stayed in a luxury lodge, with contestants pitted against each other in boys versus girls challenges. The show was won by the girls' team, with overall winner Mettisse Campbell, who was voted as 'fittest girl', choosing to split the £40,000 (€45,000) prize money among the other three remaining girls, with all four ending the series £10,000 richer.""  McCreesh, Louise (2018-02-13).  ""Survival of the Fittest is confusing fans – here, Laura Whitmore explains the rules of the game"" .  Digital Spy .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 .  Retrieved 2023-11-24 .  The article notes: ""Survival of the Fittest aired its second episode on Monday night (February 12) with viewers still pretty perplexed about the rules. The series was initially branded by fans as a Winter Love Island but opened as a boys vs girls Gladiators-style battle of the sexes (with the obstacle course to boot) when it premiered, although things got even more confusing in last night's episode when newcomer Lottie was given the option of going on a date with one of the male contestants.""  Houghton, Rianne (2018-02-12).  ""It seems no-one knows what Survival of the Fittest is actually about – not even the contestants"" .  Digital Spy .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 .  Retrieved 2023-11-24 .  The article notes: ""Whether it's a worthy replacement or not, ITV2's new reality series Survival of the Fittest is here to try to fill that Love Island-shaped hole in our lives. ... Despite a new location, a different premise and the introduction of challenges, tonight's (February 12) Survival of the Fittest felt suspiciously similar to its distant cousin – but not in a good way.""  Ling, Thomas (2018-09-24).  ""ITV2's Survival of the Fittest axed after one series"" .  Radio Times .  Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 .  Retrieved 2023-11-24 .  The article notes: ""The show failed to grab the viewing figures of its stablemate Love Island, debuting with overnight ratings of 0.59 million, which had dipped to 0.30 million by its penultimate week. Overall, the show just didn't capture the zeitgeist of the nation in quite the same way Love Island did this summer. However, viewing figures may not have influenced the decision to cancel the show too heavily, with a source telling RadioTimes.com: “Some have suggested it is down to low ratings which absolutely isn’t the case."""" Fullerton, Huw (2018-03-03). ""Who won Survival of the Fittest?"" . Radio Times . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: ""After three weeks of mental and physical challenges, ITV2’s new reality show Survival of the Fittest has come to an end with the Girls on top, defeating the Boys in the Ultimate Team Challenge and taking home the final prize.""  Taylor, Frances (2018-02-14). ""What is Survival of the Fittest? Everything you need to know about ITV2's new Love Island"" . Radio Times . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: ""Survival of the Fittest is a brand new reality show from ITV2 that also promises sun, singles and gratuitous shots of skimpy swimwear – and it's starting this week! ... The six boys and six girls will take part in different games and challenges in what's being called ""the ultimate battle of the sexes"". The winning team will take home £40,000 at the end of the three weeks. ... Manchester-based comic and actor Brennan Reece is going to be doing the narration for Survival of the Fittest.""  Lewis, Anna (2018-01-02). ""Missing Love Island? Then get excited for Survival Of The Fittest"" . Cosmopolitan . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: ""Survival Of The Fittest is being hailed as ‘Winter Love Island’, and we can see why. It’s basically a bunch of female hotties and male hotties being pitted against each other in daily physical and mental challenges to determine if boys are better than girls or vice-versa. And all against the beautiful backdrop of the South African savanna."" ""Laura Whitmore: 'Survival of the Fittest is not the new Love Island - this is a battle of the sexes' "" . Evening Standard . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: ""Laura Whitmore has claimed that Survival of the Fittest is ""not the new Love Island - this is a battle of the sexes”. The show will see a group of attractive singles compete in a range of mental and physical challenges as the men take on the women.""  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Survival of the Fittest to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"".  Cunard ( talk ) 09:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , per sources found by Cunard.  Excellent work.  Donald D23 talk to me 18:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Where's that damn fourth Chaos Emerald?: Non-notable quotation, no specific page on Wikiquote, no inbound wiki-links.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 14:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This was originally a redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) where this phrase is mentioned in one of the footnotes as being a memorable line in the game.  Should this just be reverted back to its original state?  L iz Read!  Talk!  18:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural speedy close Per WP:WRONGFORUM .  This is not an article, redirects go to WP:RFD to be discussed, not here.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy close : Per WP:WRONGFORUM and Zxcvbnm.  Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 12:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close and send to RfD as a WP:WRONGFORUM .  – dudhhr talk contribs she her 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy close Per WP:WRONGFORUM , send to WP:RFD Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Raymone Bain: TRL ( talk ) 03:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are celebrating women by deleting a black woman's bio who has represented some of the biggest names in sports and entertainment.
 OK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey1009 ( talk • contribs ) 03:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Mickey1009 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] With no sourcing, yes.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - The person has demonstrated GNG based on sources, but other than representing Mike Jackson 20 years ago, she's a simple entertainment attorney with some notable connections.  Augmented Seventh ( talk ) Delete : ""Michael Jackson hired her"" is about the extent of coverage focusing on  her as a person, otherwise she's named in articles about the various clients she represents.  I don't see notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep : No reason has been given for deletion.  Pam D 07:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Rasa Mažeikytė: Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) ( Talk ) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling , Olympics ,  and Lithuania .  Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) ( Talk ) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets a guideline I can think of, WP:SPORTCRIT as a medalist at the World Championships , etc.  See Special:WhatLinksHere/Rasa Mažeikytė for participations.  Then, when it comes to sources, there seem to be several .  Geschichte ( talk ) 19:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, I didn't see that.  I'll withdraw my nom, thanks.  Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) ( Talk ) 12:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Manavs: However, it was extensively edited by POV-pushing sockpuppets: Öztürküm (the creator), Kumanof, Hatymat, Lionzm, Suyumbikä, ManavAnton.  Basically, the majority of the edits and content are from the aforementioned accounts.  There are clusters of several sources that need verification, and since they are all placed after the end of each paragraph and not interspersed throughout, there is likely a problem of synthesis.  To save time, I suggest a WP:TNT for this article, so that when it is created again, reliable sources are used with a NPOV.  Aintabli ( talk ) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Turkey .  Aintabli ( talk ) 04:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator: Given non-existent participation for more than a week, this AfD gets ironic as I could have just worked on this short article during that time.  Aintabli ( talk ) 04:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Gyurkovicsarna: An IMDb link and the Swedish equivalent (see WP:NFSOURCES ).   Appears to fail WP:NFILM .   Secondary and tertiary sources may exist, but nobody has seen fit to add them.  Lithopsian ( talk ) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  Lithopsian ( talk ) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sweden .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The current reference doesn't prove the film is notable.  It is a database generated profile similar to IMDB, so makes it is a WP:SPS source and is non-rs.  It has effectively been copied from one profile into another profile on here with nothing to satisfy WP:V .  Searching Google Books on the subject names finds loads of passing mentions.  There is no doubt that it exists but currently it is unsourced.  scope_creep Talk 20:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG / WP:NFILM .  Note the film is at least occasionally referred to as The Gyurkovics Family SIGCOV in this book [14] SIGCOV in this book [15] Brief coverage in this book [16] The Swedish language article references ( Svenska Dagbladet , 20 september 1920, sid. 11) Mentions in these books [17] [18] — siro χ o 20:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment don,t turn it in to a redirect to an article that is not the same subject (there was a redirect loop created in the article of John W Brunius).  Keep the original or delete it so there is a red link and in future someone can make it into a noteworthy blue article.  Geerestein3 ( talk ) 20:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Extra note: there are claims that the Svensk Filmdatabas is similar to IMDb, but as far as i can see, is that the Svensk databas is from the Swedish filminstitut and is not open for the public to amend or adjust in comparison to IMDb, so there is already a big difference.  In the Swedish database there is also a interesting caption 'Kommentarer' Geerestein3 ( talk ) 21:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the sources presented above by Siroxo attest notability.  The film was apparently a commercial success .  Note:  1) the page is not unsourced, it's insufficiently sourced (and that is not a reason for deletion, nor is the fact that no one bothered to add sources that indeed exist)  2) and of course the Svensk filmdatabas is much more reliable than IMDb, and this, specially on a Swedish film.... - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Page 62-64 of the ref 2 above ""Masculinity in the Golden Age of Swedish"" is detailed enough for a WP:SECONDARY ref. I couldn't see Ref 1 but assuming it the same as Ref 1 in quality, there should be enough.  The others one are poor existance to non-existant.  Posting passing mentions is useless to everybody.  scope_creep Talk 06:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources unearthed above are okay - there's enough for an article here.  Also, as noted above, the Swedish Film Database entry has a section ""Kommentarer"" [19] that contains contemporary press coverage, which is a very welcome for old movies.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 06:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep not that much coverage, but Masculinity in the Golden Age of Swedish Cinema offers enough.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: in light of comments above about the Swedish Film Database , I have posted the following at  the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Swedish Film Database - reliable source for Swedish and non-Swedish films and actors I make the case there that this is a reliable database; if you agree or disagree, please chime in.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per sources above.  As noted above, Svensk Filmdatabas is not a crowdsourced website but published by the Swedish Film Institute and gets its information from the production companies.  / Julle ( talk ) 19:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Inclusion, however, doesn't mean much more than the fact that it's a Swedish film with some kind of distribution. But other unearthed sources are good enough.) / Julle ( talk ) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Database generated profiles are not reliable by long consensus and it is WP:PRIMARY so can't be used to establish notability.  The argument has already been made that your essentially copying information from one location to another on the internet with no intellectual input, i. .e what drives the encyclopeadia.  That cannot be as seen as any kind of intellectually reliable way of building an encyclopeadia.  scope_creep Talk 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think folk realise how unreliable these databases are.  There seems to be this tacit assumption that perhaps due to the organisation naming, its an Institute, therefore its must be reiable.  They get there info from the production companies.   Notthing could be further from the truth.  There is no correlation between how prestigious an organisation is and how good there data is and often its converse because they don't want expose how bad things are and that is seen time and time from British utility company, to German rail companies to America healthcare provides to French nuclear regulatory bodies.  Its all the same gig.  So please, less and more fact checking.  WP:SECONDARY sources are good standard.  scope_creep Talk 05:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you have a personal bias in this.  You have to take into the equation that we are talking here about a movie from 1920.  The production company doesn't exist so they didn't provide the information, and there is no suggestion that they filled the information with other databases in the internet.  On the contrary there is information that only can be gather from pre internet sources.  With your comparison to America healthcare en nuclear regulatory, you are comparing apples with i don't know children toys? .  (not every database is the same)  The fact is that an institut has published information on a movie and that there is no reason in this case to believe or suggest that they didn't do their due diligence.  It scares me that you come with your one speculations and personal opions and make generalizations and projections to other area's but don't provide actual prove for the case at hand (the movie!!).  That is something we could use less.  The assumption that i, or other users.  didn't check facts in this case is so very false and scary.  I just wished your had checked the facts yourself before starting an editwar.  If wikipedia can not rely on information provided in this article by using the swedish filmdatabase (and yes your narrative would be beter suited for the IMDb database) then there is no point in making articles.  Every kind of source, past and future, has reliability issues but we cannot use a theory on databases in general and therefore exclude every kind of information that comes from a source that calls itself a database.  Every database should be judged on its own merits.  And i believe in combination of Wikipedia goals the use of the database of the filminstitut is fair use for information provided on a topic about a movie of 1920 from Sweden.  (until prove is given otherwise about the specific database)  Geerestein3 ( talk ) 09:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not making an argument about ""these databases"", nor am I looking at the name.  I'm talking about a specific database, Svensk Filmdatabas, which has long been discussed on Swedish Wikipedia.  I'm well familiar with the weaknesses and limitations of this particular source.  That note was, however, irrelevant for my decision to argue keep; I think the sources noted in the conversation are good enough without Svensk Filmdatabas.  / Julle ( talk ) 09:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Julle , since the Swedish Film Database covers 10s of 1000s of non-Swedish films, I’m interested in using it as a reliable source in other film articles.  I’m interested in the discussions you mentioned on the Swedish Wikipedia about its strengths and weaknesses.  If you are so inclined, I’d be interested in learning more, perhaps either on the AfD talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard link I posted above.  Thanks, — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know anything about how reliable it is for foreign films, I'm afraid.  / Julle ( talk ) 14:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scope creep , that’s a bold assertion about the databases.  I spent several hours looking at our articles on film databases and I don’t think that’s necessarily true of several such as this one and the British Film Institute ’s index.  It’s not hard to capture the information off the film credits of the film itself.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to the nominato r: @ Lithopsian : I'd say this looks like a Snowball keep, would you consider withdrawing the nomination?  (The debate about databases seems like a different issue and can be pursued elsewhere, I suppose).  Thank you.  Best, - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done.  Lithopsian ( talk ) 16:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Godtube: Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity , Internet ,  and Websites .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep for lack of valid deletion rationale.   Just because a user with 11 lifetime edits added a tag six years ago doesn't make it so.   Consider (among many others): Metcalfe, John.  ""GodTube, Where Networking Is More Spiritual Than Social.""  The New York Times 157, no. 54308 (2008): C2-L.  ITNews, Christians take on Youtube with Godtube https://www.itnews.com.au/news/christians-take-on-youtube-with-godtube-79740 The Guardian, Smile You are On GodTube https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/12/usa.religion @ Allan Nonymous what was the result of your WP:BEFORE searches?    If they weren't done, I invite you to withdraw the nomination.  Oblivy ( talk ) 04:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Isaiah Sellers: Only notable for a few paragraphs, written by Samuel L. Clemens , in which Sellers is claimed to have been the first to use the pseudonym Mark Twain .  Sellers is only discussed in two academic papers in American Literature and Mark Twain Journal , both in relation to Clemens' claim.  This is already addressed fully is the main Mark Twain article, and not many details are known about Sellers for any substantial expansion to his article.  〜 Festucalex • talk 19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America .  〜 Festucalex • talk 19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Sellers is only discussed in two academic papers"" - not true.  See ""Mark Twain's Nom de Plume : Some Mysteries Resolved"" ProQuest 1306131770 (biographical details such as death), ""A Proposed Calendar of Samuel Clemens's Steamboats, 15 April 1857 to 8 May 1861, with Commentary"" ProQuest 1306139746 (biographical details such as boats worked; reproduction of Sellers' monument; discussing a report that placed Sellers and Clemens together in 1880), ""Samuel Clemens' Magical Pseudonym"" ProQuest 1290849714 (unearthing some Clemens-Sellers relationship; analysis), ""From Sam Clemens to Mark Twain: Sanitizing the Western Experience"" JSTOR 10.5325/marktwaij.12.1.0113 (more of the same), Critical Companion to Mark Twain: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work (good amount of biographical information such as place of birth).  Sellers probably died in 1864 and Clemens took the name in 1863.  There is additional biographical information about Sellers -- such as his (il)literacy, captaincy, early life, migration west -- that is undue for Clemens' article and should not be repeated there.  Significant coverage in several reliable sources, some of which is inappropriate for deletion or alternatives to deletion ...  Urve ( talk ) 00:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know how I missed this.  Withdrawing.  〜 Festucalex • talk 01:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Adrian Holliday: None of the references are secondary.  SL93 ( talk ) 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions .  SL93 ( talk ) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Four-digit citation counts for five works, massive for communication studies, easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 .  Not as strong in book reviews but still seven reviews in JSTOR for three books is enough for WP:AUTHOR as well.  I don't buy the argument that I've seen elsewhere that full professor in England is automatically enough for WP:PROF#C5 , but it is at least also suggestive.  The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR , and has maybe not even tried WP:BEFORE , as it speaks only to the references present in the article itself.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] David Eppstein I did say ""I found no significant coverage.""  I did not say, ""I found no significant coverage in the article"".  I don't appreciate you assuming bad faith.  There is no chance of the article being deleted at this point, so maybe just focus on the aspects of the article and not assume stuff?  SL93 ( talk ) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe I should have been more clear, when I said ""The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF"".  Significant coverage is not relevant for WP:PROF.  Secondary references are not relevant for WP:PROF.  Nothing in the nomination statement is relevant for WP:PROF.  So either you didn't consider WP:PROF or you don't understand WP:PROF.  Which is it?  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That guideline never came to mind, but the author one did.  Does that make your smug self happy?  SL93 ( talk ) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy?  That someone nominating articles on professors for deletion would not even call to mind our notability guideline for professors?  No.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles?  Since when does one professor article equal multiple?  I mean happy as in holding one mistake against an editor.  In that case, it is a yes.  SL93 ( talk ) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]",speedy keep
"Mercury vortex engine: I'm not sure whether this is the right place to put this, but I don't know what to do with Mercury vortex engine , and Doug Weller suggested putting it in for AfD.  Currently, it redirects to Vaimanika Shastra , which doesn't mention mercury anywhere, so that's no good.  In fact, after reading the translated text of V.S. I think the ""mercury vortex engine"" is probably based on Samarangana Sutradhara and not on V.S. at all, V.S. makes various mentions of mercury as a component of alloys but nothing about using it by itself or about it rotating, and from the translations I've seen S.S. does, very briefly.  It seems unfortunate not to have anything on this, as a lot of people seem to be under the impression that this is a real scientifically recognised thing and it would be useful for Wikipedia to have something on it that people could find if they searched for it.   I suspect that if it's deleted, somebody will just put it up again with some shouting that Wikipedia is suppressing the truth.   But I can't find good sources on it, even ones saying that it doesn't exist.   The places where it's widely discussed are all non-RS-type places - ancient astronaut books from small publishers, forums, YouTube videos and so on.  A search only turns up this Grunge article https://www.grunge.com/1179379/just-how-possible-is-anti-gravity-technology/ which mentions it in passing, this https://www.skyfilabs.com/project-ideas/mercury-vortex-engines which doesn't look real, this https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25242578/apollo-fusion-mercury/ which I don't think is the same thing, and this https://techiescientist.com/is-mercury-magnetic/ which seems to be about a different phenomenon, along with various YouTube videos, crackpot sources and forums which aren't usable sources.  Google Books has only assorted small press stuff.  Google News and Google News Archive add this https://thewire.in/education/satya-pal-singh-ancient-vimana-shivkar-talpade-research and this https://thewire.in/education/charles-darwin-satyapal-singh-ram-madhav .  Google Scholar has a long list of articles in Indian engineering journals, but I don't have the background to know whether the authors or the journals are reliable sources or not.   One article I glanced at appeared to make the rookie mistake of confusing benzoin (the chemical name) with benzoin (the plant substance, which is mainly a different compound called benzoic acid) in a recipe for an alloy, so that's not promising.  There are frequent references to NASA working on some kind of ion engine involving mercury and possibly solar power, which the authors often seem to think is the same thing, but I'm not convinced that it is.  Possible options include: Delete the thing as a bad job.  Redirect to Vimana#Samarangana Sutradhara , which at least makes a passing mention of mercury.  Redirect to Die Glocke (conspiracy theory) , which does describe something self-explanatorily similar and seems to be the other source for the ""mercury vortex engine"" idea.  Add something to Vimana , Vaimanika Shastra or David Hatcher Childress saying what the ""mercury vortex engine"" theory is and what its status is among reputable sources and redirect to that.  Write a ""Mercury vortex engine"" article.   Somebody else will probably have to do it if so, I'm sick of the dratted thing and I don't know Sanskrit and I don't know what is or isn't a reliable Indian scientific article and I don't have access to any of David Hatcher Childress's books (he seems to be the main populariser of this theory in English) except snippets online.  Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 17 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] seems like this is the wrong venue as should be at WP:RFD JMWt ( talk ) 17:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems like, I dunno how to move it, I dunno what I'm doing.   Could somebody else that actually knows how to do it do it?  Wombat140 ( talk ) 17:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Technology ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wrong venue This belongs at RfD , not AfD.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 20:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I saw this on one of those hokum pseudo-history shows on History Channel, the airplane was ""invented"" in India before the Wright Brothers flew, but was suppressed for bla bla reasons.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ]",speedy keep
"Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon: However, due to a recount the following month, their opponent was declared the winner, resulting in the subject losing their parliamentary seat.  which means the subject met WP:POLITICIAN but for brief time.  further, the subject fails to meet the basic WP:GNG criteria.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I'm not sure what the policy is for situations like this, but it would seem like they'd still be considered notable.  Worth pointing out that there are other people who were elected and never seated but still got a Wikipedia page, such as Luke Letlow .  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Make sense.  I Withdraw this nomination.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Axel Downard-Wilke: The article cites 51 sources, so please bear with me – a full explanation will necessarily take some time.  Some important context: Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 ( talk · contribs ), who sits on Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand's management committee and is a Wikipedia administrator.  The main contributors to the article have been the New Zealand Wikipedians Wainuiomartian ( talk · contribs ) and Marshelec ( talk · contribs ).  Given Marshelec apparently sits on the same Wikimedia NZ management committee as Schwede66, there appears to be some problematic conflict-of-interest editing going on here.  I am in the process of opening a COIN thread which I will link when finished.  Now let's get onto the sources.  I uncontroversially rule out the following sources for independence concerns.  By uncontroversial, I mean something like ""Downard-Wilke wrote the source"", ""The source is Downard-Wilke's company"", or ""Downard-Wilke was on this organisation's committee at the time"": 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 51.  This knocks out 21 of the 51 sources.  To put it another way, about 40% of this article’s sources are obviously and uncontroversially not independent.  I uncontroversially rule out the following sources as not mentioning Downward-Wilke at all: 16, 20, 23, 24 I also uncontroversially rule out source 7 (raw election results, obviously not significant) and 45 (Wikipedia discussion, user-generated).  That is all the sources I believe can be uncontroversially eliminated.  I rule out the following sources as cases where Downard-Wilke merely acts as a spokesperson providing brief comment and receives no significant coverage himself: 9, 29, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 50 plus 10, 32, 41 (on ProQuest, ask me for the full text) I rule out sources 35 and 36 (ProQuest, ask me for full text) and sources 46 and 47 for the same reason, but I wanted to note these separately because they give slightly more extensive coverage.  I rule out source 2 as a ""man-on-the-street"" type of interview, where Downard-Wilke is interviewed by a German paper because he is someone with a German background who experienced the Christchurch earthquake.  This sort of coverage does not indicate the interviewee is significant.  I rule out source 3 as the type of interview that is considered non-independent (see the essay Wikipedia:Interviews ).  There is not enough independent content beyond Downard-Wilke’s answers to the questions.  I could only partially verify source 6, finding a NZ Library record .  However, given the context of the source (a local paper covering Downard-Wilke running for a regional council election where even winning candidates don’t have articles unless they have some sort of national political career), it’s unlikely it contributes to notability.  I rule out source 12 (ProQuest, ask me for full text) as covering a case where Downard-Wilke received an award from an organisation while he was on their executive committee.  Not sufficiently independent.  I rule out Boulter 2020 (cites 13 and 21) because the document notes itself to be a draft copy.  I have other concerns, but drafts are at the very least unreliable.  I was unable to verify source 25, which provides extremely little bibliographical information.  However, judging by the type and brevity of the information it is cited as supporting (the fact Downard-Wilke won a local German bike race), we have good reason to think this is not the sort of source that would deliver significant coverage.  Source 43, a Stuff article, initially looked promising to me, but judging by the link at the bottom, it appears to have been written to promote this edit-a-thon which was explicitly geared towards improving coverage on Stuff.  Downard-Wilke seems to have played some part in organising the meet-up.  Not sufficiently independent.  I could not find any promising sources that weren't already in the article, so I conclude the article fails NBIO.  I appreciate you reading this through to the end and I hope you can appreciate it is difficult to strike a balance between comprehensive discussion and brevity when you are dealing with 51 sources.  – Tera tix ₵ 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Cycling , Transportation , Germany ,  and New Zealand .  – Tera tix ₵ 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob keep - I see that the OP has put a lot of work in the nom, but when it boils down to it, there is media coverage of the subject for at least two different reasons: cycling advocacy and wiki work.  I appreciate that some think that interviews count for little, but in my opinion an interview shows that the subject is worth interviewing and is notable.  For me, refs 2 and 8 are sufficient to meet the GNG and whilst there is some puffery, I'm not convinced this is a fight worth having.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - I agree with everything JMWt has stated above on this matter.  Viatori ( talk ) 08:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.",speedy keep
"Straight A's: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes .   I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 00:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 00:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I mean there's this [55] , that's about all I can find.  This in Collider [56] , and in Variety [57] Nothing in Gnewspapers, I don't think the movie did much of anything after it was released.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I think it just barely makes it to notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep You have also this and this for example.  The film was internationally distributed (with 2 different titles in Brazilian and European Portuguese, fwiw).  Production has attracted some attention; notable cast and director. — MY, OH, MY!  ( mushy yank ) — 15:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets our notability guideline.  Lightburst ( talk ) 22:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I speedy withdraw per consensus.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals: Subsequently, it has been modified by a group of editors who have recently created and edited an article related to the subject, attempting to exert influence on this page and also at Solar power in India , where they were actually discovered .  Conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid editing are prevalent issues across all these pages.  Charlie ( talk ) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and India .  Charlie ( talk ) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Conflict-of-interest editing isn't grounds for deleting the article itself, but for rewriting/rewording it.  Deletion discussion should focus on whether it's notable per WP:NBOOK .  Crystalholm ( talk ) 16:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably enough book reviews to keep it.  I also find [9] and [10] .  Indian Express review, which is a RS [11] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw and Keep as per the reasoning presented by Oaktree and others.  COI and UPE can be addressed in alternative forums.  Charlie ( talk ) 04:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Bibliography of Narendra Modi: Bibliography of every wiki article is mentioned right in the article itself, usually below the reference section.  Portwoman ( talk ) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Portwoman ( talk ) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @ Portwoman : We have 291 such pages on the encyclopedia: Special:PrefixIndex/Bibliography_of .  Some are topical bibliographies, while others are biographical, such as Bibliography of Richard Nixon .  This would make sense as a standalone page if it were spun off from the main article Narendra Modi for page size reasons, and a fair number of the biographical bibliographies are for world leaders.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agreed, let's close this discussion.  Portwoman ( talk ) 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"National Messaging System: Suggest draftifying as it might be finished by the end of 2024.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Australia .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article has adequate references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's sigcov here already, so I think we don't need to worry about ""what if it doesn't get completed"" - I would expect more sigcov to appear whether it is ultimately completed or not.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and merge an unsourced article: Meets GNG.  Sources in the article and found in BEFORE show SIGCOV, its a new system so there cannot be long term LASTING but  sources cover its development and deployment so it does have as much LASTING as possible at this ooint, sources pass GEOSCOPE its clearly a national subject.  The content from Emergency Alert Australia (currently unsourced) should be summarized and merged into a history section in this article.  The sourcing in this article ( National Messaging System ) has enough information to source a summary of the information in Emergency Alert Australia so moving the unsourced material will source it.  Leave a redirect and both will be improved.  If this is kept, please ping me and I will post this merge proposal separately (unless someone wants to second boldly doing this).  // Timothy :: talk 09:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue : I second your bold merge and withdraw my nom.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Jennings, Saint Mary: it's all fading away talk 00:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Antigua and Barbuda .  • Gene93k ( talk ) 01:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh?  Strong keep per WP:GEOLAND .  Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.  Grutness ... wha?  03:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW -if you need to know whether it's a real place, then this might help .  Grutness ... wha?  03:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : a search for sources indicates that the article passes WP:GEOLAND (populated, legally recognized place) and the sources cited by Grutness also show that this town is real/notable.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 09:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND its a settlement with census data.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND // Timothy :: talk 14:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per WP:GEOLAND -- Wesoree ( T · C ) 14:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Meloland, California: My PROD was declined because the University of California has an agriculture lab there (reference 3 in the article), but that page only uses the word Meloland once, as the original name of the facility (never referring to it as a ""community"").   Otherwise the sources cited are GNIS and Durham's, which are not sufficient for notability.   Satellite view shows the UC facility surrounded by farmland, nothing approaching a community.   Most likely this was a flag stop on the interurban railroad; nothing else could be found.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California .  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Chapter 53, ""What I Wish I Knew About Meloland (1907–1998)"" from William T. Vollmann 's Imperial is dedicated to it, although in style and tone it does more to emphasize the settlement's insubstantiality and lack of fulfillment, rather than its historical importance.  Now for the stunning alteration of Meloland into a metropolis: In 1910 the population was ten.  By 1920 it had doubled; in 1930 it had achieved perfect stability (which means that it remained the same as in 1920); in 1940 it was only five persons less (several of them being schoolchildren brown, yellow, white and freckled); in 1950 it stayed proudly unaltered...  Geologists have named a Meloland soil, not to mention an Imperial, a Superstition, a Holtville and a Gila.  The County Recorder once believed in the existence of a Meloland Orange Tract, on which a breach of obligation of a certain Deed of Trust took place in 1924; another pioneer or speculator had defaulted on his mortgage.  Lots eleven, twelve, twenty-three and twenty-four in Meloland, together with others on another page, would be sold in three months.  So don't tell me that Meloland did not exist, no matter that if I buttonhole somebody in El Centro and ask him how to get there, he'll say he never heard of it.  The canals and green fields of Meloland are jewel-like in the evening light.  The hay bales like green bullion on the pool tables of alfalfa fields now turn golden-orange.  They are highly improved .  Jfire ( talk ) 01:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is why we prefer better sources than that.   It was an agricultural packing and shipping point.   Another encyclopaedia says so.   The same encyclopaedia says that it was named in 1910, what the name means, and who named it when he lived there; so it could not have had a Meloland post office in 1908.  By the 1990s, it was the HQ of a farm named MAGCO, whose owner still called it Meloland despite the mail by then going through Holtville.  And The four principal soil series of the Valley are the Imperial, Meloland, Holtville, and Rositas.  — Thomas, Edward E. (1936).  Reclamation of White-alkali Soils in the Imperial Valley .  Bulletin.  Vol.  601.  California Agricultural Experiment Station.  , p.4 … which the USDA gives details of.  There appear to be more sources cited at https://beyond.nvexpeditions.com/california/imperial/meloland.php .  The box is a suitably mellow colour.  Uncle G ( talk ) 02:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] references ""Meloland"".  Encyclopedia of California .  Vol.  1.  North American Book Dist. 1997.  p. 329.  ISBN 9780403098620 .  Cross, Forrest D. (1991).  ""Ed McGrew: Putting his shadow on his land"".  Americans in Agriculture: Portraits of Diversity .  United States Department of Agriculture.  pp. 55–57.  Zimmerman, Robert P. (1975).  Soil Survey of Imperial County, California, Imperial Valley Area .  United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.  Keep .  I've added expanded the article with the above sources and some additional ones.  Meets WP:NPLACE .  Jfire ( talk ) 05:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Looking good after the above expansion.  I'm not even sure why it was nominated for deletion when the above-mentioned UC ag lab was already there.  Different strokes for different folks, I guess.  — Maile ( talk ) 12:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing nomination : Article in much better shape now.   Thank you all for adding sources and info that I was unable to find.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"The Crown (season 1): For example, the main elements of the season 1 article not duplicated elsewhere are the music section, the expanded 'reception' section, and the 'historical accuracy' section.  The first is just an album track list, and the second and third are arguably excessively detailed; the historical accuracy section in particular is a list of inaccuracies without any broader context.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 19:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I am also nominating the following related pages as they duplicate a significant amount of their content from the three pages mentioned above: The Crown (season  2) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The Crown (season  3) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The Crown (season  4) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The Crown (season  5) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The Crown (season  6) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Keep Each season has its own critical response section, historical accuracy section, episode summaries, production/development and music section, and a different list of actors.  All of these cannot fit into one page.  Based on your logic, every article we have covering different seasons of famous TV shows such as Friends , Game of Thrones , Breaking Bad , etc. have to be deleted as well since they overlap with the main articles.  It is worth mentioning that The Crown (season  4) and The Crown (season  5) both made it to WP:Top 25 .  An argument can be made for expansion, rather than deletion.  Keivan.f Talk 20:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The things you mention can largely be incorporated into one page or removed; List of The Crown characters contains a complete list of characters, and List of The Crown episodes contains a complete list of episodes and could easily be expanded to include their summaries.  The historical accuracy sections shouldn't exist, as they're in large part lists of inaccuracies rather than commentary on them.  The section on historical accuracy in The Crown (TV series) is enough.  The music sections consist of track listings, and the overall production sections are largely devoted to chronological accounts of when casting decisions were made.  None of this desperately needs to be included in Wikipedia.  I opened this discussion because I believe The Crown can be covered by its three main articles, it doesn't follow that the same applies to the articles about individual seasons of other TV series.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether the parts that cover the inaccuracies should or should not exist is an entirely different debate (after all there is coverage in secondary sources).  Even excluding those and the list of actors, the sections on production and development, music, and most importantly critical response cannot be incorporated or merged into another article.  Keivan.f Talk 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The content of the production and development, music, and critical response sections could mostly be deleted or merged into 'The Crown (TV series)'.  For music, for example, all we really need to say is that soundtrack albums have been released for each season; we don't need an infobox or track listing for each.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 21:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And why should they be deleted when they are all sourced?  This nomination seems to be more about what you 'feel' is important or not, rather than what is actually covered in sources.  Keivan.f Talk 21:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Something isn't noteworthy just because it can be reliably sourced.  For example, while the fact that Helena Bonham Carter was in season 3 is noteworthy, the fact she was cast by January 2018 isn't.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 21:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's what a casting section typically covers.  Have you read any of the other articles about movies or TV series?  What do you exactly want it to discuss?  It's typically about when they were cast, how they prepared for the role, etc.  The first thing that should be considered when nominating a page for deletion is the existence or lack of coverage in independent secondary sources.  In this case, there is plenty of coverage on Bonham Carter's casting.  This means that there is potential for expanding the section, not deleting it.  Keivan.f Talk 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said above, I don't believe that the existence of a reliable source makes something inherently worthwhile for inclusion in Wikipedia.  As far as I'm aware casting decisions are typically not chronological accounts of when casting decisions are made, but instead give an account of how the actors came to be cast in their roles.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 21:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Keivan.f , I'm conscious that we're dominating the discussion and I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON .  You've raised some good points and I think it was reasonable to respond to them, but I'm going to leave the discussion now (for a couple of days at least) so as not to crowd out other editors.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 21:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ A.D.Hope I agree.  It was nice debating the matter with you.  We both made our points and I think everyone else needs to chime in now.  I will only keep an eye on the discussion to see where it goes because if somehow the result is to delete or merge, then there's gonna be some work that needs to be done.  Keivan.f Talk 21:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - each article is justified by its critical response section.  They could all do with more production information being added, but that makes them a work-in-progress rather than articles that need to be deleted.  - adamstom97 ( talk ) 20:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that it's necessary to have such a detailed account of the critical response to each season; the season 1 'Reception' section, for example, mentions twenty different publications by my count.  It's fine to give a general critical consensus using Rotten Tomatoes and Metacricic, with one or two more specific examples to give an idea of the tone of the reviews.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That does not give the reader a taste of what the critical consensus actually is.  As is evident from various articles that we have on movies ( Titanic (1997 film) ) and seasons of TV series ( Game of Thrones (season 1) ), a mere number does not convey anything to our readers and a more detailed account is needed.  Keivan.f Talk 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The aggregated scores and one or two examples do give readers a taste of the consensus.  If they want more detail they can follow the links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, where many more reviews can be accessed.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We cannot assume that every single reader is familiar with any of those two websites and we cannot tell them to get off the page and get additional information elsewhere.  Not to mention that any external website could get shut down or closed at any point.  Again, this does not change the fact that there is coverage in secondary sources.  Keivan.f Talk 21:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're already selective in this regard, Keivan.f; Rotten Tomatoes lists 77 reviews for season 1, we don't quote them all.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 21:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why we choose a number of good and bad reviews from some reputable publications.  Again, I don't care about what Rotten Tomatoes is doing, which incidentally gathers reviews from some websites that would not even be considered reliable by the community here.  And the whole thing could crash by tomorrow; we cannot rely on an external website to provide information to our readers.  Keivan.f Talk 21:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not proposing the complete removal of reviews, but reducing the number of reviews quoted and covering them in 'The Crown (TV series)' rather than in individual season articles.  Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are widely used as sources for the general critical response to a film or TV series, changing that approach is beyond the scope of this deletion request.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 21:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You really enjoy reading long, bloated and non-concise articles don't you?  Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong and speedy keep per Keivan.f  - -- Shivertimbers433 ( talk ) 23:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sections covering accuracy alone push these all past GNG easily and are completely justified.  It's a popular series with international appeal and an absurd amount of sources beyond here, and each list-of is justified and proper here.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Jimmie Wiki ( talk ) 04:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Deleting season articles is the opposite of progress.  Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to what everyone above me said, what good would merging 6 season articles into one?  That would mean that if a reader would want to read information about season 3, they'll need to read the entire articles of the main article, list of characters and list of episodes, to find the information they need.  How is that even remotely a good idea?  We split information into season articles for a reason, as they make reading more logical.  Gonnym ( talk ) 09:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep as per Keivan.f and Kailash29792.  I think what's also important to remember is that when people search up a season for a show on Wikipedia, they'd want to be able to differentiate the seasons easily rather than scroll through a large page of everything as highlighted by Gonnym.  Maxwell King 123321 11:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Improvements if kept [ edit ] Given the consensus emerging above, it might be useful to discuss what improvements will be made to the articles if they're kept.  My intent when opening this discussion was to move the best parts of the articles – I know several editors have put a lot of effort into them – and remove the remainder.  If the eventual consensus is to keep all the articles, however, we should also commit to raising their general standard.  Some things which come to mind immediately are: Re-writing the 'Casting' sections so that they focus on why particular actors were cast, not when.  Re-writing the 'Historical accuracy' sections to focus on the response to a season's accuracy and one or two examples, rather than the current list-like format.  Generally fleshing out the articles following WP:MOSTV , such as adding more detailed production information.  If you have any more ideas please feel free to add them below.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears that everyone is in favor of compartmentalization (so am I).  In that scenario, what we should aim for is improving each article given that sources are available.  We should mainly focus on production and development and condensing the historical accuracy sections.  A list of notable awards for each season can also be introduced.  Keivan.f Talk 13:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Honestly, it is too absurd this deletion query for articles related to the series of The Crown, each article referring to each season is quite necessary, being a series that has 6 seasons and one of the most important of Netflix and for the British crown.  Some cosmetic improvements can be made as mentioned by the user above.  But I repeat, it is unnecessary to have created this deletion query, I was quite impressed being one of the users who translated each article for Wikipedia in Spanish.  Milkout ( talk ) 19:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep particularly per adamstom97 that each season has dedicated sigcov, and also that AfD is not cleanup.  Resonant Dis tor tion 00:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Volker Mosblech: Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and lacks any independent nongovernment sources.  BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Conservatism ,  and Germany .  BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NPOL presumes notability for members of national legislatures.  There's quite a bit of coverage in the German media of his death.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this proposal is meaningless.  per WP:NPOL.  _-_Alsor ( talk ) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : This nomination was meaningless.  The page does pass WP:NPOL and there has been coverage in the German media of his death.  Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Only the nominator can ""withdraw"" as such, but there is (and should not be) absolutely no chance of this getting deleted.  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, I am the original nominator.  I just got my username changed per WP:RENAME , while the AfD was active.  Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Dave Campfield: Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years.  I am not convinced many oft he films he ahs been involved in are notable either.  Boleyn ( talk ) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Radio , Florida , New York ,  and Texas .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:DIRECTOR .  (""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards....The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).""  I will improve the page Added a few of the numerous reliable existing sources on various of his very clearly notable films, that have been the subject of multiple reviews . - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:DIRECTOR per Mushy Yank's argument.  SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above.  Thanks for giving your opinions, Boleyn ( talk ) 11:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Harry Singleton: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator per consensus Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - There is no association football/soccer criteria so I'm rather confused why you would cite that.  This is a person from the 1900s whose career ended in 1907, so are you aware that there may not be abundance of sources online for a person whose career ended 116 years ago? -- Echetus X e 10:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ATHLETE is related to football as well, am I missing something?  I mean there is a section ""Professional sports people"" with various sports and football is not included, but that only means that we can't use some specific criteria for football to prove notability like in other sports.  Thus, we should orient on WP:SPORTBASIC , which is not met in this case.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep There are sources online, [21] , [22] , [23] seriously, didn't you do a WP:BEFORE at all??  Govvy ( talk ) 21:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Benjamin Ree: Fails WP:SIGCOV .  No coverage.  scope_creep Talk 02:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Meets WP:DIRECTOR obviously.  Keep .  His films received coverage in Variety , in The NYT, etc, etc.  ""Non-notable"", how?? ?- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 12:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I looked at this I was unsure.  I found two in variety references: [42] This one is an obvious interview.  [43] This one is an annoucement with a description of the production details.  Its the usual film release notice.  It doesn't inspire confidence but he could be massive and I've just missed it and his film possibly.  Post three reference and I'll withdraw.  Hope that helps.  scope_creep Talk 13:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His film S .  At least 3 are VERY notable films.  Three references about them?  That's a bizarre requirement.  But OK.  Allow me to post 4.  ONE ; TWO ; THREE FOUR .  PLENTY of coverage exists.  The Reception sections of the articleS about his first 2 3 features should, in my view, have been considered.  Even the article about him shows enough to demonstrate notability.  But all is well...- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : there's a non-trivial amount of coverage about his films, including Variety [44] , I think he's notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found articles in The Ottawa Citizen and The Port Charlotte Sun about The Painter and the Thief , and the Boston Globe about Magnus .  Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So it looks like Benjamin Ree (love that name) is notable.  Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep Talk 17:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Joan A. Lambert: I'm not super familiar with notability standards for politicians but I don't think simply being elected is enough.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , California ,  and Nevada .  ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete State assembly position with no other references to notability in career.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  From WP:NPOL : The following are presumed to be notable: ...or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 17:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A presumtion needs to be followed up with sources that back up the assumption tho, I've looked a fair bit but I couldn't find any sources that are about Lambert.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 17:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is presumed for state legislators because the prominence and public nature of the position inevitably results in substantial coverage.  That is borne out by a quick search: Newspapers.com has over 500 results with reasonable filters (Nevada, 1980 to present), most of which seem to be for the subject of this article, and at least several of which constitute substantial coverage.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 18:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I stand corrected then, I was not able to see those source when searching.  I will withdraw my nomination.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes NPOL.  Mccapra ( talk ) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is POSSIBLY a BLP without good citations!  Someone needs to adopt and clean this if possible.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Sargent (film): Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 13:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Entertainment ,  and Pakistan .  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 13:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rather Keep : the review on the page, from Daily Jang , mentions a big box office success in Pakistan, among other things.  — MY, OH MY!  ( mushy yank ) — 14:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - You seem to have very poor knowledge of Pakistani sources.  See WP:PKRS for reliable and unreliable sources.  Insight 3 ( talk ) 15:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"The Mistress and the Maids: I am also nominating the following pages for deletion: I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable for an episode article: "" Board Wages "" "" The Path of Duty "" "" A Suitable Marriage "" "" A Cry for Help "" "" Magic Casements "" "" I Dies from Love "" "" Why Is Her Door Locked? "" "" A Voice from the Past "" "" The Swedish Tiger "" "" The Key of the Door "" "" For Love of Love "" "" The New Man "" "" A Pair of Exiles "" "" Married Love "" "" Whom God Hath Joined... "" "" Guest of Honour "" "" The Property of a Lady "" "" Your Obedient Servant "" "" Out of the Everywhere "" "" An Object of Value "" "" A Special Mischief "" "" The Wages of Sin "" "" A Family Gathering ""* "" Miss Forrest "" "" A House Divided "" "" A Change of Scene "" "" A Family Secret "" "" Rose's Pigeon "" "" Desirous of Change "" "" Word of Honour "" "" The Bolter "" "" Goodwill to All Men "" "" What the Footman Saw "" "" A Perfect Stranger "" "" Distant Thunder "" "" The Sudden Storm "" "" A Patriotic Offering "" "" News from the Front "" "" The Beastly Hun "" "" Women Shall Not Weep "" "" Tug of War "" "" Home Fires "" "" If You Were the Only Girl in the World "" "" The Glorious Dead "" "" Another Year "" "" The Hero's Farewell "" "" Missing Believed Killed "" "" Facing Fearful Odds "" "" Peace Out of Pain "" "" On with the Dance "" "" A Place in the World "" "" Laugh a Little Louder Please "" "" The Joy Ride "" "" Wanted – A Good Home "" "" An Old Flame "" "" Disillusion "" "" Such a Lovely Man "" "" The Nine Days Wonder "" "" The Understudy "" "" Alberto "" "" Will Ye No Come Back Again "" "" Joke Over "" "" Noblesse Oblige "" "" All the King's Horses "" "" Whither Shall I Wander? "" Karnataka ( talk ) 06:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom .  Karnataka ( talk ) 06:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all No argument for BEFORE, and it would be quite unusual if all of these episodes were adequately researched before nomination and the significant effort to do so wasn't mentioned.  Even if the episodes were NN, which has not been established, then merging to series or show would be an appropriate ATD, something the nominator doesn't consider.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On a quick search of the last episode listed, this academic paper mentions it by name, although I lack enough access to see how detailed a view it is.  Obviously something that would have been caught in a BEFORE search for Whither Shall I Wander?  if the false positives had been winnowed down to exclude poetry.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all Agreed.  Plus many of these articles have other associated information which makes this series of episode articles all the more notable.  Rillington ( talk ) 18:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose mass deletion - I think each of these articles needs to be looked at on its own merits.  Upstairs Downstairs is one of the most significant British Television dramas of the 1970s, and indeed it enjoyed success well beyond the UK, and some of the episodes have had much discussion before and since.  Some were nominated for major awards - eg Another Year saw Alfred Shaughnessy nominated for a writing Emmy Award .  I would agree that some of the articles as they stand have problems (many needing additional sources) and I suspect there are some where it could be argued that a full article is not needed, but I would respectfully suggest that a deletion discussion on each specific article is the place for that to be discussed and decided.  Dunarc ( talk ) 20:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely agree, my mistake was bundling the nomination together.  When this closes (most likely keep) I'll review each further and nominate the articles here individually as it is clearly mentioned here in discussion that not all episodes may meet the notability guideline for episodes.  Another appropriate solution like one suggestion is to group these into season articles and keep the notable episodes as stand-alone articles.  Karnataka ( talk ) 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  I think that is a good way to go.  There are certainly some episodes that are not going to meet notability and others that will be borderline at best, so season articles would be useful.  Dunarc ( talk ) 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely agree.  These episode articles have useful information and I see no reason to delete them.  Transonic Crayon ( talk ) 23:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Tales of Tatonka: Tagged for notability since 2013 Donald D23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation ,  and France .  Donald D23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Seems notable.  Added sources. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Animation Magazine source is solid.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn per new sources.  Donald D23 talk to me 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Piwi+: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 10 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm at a bit of a loss at what's going on here.  Nominator Piwipie ( talk · contribs ) has not given any explanation for why this should be deleted… but their nomination",speedy keep
"Ringwood City SC: Couldn't find any online either.  ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia .  ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Semi-professional football club the has been around for over 50 years and has played in the top tier of football in Victoria .  Simione001 ( talk ) 02:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Simione.  Giant Snowman 13:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article appears to should WP:BASIC in my opinion.  Govvy ( talk ) 13:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Govvy : WP:BASIC is in relation to biographies.  ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above.  Many sources like [104] , [105] , [106] , [107] , [108] .  Clearly notbale historical team in Australia.  Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Das, clearly notable and passes WP:GNG shown by above sources.  Kline | let me clear my throat!  | (contribs) 20:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Linus Sebastian: elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:33, 15 August 2023 (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/2023 August 15 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep wikipedia is making a mockery of itself at this point.  You wanna have an article for a lollipop lady nobody has ever heard of (bUt ShE hAs aN MbE !1!!) and delete the profile of an entrepreneur and famous television presenter with millions of viewers?  What is wrong with you guys!?!? 87.196.74.168 ( talk ) 00:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, particularly those on whataboutism and notability for people .  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, remain civil and assume good faith .  — siro χ o 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] what does that have to do with the keep message?  Sebbog13 ( talk ) 17:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the more appropriate question is what does the rest of what was posted after the keep itself has to do with the article in question.  Both the responses by Siroxo and ElijahPepe were applicable.  Picard's Facepalm ( talk ) 18:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Technology , Internet ,  and Canada .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep All things considered this seems to be a rather major and well established youtube channel host.  I do however feel that the article needs to be cleaned up with additional focus on his channel (""Linus Tech Tips"").  Articles such as TheNeedleDrop or Philip DeFranco may serve as good comparisons for the scope of articles that cover large-but-not-massive youtubers.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 04:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note There is extensive focus on his/his company's numerous YT channels and company in Linus Media Group .   Shifting that focus over to the article centered around him would be a mistake, extend well beyond the scope of the individual, and would take away from the LMG article.  I would urge against this.  Picard's Facepalm ( talk ) 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NBIO : ""This YouTube Star Is Also a Retail Empire (Published 2022)"" .  2022-02-15 .  Retrieved 2023-08-16 .  ""Surrey man's tech-tip series achieves YouTube success - Peace Arch News"" .  www.peacearchnews.com .  2017-01-26 .  Retrieved 2023-08-16 .  Nast, Condé (2021-12-26).  ""Meet the 'Influpreneurs': The new breed of YouTube influencers staffing up and building business empires"" .  British GQ .  Retrieved 2023-08-16 .  Jumpytoo Talk 04:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets WP:NBIO .  Linus is a notable person per WP:CREATIVE .  I think it is self evident that ""become a significant monument"" is clearly met.  Not really sure why this is being proposed.  If you made this in good faith, you should probably start going through and creating AfDs for pretty much any YouTuber (like Marques Brownlee ).  He's also commonly cited in various media outlets for issues facing YouTube creators, like YouTube is demonetizing videos about coronavirus, and creators are mad .  Lightcrowd ( talk ) 10:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only two sources that mention Sebastian specifically are a NYT and a Kotaku article.  Most other sources are primary, which does not suggest independent notability.  Cortador ( talk ) 11:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also other sources, such as an Inc.  Magazine article.  If anything, this wiki article just needs to be expanded/TLC.  I can find references to Linus in BBC, The Verge, Arstechnica, CNN and a few other news websites (prior to 2023).  Seems to meed NBIO to me. I think a cleanup template message is more appropriate (too many primary sources, expansion, etc) is more appropriate.  If the primary host and creator of the multiple Linus Media Group channels isn't notable enough, then I feel like it sets a precedent for more AfDs for other notable content creators across Wikipedia.  Lightcrowd ( talk ) 12:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I just wanted to mention this nomination may (or may not, I do not intent to accuse people) be influenced by a recent controversy and some YouTube & Reddit drama involving the subject's behaviour (The gist of this drama is that he made huge blunders in a video about a startup's prototype and then bashed the startup and refused to fix the errors, auctioned off the prototype without permission, has a history of making basic mistakes in his videos, and recently a former employee has alleged mistreatment at this guy's company).  So I would suggest that some admins and more experienced editors be on the look-out for randos commenting here without any other contribs.  Tube · of · Light 12:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The original nomination was over 7 years ago, and Linus' notoriety has certainly only increased since then.   Yes - the sourcing lends itself to not being the highest quality article, but not at all warrants an AfD nomination, and can likely and rather easily be fixed such as Lightcrowd mentioned above.   In reality, this AfD is quite possibly retaliatory in nature due to recent controversies.   If there were a way to nominate an AfD for deletion - this nomination would be a prime candidate.  Picard's Facepalm ( talk ) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article clearly passes WP:BIO .  Since the first nomination for deletion, the article has been improved and most sections are properly sourced.  🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！ ) 14:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article needs improvement but meets WP:BIO AfD is overly extreme.  UndeadAnarchy ( talk ) 15:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Are you kidding me?  Linus Sebastian is severely notable as a person, he's been talked about in mainstream publications including the New York Times and The Verge, and this article has existed for years.  This AfD is in my opinion a joke.  Doesn't help that it was made after the Gamers Nexus controversy as well, making me think that there is some sort of ulterior motive behind this AfD, to let out some internal anger re: said controversy.  I'm voting Keep purely because this AfD comes off as nothing but a joke as well as Linus just being severely notable as an individual.  - Evelyn Marie ( leave a message · contributions ) 20:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A. Linus is a notable person.  B. The article needs improving, not deleting C. There are sources for Linus across various internet sources and news sites.  D.  I think that this has been inflated by recent controversy.  Jguiii ( talk ) 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable figure in the realm of both PC/technology and YouTube, per WP:NBIO and WP:WEB.  Genuinely surprised to even see an AfD on him in the first place, considering there are sources about him from The New York Times , Kotaku , PC Gamer , Mashable , Lifehacker , The Washington Post , BGR and Ars Technica among other sources editors already pointed above.  I hope this gets closed as a Snow Keep.  PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 22:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Iyowa : Although one of my favorite producers, he fails notability sadly.  btw, heat abnormal is a banger.  0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 17:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan .  0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 17:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with a high charting album reaching 9 on the Oricon chart which is the Japanese national music chart as well as charting at 9 on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums chart and another album reaching 50 on that chart, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Sam Jones (Doctor Who) : Given the few sources both just focus on her death and its canonicity, I don't think this article meets GNG or SIGCOV.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Peter D'Agostino : The creator of the article only had 3 edits from 15 years ago on this page.  I searched for sources, and the results were mostly from Temple University itself where D'Agostino teaches.  TheWikiToby ( talk ) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Film , Visual arts ,  and Photography .  TheWikiToby ( talk ) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Changing to Keep, further digging revealed reviews in ArtForum and Aperture that meet the bare minimum for WP:NARTIST .  I also tagged it with various cleanup templates, because regardless of the AFD outcome it needs a lot of work.  nf utvol ( talk ) 12:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - What the what?!  Peter D'Agostino is a very well known and highly respected artist.  He's in multiple museum collections including top notch institutions like MoMA , the Whitney , Philadelphia Museum , the MET , etc. making him a clear pass of WP:NARTIST .  Unless this is a different artist with the same name, it appears that a WP:BEFORE was not conducted prior to nominating.  Will return soon after I do more research to ! vote to rule out if this is someone with the same name.  Netherzone ( talk ) 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My initial searches didn't turn up much, but I did a little more digging and found two things that might contribute to notability.  First was was this artist profile on the MoMA page , but does having a video presentation in the MoMA and another in PS1 really count as notable?  I didn't immediately see his stuff in any permanent collections, just temporary exhibits.  Second mention that I found was this review in ArtForum from 1987 of a showing of one of his video exhibits in the Philadelphia Museum.  Honestly this is getting outside of my area of expertise so I'd be willing to shift my vote if someone more knowledgeable than me can tell me if this is truly notable...I'm just not seeing the WP:NARTIST right now though.  nf utvol ( talk ) 23:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - A short BEFORE reveals that this is indeed the same Peter D'Agostino.  With a multitude of exhibitions at notable international institutions, his work is in several permanent collections of notable museums, his work has been reviewed in the likes of ARTFORUM , Aperture , the New York Times, etc. and many notable grants/fellowships including three from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Pew Fellowship, 3 Fullbright fellowships, he was a Fellow at the MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies, and the list goes on.  Plus he's a full-professor at Temple U and the director of Climate, Sustainabilty & the Arts there as well.  I am not including diffs since this info is easily found via a basic Google search.  He meets NARTIST, GNG and NACADEMIC.  I suggest that the nominator, TheWikiToby withdraw the nomination.  Netherzone ( talk ) 23:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not arguing, but I would appreciate if you could provide some links to those reviews and fellowships you mentioned.  I found the one I mentioned above in Art Forum and another in Aperture , but ""take my word for it, he's important"" isn't really the best way to handle this.  nf utvol ( talk ) 23:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Netherzone.  Thriley ( talk ) 23:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Chris Martin (boxing trainer) : BEFORE search only provided three sources that could be argued as SIGCOV (all written after his death); this is written by the article creator, so doesn't do much to establish notability; this is the strongest, but doesn't really offer much to base an article on (he was well respected, he trained X, people liked him, etc.); this is just a reword of the i.stuff article.  All other sources I found were the same kind of passing mentions as what's currently used in the article.  – 2 .  O .  Boxing 11:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Boxing ,  and New Zealand .  2 .  O .  Boxing 11:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Even though a lot of the articles are just mentions, there is significant amount of articles which i believe meets GN.  On top of that A couple things that are missed that significant coverage including [32] , [33] .  On top of that if you see here [34] , you can see how much coverage Martin got surrounding his death and working with David Tua from local newspapers across New Zealand.  Bennyaha ( talk ) 11:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : The depth of coverage provided above isn't the best, but it's a whole lot more than what I found, which leads me to believe there's probably more.  Good effort Benny.  – 2 .  O .  Boxing 11:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Physical system : - car chasm ( talk ) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   This term is linked from a lot of articles and is used as a further exploration of a term used in a lot of physics articles.    It is not a WP:DICTDEF ; it does not describe its part of speech, pluralizations, usage, etymology, translations into other languages, and so forth.   The article can use expansion, not deletion.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per RecycledPixels!  And expand , when I saw how nicely the corresponding German wikipedia article is written, I blushed.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] German wikipedia has different rules on content, so I'm not entirely convinced, but I've added the references from that article to this one.  The one book cited there by Mario Bunge (who is certainly reliable) says ""A physical system is anything existing in spacetime and such that it either behaves or is handled as a whole in at least one respect"" which seems like a very generic term to me.  - car chasm ( talk ) 18:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because it actually is a very generic term that needs further definition as to its specific properties and (e. g. in case of an open system) any sort of relationship with the environment, in which it is found.  Used in thought experiments a lot.  It's as generic as the concept of, say, food.  -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 04:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Common concept in science, engineering, etc.  Article clearly needs some love.  — siro χ o 20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The question of what can be treated as a physical system has been much discussed over the years: does a human mind qualify?  What about the Universe in its entirety?  And so forth.  It's an encyclopedic topic.  I could be convinced that this would make more sense treated as a section of another article (e.g., physics ); for comparison, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the term all over the place but doesn't have an article with that title [5] .  But I'm not seeing a case for outright deletion.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Kenneth Lutchen : Also, its creator has only ever edited this page, which, per another editor's flag, reads very much like a resume.  Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Engineering .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator .
 I am persuaded by the comments of other editors with respect to the notability of the subject and withdraw my nomination for deletion.  Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 00:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions .  A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Passes WP:Prof#C1 at least.  Nominator is advised to read WP:Before before making further nominations in this area.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Thanks for the reference, @ Xxanthippe .  I will read it before making further nominations for deletion.  Just because I cannot help myself, however, I would like to say in my defense that I deliberately selected the deletion option that gave other editors the most time to overrule my nomination, should my novice assessment be mistaken.  Also, as someone new to new page patrol, just how seriously to take the various Wikipedia policies is often extremely unclear.  When enforcement of written policy is so inconsistent, it is difficult to determine best practices.  If new page patrol is just supposed to approve everything not in flagellant violation of core Wikipedia policies, it should say as much at the top of the volunteer description.  I'd be happy to convey this myself if more experienced editors think it would be of value and can point me to the best place to do so.  My ego investment, however, is very close to zero.  So I have no problem simply letting my new page patrol rights expire if this is, at least at present, simply not a productive way for me to contribute to Wikipedia.  Thanks (really!) to everyone who has checked and corrected my work — Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 00:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, I think the role of NPP is genuinely ambiguous.  This seems like a reasonable nomination to me.  At the time of nomination: no notability claim, written like a resume, no secondary sources cited.  I don't expect a NPP to be intimately familiar with every SNG.  For next time, you know a little more about academic notability and so can calibrate your ""nomination sensitivity"".  Suriname0 ( talk ) 16:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In fact, most of the claims people are using as support for their keep comments here were present in the article at the time of nomination.  If you see that and think ""no notability claim"", what it demonstrates is that you are unfamiliar with what an academic notability claim looks like.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Suriname0 , Thanks for taking the time to express your understanding!  He will correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure @ David Eppstein 's comment here is directed at me, not you, and needs to be read in the context of our discussion here .  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 23:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was directed at Suriname0's incorrect ""At the time of nomination: no notability claim"".  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, I really don't see how this is not a violation of WP:CIVILITY .  Thanks(?), though, for clarifying.  Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 00:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pointing out the incorrectness of a claim in a discussion is not incivil.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fine with respect to me, as someone that you know to have self-selected to train in an academic field characterized by intense disagreement among experts.  However, absent additional context of which I am not aware, I find your comment unnecessarily rude.  It's never awesome to punch down.  Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 00:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable.  This was not written by the subject but probably by a University PR flack who scrambled to get an article when Lutchen was announced as Boston University 's interim provost.  I can tell it wasn't Lutchen because no academic would ever write ""PLUS One"" instead of "" PLOS One "".  Lutchen is a fellow of two major biomedical engineering organizations.  He won a major award from the third (I think he's a fellow there but I can't tell).  Google Scholar reports an h-index of 54, an i-10 index of 124 and 9606 citations.  His rank and citation rate have dropped in later years, probably because he's been busy as Dean of Engineering.  Lutchen grew the biomedical engineering program while he was chair.  He grew the engineering school while he was dean.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  GS citations [24] look healthy (top five 512,357,268,261,256 and four more >200; and ~21 further >100).  Boston University university provost and chief academic officer might also be significant though it appears only a temporary appointment.  There's also at least one elected fellowship: International Academy of Medical and Biological Engineering [25] and the bio there states he was president of American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering.  (His CV [26] might be easier to read than the article.)  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 23:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with above that it was probably written in haste by some poor PR person, but it was properly submitted and accepted via AfC, so that should not influence us unduly.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The citation counts and #C1 (which are always tricky to calibrate for different fields) and the IAMBE Fellow title and #C3 (I don't know IAMBE well enough to judge how selective this is) are both suggestive but not definitive for me.  But I think the AIMBE presidency is unambiguously a pass of #C6.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Subject does pass WP:NPROF .  The current page needs to be redacted heavily as there is a lot of content based on primary sources and OR; however, AfD is not cleanup.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Tegenaria rhodiensis : No sources can be found, no suitable pages to redirect or merge were found, and it also fails WP:V even more so than WP:N .  Equal width ( C ) 10:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Organisms ,  and Greece .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep No suitable WP:BEFORE was done; multiple sources are trivially easy to find, added three.  Valid species with clear taxonomic history.  Suggest withdrawing this.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 12:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the nominator, the relevant guidance is at WP:NSPECIES ; basically valid species are invariably keep .  Elemimele ( talk ) 13:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , obviously, per WP:NSPECIES .  Owen× ☎ 14:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep .  Clearly meets WP:NSPECIES with sources per Elmidae, contrary to the nomination statements.  KoA ( talk ) 18:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Omar Agrebi : Could not find SIGCOV about him.  Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tunisia .  Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Studia Islamica : If it needs inclusion it needs to be improved from scratch with valid sources.  Can't be there in mainspace in such a poor condition.  Maliner ( talk ) 08:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions .  Wikipedia is not a place for the promotion of such journals.  Maliner ( talk ) 08:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep one of the oldest, most authoritative and widely-cited academic journals in its field.  Mccapra ( talk ) 11:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Common Sense Party of California : Most of the references are primary and one of the references even implies possible fraud, which is conveniently left out of the article.  Raladic ( talk ) 03:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California .  Raladic ( talk ) 03:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article's promo content or lack of relevant issues have no bearing on notability, those be resolved via copy-editing.  In a five minute search I found mutli-year RS SIGCOV of the Party, some examples: LA Times profile Feb 2022 , Orange County Register March 2022 , San Francisco Chronicle Sept 2020 , KPBS September 2020 , NewsNation Jan 2023 .  Passes the GNG.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Thanks for the comment, I submit that under the WP:SIGCOV , I suppose it would meet the notability standard.  But with the article in its current form being an advert under WP:PROMO , does WP:NOT as one of the four policies on deletion per WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL-REASON not still apply as grounds for the AfD, or move into draft space?  Raladic ( talk ) 22:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If an article on Coca-Cola only contained information about how good it tasted, it would be PROMO, but that would not mean it was not a valid subject for an article because the notability of Coca-Cola can be easily demonstrated via independent reliable sourcing.   As is the case here, the solution to the problem is copy-editing, not deletion.   Note the qualifying clause to DEL-REASON #4.  "" without any relevant or encyclopedic content .""  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok thanks for explaining the nuance.  I hope someone will make the copy edits to make it less promotional.  I will withdraw the AfD per your explanation as speedy keep .  Raladic ( talk ) 20:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy keep
"Gaurav Bolchhi: Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY .  RPSkokie ( talk ) 13:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal .  RPSkokie ( talk ) 13:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment this article appears to be about a podcast not an actor.  The appropriate SNG would either be WP:NPODCAST or WP:WEB not NACTOR.  The subject also looks like it might have coverage in non-English sources.  If the podcast is not notable the article could be merged or redirected to Gaurav Chakrabarty as an WP:ATD .  TipsyElephant ( talk ) 03:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : Inappropriate nomination, therefore, retracting it.  If anyone wishes to propose it again, they are warmly encouraged to do so.  RPSkokie ( talk ) 11:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Hudson Valley Islamic Community Center: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Islam ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Pizza (film series): However, the theme and the pace remains the same.  This is not a film franchise (most have 3+ films).  This article does not add anything that is not on Pizza (2012 film) and Pizza II: Villa .  The box office performance is not significant like K.G.F (film series) .  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun and Frustration .  DareshMohan ( talk ) 03:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw my nomination due to the news of the release of the third film in four days.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 19:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Al-Wahs: (Second Nomination) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Yemen .  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 04:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep its an administrative unit which are generally presumed notable even if sources currently in the article are unreliable.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Article Fails WP:NGEO ""Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"" Fails WP:GNG ""A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject .""  Fails SIGCOV "" Significant coverage "" 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 sources listed fail WP:SIGCOV , making the article fail WP:GNG , and even then it would only be presumed notable.  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Why would an 'Uzlah not be notable?  Schwede 66 07:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable per WP:GEOLAND which is our WP:SNG Lightburst ( talk ) 15:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It still fails WP:GEOLAND , and it says Presumed and WP:GNG still applies and states ""A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.""  Fails SIGCOV ""Significant coverage"" 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 sources listed fail WP:SIGCOV , making the article fail WP:GNG & WP:GEOLAND , and even then it would only be presumed notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 21:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PaulGamerBoy360 You misunderstood what @ Schwede66 : said, - they stated that Al-Wahs is a 'Uzlah our article calls it a sub-district. Lightburst ( talk ) 21:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, i deleted that part but the fact is it still fails WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV ,  & WP:GEOLAND . & even if it didn't fail them it would still only be presumed notable. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 21:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND as explained above. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no it does not, WP:GEOLAND states the following: ""The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability.  Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. "" 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Presumed notable is notable; recognized as a legal place and is populated. Source is not merely a map, so meets WP:GEOLAND . EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 16:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Presumed notable is NOT notable See this ""  Presumed "" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and it doesn't even have ""Significant coverage in reliable sources"" 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The implicit deletion reason here is WP:DEL-REASON #8, which is to say that this article's subject fail[s] to meet the relevant notability guideline (emphasis mine).  In this case, we have a very simple set of facts: this is very clearly a geographical entity, and the relevant SNG is WP:GEOLAND .  What we have here is quite simply a legally recognized populated place , so the relevant notability criterion is met, and there is no good policy basis for deletion that has been presented.  That there is news about events that have happened here (for example, coverage of a murder in the town [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] ) is secondary to the fact that the relevant notability criterion is met.  Additionally, the claim that there's no significant coverage of this town seems a bit like a stretch.  Even with my extremely limited knowledge of Arabic, I was able to find a digital source covering road paving in the town—I'm fairly confident that an individual with better understanding of the local language/culture and local print sources would be able to build this article out.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Go ahead and add the sources, there is no point in mentioning them if you aren't going to add them.  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you add the sources I will Withdraw the Nomination.  😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Highway Blossoms: Everything else is rather trivial, or from somewhere that isn't vetted as reliable.  The reception is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel to make it SEEM notable, but the sources don't support that.  (See WP:SIGCOV ) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The two Hardcore Gamer , first TheGamer , and PCGamesN sources establish GNG.  You may want to call most of the other sources ""trivial"", but I would say they are simply supplemental sources that help cite sentences in the article that if left unsourced would be silly and unhelpful.  The only source that isn't currently vetted as reliable as per WP:VG/RS is the Inverse one but that source is listed as having inconclusive discussions on that issue.  The two discussions lead me to believe that it should be treated as at least situationally reliable.  I would lean to voting reliable if a new discussion on it was added to WP:VG/RS .  This article existed for about 15 hours before being tagged with an AFD and I'm not necessarily anti-deletion but I don't see how these taggings help.  The subject is not egregiously or blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia, and it's honestly akin to a stub article right now.  Not letting it have a moment to breathe, as I planned to look for some more sources in addition to the ones I already found, is not entirely constructive in my opinion.  Soulbust ( talk ) 04:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TheGamer is a situational source in WP:VG/S - it's not applicable to establish notability due to its notoriety as a content mill.  I should also point you directly to WP:GNG , where it says, ""Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.""  You can't use two Hardcore Gamer sources to count towards the requirement of multiple sources.  Regardless of whether the article is under construction, you made it in main space rather than as a draft, which seems to indicate that you believe it can stand on its own in its current state.  Still, my own search didn't find anything so I find it fairly unlikely they exist at all.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I should also add that Highway Blossoms gets a very brief shout-out in the Inverse article; which gives slightly more opinions about the studio's later games though I'm not sure I'd call any one game in the article significant coverage.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TheGamer is situationally reliable yes.  But its usage in this article is still suitable as both references sourced by TheGamer are after August 2020 - as per WP:VG/RS, ""News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable.""  If you want to count the Hardcore Gamer as one source, that's fine fine.  It still establishes GNG, along with the PCGamesN source.  Probably all articles can be called ""under construction"", so that's not really my main point.  But this article was just made, and especially in that case, I would ask does deletion of this article help , at least this soon?  Soulbust ( talk ) 05:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per WP:GNG : for significant coverage, the topic ""does not need to be the main topic of the source material.""  Highway Blossoms has about the same amount of coverage in Inverse that it does in PCGamesN .  Its coverage in the former is direct and in detail, satisfying GNG, and furthermore offers sourcing on a pretty noteworthy pieces of information, namely why the writer sought to work on the game, and that the game's reception inspired him to found the studio.  I would say this constitutes as helping establish notability .  Soulbust ( talk ) 05:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am normally pretty lenient on games that will probably be notable at some point.  This is not such a case, as Highway Blossoms is a 2016 game - it's unlikely to garner any further RS mentions, especially with the studio moving on to later and greater things.  So, WP:ITSHARMLESS is not really an argument here.  The portion of The Inverse article that is about the game is as follows: Josh Kaplan’s first game, Highway Blossoms, sees a young girl named Amber gradually fall in love with her friend Marina in the American Southwest.  Only a few years out of high school himself at the time, Kaplan wanted to see more yuri visual novels (a subgenre that focuses on female romantic relationships) in the space.  So he co-wrote his own.  This is not significant.  This is hardly even trivial.  And it offers no opinion from the article's writer.  There is no way this counts towards notability.  Even if we did consider TheGamer article reliable, it's also a trivial mention.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Inverse source also includes ""In 2016, there weren't a whole lot of yuri visual novels available in English, especially on Steam, and the game ended up being unexpectedly successful,” Kaplan tells Inverse. “It found an audience of primarily LGBT readers who appreciated what they felt was a more realistic approach to same-sex relationships.""  Inspired by the response to Highway Blossoms, Kaplan founded Studio Élan.  This and the portion you quoted in your reply is short coverage sure, but not trivial .  WP:TRIVIAL also states ""On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention . The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view.""  That last sentence is important, because the sources provided are valid.  The PCGamesN and Hardcore Gamer sourcing establishes GNG.  For TheGamer , WP:VG/RS is pretty clear that the source is considered reliable post-August 2020, so there is no ""even if we did consider TheGamer article reliable"" that applies here, as you stated.  The only thing WP:VG/RS advises against is using it to demonstrate notability.  But since, the source is not a trivial mention , it adds as suitable reliable sourcing that helps this article follow the spirit and the letter of the guideline, which is simply to make sure there is enough content to write about from a neutral POV.  Soulbust ( talk ) 07:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete per nom.  Starship 24 ( talk ) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) —",withdrawn
"Indus Group of Institutions: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"West Virginia folklore: This has significant sourcing issues, written like an essay, once you remove the OR, unsourced and off-topic there is very little left.  No objection to drafting.  // Timothy :: talk 05:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and West Virginia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn : I just realized this was a student editor, I withdraw to give them time to work on the article.  // Timothy :: talk 06:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru): Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Peru .  Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Mach61 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with.  Also worth noting that if these are deleted, {{ PeruvianNumber1s }} also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If data come from Billboard they are certainly reliable (see WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts#1 ), if they come from La Prensa very likely too (also per Suitable charts#1), but as per the nomination the current reference is blatantly unrelated as points to an article about Aretha Franklin.  -- C avarrone 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades.  The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their ""Hits of the World"" section on page 28.  The source also credits ""La Prensa"" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source.  We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources.  I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this.  FanDePopLatino ( talk ) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ FanDePopLatino Normally I would agree that merely lacking sources is not reason enough to delete a page if they can be found, but I think this sort of list is an exception to that rule.  This is about a very specific subject for which there is only one type of source available (old back-catalog editions of Billboard or La Parenta ), written by an active editor who should have known they'd have to cite their sources, and yet couldn't be bothered to do so.  Without citations, a list like this is useless to someone trying to do research, in a way an uncited prose article is not.  Perhaps these pages can be draftified ?  Mach61 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : in principle I'm leaning keep, because the material does seem to be out there.  My concern is whether there is enough to make complete lists at present... it looks like only 11 weeks of the year 1966 are available, for example, which is going to lead to big gaps in the 1966 list unless back copies of La Prensa itself can be located.  Richard3120 ( talk ) 10:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :@ Mach61 I understand that the editor who created these articles didn't bother to use citations but I have from the moment I was notified of this.  If you look back at the articles now you will see that I already finished 1963, make substantial progress on 1962 and 1966, started a bit on 1964, and have yet to get to 1965 but I plan on it.  Drafting the pages would be an alternative if they still weren't sourced but as you can see, the articles no longer lack relevant citations or violate verifiability so the reasons for the deletion nomination are no longer relevant since those issues have already been addressed and fixed.  FanDePopLatino ( talk ) 16:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"HPI Groupe: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies ,  and France .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars: An article on Mobile radar observation of tornadoes seems to be a better idea, perhaps this can be moved and the list trimmed to the most notable instances only?  But specifically as a list grouping this seems like a never-ending list of a non-defining characteristic of the tornadoes, which get observed by many methods.  Fram ( talk ) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Geography ,  and Technology .  Fram ( talk ) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Support renaming — As pointed out by Fram, the list should only have the most notable instances.  That is actually sourced by a published paper by NOAA/OU ( [26] ), which is cited in the article.  The authors specifically mention dozens of tornadoes have been observed by mobile radars.  That said, only a handful (actually, roughly this current list) have been directly mentioned or directly published about.  In that paper, several of the tornadoes on this list were directly called out, including with some of the max readings.  In fact, that published study alluded to another study of 82 separate tornadoes measured by mobile radars (page 5), but yet, only 12 were directly named in the study.  Those named ones are the most notable ones.  As such, several of the tornadoes listed here have the mobile radar information mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia (see 2013 El Reno tornado , 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado , 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado , Tornadoes of 2009#June 5 , 2024 Greenfield Tornado , Tornado records , ect…) Secondly, the nominator claimed “the most basic sources” and called out Twitter (only used for tornadoes that occurred in the last month—directly published by the Doppler on Wheels account or a academically published meteorologists in the field of radars…i.e. meets WP:SPS very clearly ( “ Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications ” )) and NOAA.  However, the nominator stated inaccurately that NOAA was a “primary source” that is not the case.  NOAA does not own the Doppler on Wheels ( University of Illinois does) or RaXPol ( University of Oklahoma does) and the NOAA publications listed here (example for this is this publication in 2016 ) are not primary sources for it.  Per the FAQ for that NOAA website, “ The NWS has 60 days to submit their data files to the NWS Headquarters in Silver Spring, MD. The NWS Headquarters (NWSHQ) then collects all of the data files from the 123 NWS Forecast Offices. The NCEI receives a copy of this database approximately 75 days after the end of the month. A publication and archive are produced and the Storm Events Database are updated within 75-90 days after the end of a data month. ” Clearly not a primary source for the Doppler on Wheels data, which is not owned or managed whatsoever by NOAA.  To list a few secondary reliable source news articles (let’s ignore the tons of peer-reviewed academic papers already cited in the article currently), we have [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] as well these published in 2024: [33] [34] [35] (TWP) [36] .  Again, those are just a handful of news articles related to the mobile radars and how they improve science.  I’m not going to go through and list every reference in the article, since a ton are secondary, peer-reviewed academic papers.  (Too Long;Didn’t Read Summary)  Basically, Keep the article, bust just rename it.  Invalid AFD in my opinion, as even the nominator gave an alternative to deletion.  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fram : With what you stated, I do agree with you.  If you would wish, you could withdraw the AFD and move the article.  I could reformat it and talk page discussions regarding what is/is not notable could occur.  Since you gave an out for deletion, and I agree with the alternative, withdrawing the AFD and following that process may be best, rather than try to wait over a week to do the reformatting and such.  So, would you be up to withdrawing the AFD and then renaming the article so I can reformat it appropriately?  The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems the best solution!  Fram ( talk ) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.",withdrawn
"Richard Medlin : QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , American football ,  and United States of America .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Here are a couple of sources [33] [34] Alvaldi ( talk ) 15:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bleacher Report does not seem to be a reliable source, and one good source is not enough to establish notability.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (edit conflict) They seem to have a staff and they're cited on over 7,000 articles ; I would say its reliable unless a discussion decides otherwise.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) / [ reply ] Keep .  I expected to find more and agree its a somewhat close call, but considering this is someone who played in the National Football League in very recent (2011)/modern times (and we've never deleted one of those minus one of the '87 replacements) we should keep based on the following sources: ""Garner native making most of his chance"" from The News & Observer (which is an in-depth feature story); ""Fayetteville State's Medlin continues NFL dream with Dolphins"" from WRAL-TV ; ""Miami Dolphins Sign Running Back Richard Medlin to Practice Squad"" from Bleacher Report (while about a transaction, it is much more in-depth than most and so counts as SIGCOV as well); and ""Fayetteville State's Medlin leads nation in kickoff returns"" from The Fayetteville Observer (via ProQuest , 535 words on Medlin).  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - BeanieFan11 shows just enough coverage to meet GNG, although I am not including Bleacher Report since I am not sure it counts as RS.  Rlendog ( talk ) 16:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Beaniefan11's sources.  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have greatly improved the article, see here .  @ QuicoleJR : Would you be willing to withdraw this nomination?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I would be.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"The Daily Campus : Advertising by people who work for The Daily Campus.  [7] Chances last a finite time ( talk ) 13:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Organizations ,  and Connecticut .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would not agree with the assertion of advertising.  It's a fairly prominent entity at UConn with its share of history and controversy.  69.125.1.183 ( talk ) 14:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  fails WP:GNG and is just pure advertising, could be G11'able .  -- Wesoree ( talk · contribs ) 14:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Keep . The article just needs a little rewrite, then it's all fine. -- Wesoree ( talk · contribs ) 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wesoree , Did you even google search it?  — Jacona ( talk ) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In one minute of google searchland, came up with plenty of WP:SIGCOV including [8] , [9] , [10] .  There's lots more, but this obviously meets WP:GNG .  This newspaper is 127 years old.  The article may not be great, but that's no reason for deletion, it's reason to improve it.  Jacona ( talk ) 14:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Merge with University of Connecticut#Student organizations ; only RS seems to be the Hartford Courant .  Jacona , please don't badger ! voters; if you find RS, add them to the article.  Mini apolis 14:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Asking one question is hardly badgering.  Please feel free to add RS to the article, your help in building the encyclopedia will be greatly appreciated! .  Jacona ( talk ) 14:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just added some, including items Jacona listed above.  – .  Raven .  talk 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I changed my mind.  We should Merge with University of Connecticut#Student organizations .  Chances last a finite time ( talk ) 14:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chances last a finite time : Do you want to withdraw this nomination and replace the AFD tag with a merge tag?  ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 15:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do we not want to have that debate here?  Chances last a finite time ( talk ) 15:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're the nominator.  It's your prerogative to withdraw the nomination if nobody agrees with deletion.  ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I want to delete a lot of the article and merge some of it.  Do I need to debate that here?  Chances last a finite time ( talk ) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ""Delete a lot of the article"" is a different matter than deleting the article outright.  If you believe there should be an article at all, you should withdraw the deletion nomination.  WP scatter t / c 17:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw the deletion nomination.  Chances last a finite time ( talk ) 13:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge but it needs massive paring down of completely unsourced sections.  ~ Anachronist ( talk ) 15:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... or to find and cite sources for them.  – .  Raven .  talk 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the state's largest daily college newspaper, over 120 years old, with multiple other newspapers either reporting on it, citing its reporting, or reprinting its text verbatim (e.g. editorials), is clearly found notable by the press.  – .  Raven .  talk 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems as though there's enough notability for an article, but I agree it has to be pared down and rewritten almost entirely.  WP scatter t / c 17:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources identified by Jacona show a clear WP:NORG pass, and there are ample others.  The Hartford Courant , Connecticut's newspaper of record, alone has at least half a dozen articles focusing specifically on the paper.  Newspapers.com archives turn up plenty just under its current name: [1] [2] [3] [4] Many student newspapers that are far smaller/newer have survived AfD.  The nominator is a new user, but they should be aware that conflict of interest editing is not a valid reason to delete an article like this one that is not at all borderline on notability.  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 05:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sdkb : Although, to be careful, the Hartford Courant has been the publisher of the Daily Campus since Fall 2016, as indicated in the infobox, so that may not be a truly WP:INDEPENDENT source.  Good thing the three refs you give are from before that date.  – .  Raven .  talk 19:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, I hadn't seen that.  Good observation, but even for post-2016 coverage, I would be surprised if there were any independence issues.  ""Publisher"" in this sort of instance often just means ""printer"", i.e. The Daily Campus pays the Courant to print it each week, but the Courant doesn't look at the content, and any Courant reporters writing about The Daily Campus would be on the other side of its editorial firewall .  {{u| Sdkb }} talk 21:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I personally agree with that likelihood, but am aware that not everyone may; IOW, this is an area of possible, arguable challenge.  – .  Raven .  talk 21:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Needs a lot of cleanup and citation work, but meets WP:NORG criteria, with historical significance and extensive coverage in other newspapers and secondary sources.  Topshelver ( talk ) 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] just here to say that i've deleted much of the unsourced garbage.  lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if it's large enough to expand.  I'm not familiar with it, so if it's not large enough, merge instead.  - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ ""Students, UConn Blamed For Paper's Poor Quality"" .  Hartford Courant .  4 August 1961.  p. 11.  ^ ""Daily Campus Has New Offices, Finances"" .  Hartford Courant .  17 September 1972.  p. 14 .  Retrieved 24 May 2023 .  ^ "" 'Daily Campus' Uncertain of Funds"" .  Hartford Courant .  8 February 1972.  p. 57 .  Retrieved 24 May 2023 .  ^ ""Study Unit Cites Weaknesses In UConn Paper"" .  Meriden Journal .  3 August 1961.  p. 2 .  Retrieved 24 May 2023 .  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.",withdrawn
"Indian Rheumatology Association : Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Medicine ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Once Fallen : I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes .   I did a WP:BEFORE and found these from Looper.com and Newspapers.com respectively, and neither of them are suitable enough to pass WP:NEXIST .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  The Film Creator ( talk ) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I also found this link from MovieWeb , which is not enough.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 19:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found this Dutch movie magazine review here , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for finding that.   According to User:Donaldd23 , Cinemagazine is considered reliable.   However, I will not withdraw unless: A. ) there’s one other reliable or suitable review; or B. ) more “keep” votes per consensus.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Review in Italian at MyMovies.it, which makes 2 at least.  Internationally distributed. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw nomination per reviews by Cinemagazine and Mymovies.it.   Passes NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST.  Excellent work, everybody.  The Film Creator ( talk ) 18:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Junlper : Clear WP:BLP1E created after her suspension from Twitter.  She's not notable on her own, only the things she did (goblin mode, Snickers dick vein, both of which have articles) are.  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"List of television programmes broadcast by TVB : WP:LISTCRITERIA , ""Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."", ""Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.""  Article is a giant directory of programs.  Most of it is either unsourced or wikilinked to other articles that have info on the show but nothing about it being broadcast on the channel other than it was on the channel, this info is normally unsourced.  The main article already has a list of notable original programing.  See TVB#Notable shows from TVB .  Nothing properly sourced to merge.  There are also individual articles for the programing info for each year, plus bonus articles just for dramas, again one article per year.  All series by year List of TVB series (1977) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1978) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1979) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1980) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1981) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1982) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1983) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1984) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1985) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1986) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1987) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1988) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1989) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1990) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1991) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1992) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1993) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1994) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1995) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1996) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1997) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1998) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (1999) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2000) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2001) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2002) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2003) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2004) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2005) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2006) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2007) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2008) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB series (2009) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Dramass by year List of TVB dramas in 2010 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2011 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2012 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2013 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2014 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2015 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2016 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2017 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2018 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2019 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2020 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2021 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2022 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2023 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of TVB dramas in 2024 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) The just to keep track of all the lists there also is: Lists of TVB dramas and series ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Template:List of TVB dramas (not part of AfD, will send to TfD after this closes).  Summary: Articles fails NLIST, no sources showing the entries for a subject (eg:List of TVB dramas in 2018) have been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources.  Articles fail NOTDIRECTORY, WWIN, Wikipedia is not an electronic programming guide.  I'm hoping against precedent that a group nom can clean this up, Wikipedia is not a historical programming directory for television channels.  // Timothy :: talk 23:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists ,  and Hong Kong .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : List of TVB dramas in 2024 does not currently exist in mainspace; it briefly did, but was quickly sent to draftspace and has since been declined twice at AfC.  As it is a draft it, as with the template, should not be directly part of this nomination, but it is again a pending AfC submission and any reviewer there may need to take this nomination of many similar articles into account.  No opinion at this time on any of the other lists.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This kind of list is common on Wikipedia: see List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel , List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC , List of programs broadcast by CBS and many, many more.  In fact, there are 485 other lists in Category:Lists of television series by network .   I know that arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be avoided, but in this case so much other stuff exists that it appears to be simply common practice for a network to have an article like this.  Furthermore, citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY is a misunderstanding of the policy.  Item #5, aka WP:NOTTVGUIDE , says that an article shouldn't list upcoming events, but ""historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable.""  Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I totally agree with Toughpigs, TVB dramas in Hong Kong programmes broadcast does existed but it released the number of TVB drama episode into other TVB drama episode released as well.  The certain person who trying to create this page with complaining about not a historical programming directory for television channels basically it was invalid and I already checked revision background on the certain person was created by Tuesday October 1, 2019 who don't understand what the TVB broadcast is about.  Personally I oppose the article of deletion with nomination and I am not trying to persuade here but certain person who is the one to cause persuade and destructive plan with polticial stance as for no reason so that's why the certain person need to deserved for WP:BREAK aka quit raging.  Cool90630 ( talk ) 06:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : TV guides don't get a special exception from notability guidelines.  NLIST and NOTDIRECTORY exist for a reason.  Wikipedia deletes this type of article often when it breaks NOTDIRECTORY, and has no sourcing showing an article meets NLIST, here are recent examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by CITV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Sportsnet 360 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs previously broadcast by CT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Green Entertainment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by TV9 (Malaysia) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation // Timothy :: talk 06:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources .  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists , which says, ""One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list .""  I will show below that ""TVB series"" has been treated as ""a group or set by independent reliable sources"".  Summary of sources TVB series have been covered in several academic sources and numerous media sources.  The academic sources discuss the shows in the context of TVB's history.  The media sources discuss the shows in the context of the highest rated, the lowest rated, the ""most classic"", and the ""best"".  Sources Cheuk, Pak-Tong (Fall 1999).  ""The Beginning of the Hong Kong New Wave: The Interactive Relationship Between Television and the Film Industry"".  Post Script .  Vol.  19, no. 1.  pp. 10–27.  ISSN 0277-9897 .  ProQuest 2141429 .  The article notes: ""In the early years, HK-TVB's Jade channel (the Chinese language service) broadcast only three locally-produced programs. Much of the remaining airtime was filled by foreign series, such as Doctor Kildare, I Spy, The Lucy Show, and Bonanza (Hong Kong Television Weekly 17-18). The station also showed early Mandarin and Cantonese pictures, such as The Revenge, Truth and False Husband (Chao-zhou-dialect pictures), Cool Chau Mei, andWonderful Princess (Hong Kong Television Weekly 14). In this, HK-TVB's initial programming strategy was no different from that of Rediffusion Cable. In 1968, however, HK-TVB produced its first drama series, A Dream Is a Dream, shown in 15-minute segments once every week.""  The article notes: ""Gradually, more locally produced series gained popularity. Here is the list of the HK-TVB's top ten programs in November 1970: (1) Enjoy Yourself Tonight; (2) It Takes a Thief; (3) Tarzan; (4) Kao's Club; (5) Japanese Story; (6) Sharp's Club; (7) Night of Sharp; (8) Viceroy's On Life; (9) News and Weather Report; (10) The Fugitive. Of this list, half were imports (numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10). On the other hand, the list also shows that locally produced series increasingly were favored by local audiences.""  The article notes: ""In 1973, HK-TVB's new head of programming, Leong Suk-yi, produced the comedy series Seventy-Three, made up of 30-minute episodes shown once every week (30 episodes in all). Audiences welcomed the series for its refreshing satirical approach to social problems. It even garnered more viewers than Enjoy Yourself Tonight and became the territory's top rated program. The breakthrough achieved by Seventy-Three paved the way for series like Crossroad and CID (both 1976), Wonderfun (1977) and Seven Women; all were dramatic anthology series shot on film.""  The article notes: ""In July 1978, the prime time program schedules of HK-TVB and CTV were as follows:"" The article notes: ""The dramatic mini-series that became most popular was HK-TVB's 1976 production Hotel. ... HK-TVB followed this success with the 1977 production A House is Not a Home.""  Siu, Chiu Shun Patrick (2022-11-11).  The rise and fall of popular variety programs – A Hong Kong Case Study (PDF) (PhD thesis).  Hong Kong Baptist University .  Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The thesis notes: ""Background information of the selected five cases"".  The thesis discusses five TVB shows: ""Program for Case Study 1 - Enjoy Yourself Tonight "", ""Program for Case Study 2 - Cantopop at 50 "", ""Program for Case Study 3 - Movie Buff Championship "", ""Program for Case Study 4 - Am I Healthy? "", and ""Program for Case Study 5 - Be My Guest "".  Chu, Yiu-Wai (2020-06-05).  ""Hong Kong (in China) studies: Hong Kong popular culture as example"" .  Global Media and China .  5 (2).  doi : 10.1177/2059436420917564 .  The article notes: ""For example, Kok-Leung Kuk, one of the executive directors of TVB martial arts classics including The Legend of the Condor Heroes《射鵰英雄傳》(1983), The Return of the Condor Heroes《神鵰俠侶》(1983) and The Duke of Mount Deer《鹿鼎記》(1984), co-directed a Mainland version"" The article notes: ""TVB started collaborating with Youku in 2013, airing its dramas on China’s leading online video and streaming service platforms. One such drama, Line Walker 《使徒行者》, recorded a total of 2.4 billion views in 2014. These drama serials provided higher production budgets to TVB, supposedly raising the production quality. Legal Mavericks 《踩過界》 (or 《盲俠大律師》 in the Mainland), the first co-produced title with iQiyi that premiered in June 2017, successfully accumulated total streaming views of over 500 million in Mainland China. Another co-production, Line Walker: The Prelude 《使徒行者2》, a crime-thriller drama serial, also reached remarkable total streaming views of over 2 billion on Tencent’s platform in Mainland China.""  The article notes: ""Whether history will repeat itself or not is too early to tell, but, for example, in 2018, three of the five TVB serial dramas that recorded the lowest viewership ratings were co-productions: Another Era 《再創世紀》, Infernal Affairs 《無間道》, and The Great Adventurer Wesley 《冒險王衛斯理》 (“The Five TVB Dramas With Lowest Viewership Ratings,” 2019).""  Wong, Yan-wah 黃欣華 (2019-01-11).  ""TVB「2018最低收視五部劇集」出爐　高成本劇集收視未必似如期"" [TVB's ""Five Lowest-Rated Drama Series of 2018"" is released. The ratings of high-cost dramas may not be as expected] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article lists the TVB series The Great Adventurer Wesley , Succession War , Infernal Affairs , Another Era , and Stealing Seconds .  Lo, Alex (2011-01-28).  ""A golden age when TVB dictated popular culture"" .  South China Morning Post .  Archived from the original on 2021-04-28 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article notes: ""Just as that period of time is considered the golden age of Hong Kong when its economy took off, it was arguably the best time for quality programmes at TVB. Dragon, Tiger and Leopard was an innovative crime drama series ... Another drama series, The Northern Stars , for a time, made being a social worker almost hip. Then came Gan Kwok-leung, arguably the best scriptwriter TVB ever had. He penned The Wrong Couples and No Biz Like Showbiz which restored the art of the dramatic dialogue that is hard to imagine for a TVB programme today.""  Koh, Jiamun (2022-05-25).  ""The 10 TVB Shows With The Highest Ratings In The Past 12 Years"" .  8 Days .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article lists Forensic Heroes S4 , Can't Buy Me Love , Triumph In The Skies 2 , No Regrets , Forensic Heroes S3 , Airport Strikers , Inbound Troubles , The Mysteries of Love , Story of Yanxi Palace , and Witness Insecurity .  Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2023-09-01).  ""TVB今年13套劇集收視排行榜　第一位拋離成條街注定成大贏家？"" [TVB's 13 TV drama ratings rankings this year: No. 1 is destined to be the big winner?] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 13 TVB series.  Lam, Seon-ging 林迅景 (2023-01-02).  ""盤點2022年15套TVB深宵劇　三代歌影視男神全部都搵到！"" [Taking stock of 15 TVB late-night dramas in 2022, all three generations of singing, film and television male stars are available!] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 15 TVB series.  Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-01-21).  ""青春不要臉｜80年代最經典十部TVB劇集　絕對係香港輝煌的一頁"" [Freedom Memories｜The ten most classic TVB dramas of the 1980s, definitely a glorious page in Hong Kong] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 10 TVB series.  Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-05-23).  ""TVB近年劇集最高收視十大排行榜　佘詩曼絕對係收視福星"" [Top 10 TVB drama series with the highest ratings in recent years Charmaine Sheh is definitely a lucky star in the ratings] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 10 TVB series.  Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-05-20).  ""TVB歷史最低收視十套劇集排行榜　今年未完但已經有四套入圍"" [Ranking of the top ten TVB dramas with the lowest ratings in TVB history. This year has not been completed but four dramas have already been shortlisted.] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 10 TVB series.  Lam, Seon-ging 林迅景 (2022-03-26).  ""網民票選TVB十大冷門劇　蒼海遺珠勁多一線演員精彩過新劇"" [Netizens voted TVB's top ten unpopular dramas. The Pearl of the Blue Sea has many A-list actors and actresses in the new drama.] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 10 TVB series.  Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2021-05-21).  ""娛樂即時娛樂重溫20年前TVB劇集如何鼎盛　有六部劇集收視衝過40點！"" [Entertainment Instant Entertainment revisits the heyday of TVB dramas 20 years ago. Six dramas have ratings exceeding 40 points!] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses several TVB series.  Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2022-11-10).  ""網民嚴選今年TVB最好睇十套劇集《美麗戰場》愈鬧愈鍾意？"" [Netizens carefully selected the ten best TVB dramas to watch this year. The more popular ""The Beauty of War"" is, the more you like it?] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 10 TVB series.  Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2017-10-29).  ""【台慶50周年】回顧TVB紮根香港50年　細數十大最出色「神劇」"" [[Station's 50th Anniversary] Looking back at TVB's 50 years of roots in Hong Kong and breaking down the top ten most outstanding ""divine dramas""] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 10 TVB series.  Wong, Chi-hang 黃梓恒 (2020-10-05).  ""TVB近十年最高收視10套劇集　最高一套基本上唔會再打破"" [TVB's 10 highest-rated drama series in the past ten years, the highest-rated series will basically never break again] (in Chinese).  HK01 .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 10 TVB series.  ""【TVB古裝劇】網民嚴選30大TVB古裝劇　《金枝慾孽》+《大冬瓜》同上榜"" [[TVB Costume Drama] Netizens carefully selected the top 30 TVB costume dramas.  ""War and Beauty"" + ""The Winter Melon Tale"" are also on the list. ].  Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese).  2022-05-10.  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses 30 TVB series.  ""TVB經典影劇深夜接力重播　觀眾投票選最想睇經典劇集"" [TVB late-night relay reruns of classic movies and dramas, viewers vote for the classic dramas they most want to watch].  Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese).  2022-10-14.  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses several TVB series.  ""【萬千星2020】盤點TVB於2020年五大最高收視劇集 　《法證IV》奪冠《使徒3》未入五大"" [[TVB Anniversary Awards 2020] Taking stock of TVB's top five most-watched dramas in 2020.  ""Forensic Heroes IV"" won the championship and ""Line Walker: Bull Fight"" did not enter the top five. ].  Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese).  2021-01-01.  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses five TVB series.  Lo, Chi-wang 羅志宏 (2023-12-29).  ""細數2023年TVB劇集最高平均收視排行榜！僅得呢三部重頭劇 ..."" [Break down the ranking of the highest average ratings of TVB dramas in 2023! Only three major dramas scored more than 20 points].  U Lifestyle [ zh ] (in Chinese).  Hong Kong Economic Times .  Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 .  Retrieved 2024-01-27 .  The article discusses eight TVB series.  WP:NOTTVGUIDE WP:NOTTVGUIDE says: Electronic program guides .  An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks , etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. "" These articles do not contain ""upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks "". They contain ""historically significant program lists and schedules"" as shown through the coverage in academic and media sources. ""Simple listings"" WP:NOTDIRECTORY says: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information. WP:LISTCRITERIA says: "" Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria ) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources . "" The membership criteria of these lists is ""unambiguous"" and ""objective"" as membership is based on which TVB dramas were broadcast. The membership criteria is ""supported by reliable sources "" because TVB series have been discussed in academic and media sources. WP:LISTCRITERIA further says, ""As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive.  Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance , not just verifiable existence. "" A topic that has been covered by academic and media sources meets the ""encyclopedic and topical relevance "" requirement. Multi-page list articles Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Titles links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations , which discusses the conventions for ""splitting a long list into multiple sub-articles"". The long list here is ""List of TVB series"", while the sub-articles are ""List of TVB dramas in 2022"", ""List of TVB dramas in 2023"", etc. The guideline gives the example, ""For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "" Show title (season 1)"", although the present guideline would have preferred "" Show title : season 1"" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle, as in Star Trek: The Next Generation , is a likely reason for this variance). "" The split by year is similar here. The split by year is a valid spinout to ensure the main list does not get too long. General notability guideline There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"". Cunard ( talk ) 11:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I vote to keep the TVB dramas article back in and I do agree with Cunard and vote no on tha article of deletion nomination and I do not see the problem. The certain person of October 2019 user need to stop incriminate with nomination for example in the past and look the title topic ""Lots of deletions related to NOTDIR""; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=787047417#Lots_of_deletions_related_to_NOTDIR . I recommended to make speedy keep all, speedy close with closing all article of deletion nomination discussion. When the certain person is semi-retired ""this user is no longer very active on Wikipedia"" by using WP:BREAK already as now it means stop editing on Wikipedia and I do not see the certain person is taking semi-retired plan when the certain person is not taking a WP:BREAK for semi-retired then don't marked as semi-retired. If the certain person is already marked on semi-retired plan ""user is no longer very active on Wikipedia"" which means stop create edits without doing anything for search and change edits on Wikipedia.  Reply I'm very active on AfD, other areas not very much at all = semi retired.  // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Looks like I should have nom'd them individually, I have no objection to the group nom being closed so I can nom them individually.  No way these pass NLIST, and do meet WWIN NOTDIRECTORY.  // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Independent Curators International : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  Article written by subject.  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Organizations ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Institute of Electronics Engineers of the Philippines : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE .  WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Engineering , Technology ,  and Philippines .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",withdrawn
"Aleppo Township Volunteer Fire Company: typically these types of topics are not notable and don't require an article made about them.  B3251 ( talk ) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  B3251 ( talk ) 02:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Looks to have no coverage in any reliable sources.  ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 02:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not remove this article of mine JustinKurt1411 ( talk ) 02:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey there, I know that it sucks to have an article you created deleted/nominated for deletion when you're a newer editor and it can feel discouraging to the work you put in to it, trust me I know - my very first article was deleted for practically the same reason.  That being said, it is important considering whether the article you're creating is going to be encyclopedically significant or not.  For incredibly local departments (i.e. fire departments), they generally aren't going to be notable enough to be on Wikipedia - thus, the only fire departments you see on Wikipedia are generally major ones.  I recommend taking a look at WP:ORG .  Best wishes.  B3251 ( talk ) 02:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania .  • Gene93k ( talk ) 02:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Completely non-notable.  Elshad ( talk ) 12:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Non-notable.  Gjs238 ( talk ) 19:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Nothing I find shows notability under WP:GNG or WP:NCORP . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Ucodelite: BEFORE search turns up no possible reliable sources to indicate notability (or any sources at all, too).  Creator copy-pasted draft out of draftspace after a declined AfC.  WhoAteMyButter ( 🌷 talk │ 🌻 contribs ) 04:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for notifying me about the discussion regarding the article on Ucodelite .  I kindly request that the article not be deleted as it holds significance within the coding community and provides valuable information about an innovative software development tool.  I am open to contributing to the discussion and making any necessary improvements to address concerns raised.  However, I believe that Ucodelite merits inclusion on Wikipedia based on its relevance and impact in the field of software development.  Thank you for considering my input.  Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 04:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If it holds significance within the coding community, you will need to verifiably show that by including reliable sources that indicate the subject's notability.  Sources from the subject's own website are not reliable and thus do not count towards notability.  For example, see Codeacademy .  It has numerous reliable sources (almost 40).  You don't necessarily need to have 40 (avoid OVERCITE ), but you should have enough that indicate notability.  I should also note that your original draft at Draft:Ucodelite was declined .  Why did you recreate it in mainspace?  WhoAteMyButter ( 🌷 talk │ 🌻 contribs ) 05:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize for any misunderstanding.  I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of Ucodelite within the coding community.  I will ensure to include verifiable sources from reputable sources that indicate its significance.  Regarding the draft decline, I acknowledge that it was declined initially, but I believed that subsequent improvements warranted its inclusion in mainspace.  I will take this feedback into consideration moving forward.  Thank you for your guidance.  Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 05:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ""I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of UCoDeLite within the coding community. I will ensure that credible references are included to support its notability. Regarding the original draft at Draft:Ucodelite, I apologize for any oversight in recreating it in mainspace after its decline. I am committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines and will work to address any concerns raised. However, I kindly request the removal of the nomination for deletion to allow for further improvements and contributions to the article.""  Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 05:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And I'm committed to providing verifiable information to support Ucodelite significance within the coding community.  We are actively editing the article to include additional sources and improve its quality to attract more views.  Regarding the original draft being declined, I appreciate your feedback and have since made revisions based on the guidelines.  I believe Ucodelite merits inclusion on Wikipedia due to its impact and relevance in the software development field.  Your consideration in removing the deletion nomination is greatly appreciated. "" Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please consider removing the nomination for deletion, as contributors are actively editing the article and it is gained more views. In terms of demonstrating the significance of Ucodelite within the coding community, I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to establish its notability. I will work on including such sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Regarding the original draft being declined, I appreciate the feedback and will take it into account as I continue to improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. Mehzabin P S Alvi ( talk ) 05:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Um, I have also contributed because it seems that it's relevant, And I am keeping my research along Ucodelite and still improving, So I requesting to remove from ""Nomination this article for deletion' Thank You Harvardjustine80 ( talk ) 07:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : While this discussion was going on, the article was deleted, judged by an administrator to be blatant advertising.  Anyone wishing to restore the article as a draft so that it can be corrected and resubmitted should go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion .  -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Jack F. Campbell: No significant mentions in reliable independent sources.  Pabsoluterince ( talk ) 09:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Additions of reliable sources.  Teddy012 ( talk ) 16:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sourced non-football/soccer name search.  I’ll amend sources.  I guess it’s different from State Attorney office.  Thanks AB.  Recommend delete Teddy012 ( talk ) 04:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Teddy012 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Keep.  Additional sources about influence added Jc6828a ( talk ) 16:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Delete .  Jack F. Campbell is so non-notable that the article has to use deceptive referencing to puff up the subject: reference 1 - Politico - cited to support Campbell's claim that ""He is a policy influencer"" .  Politico's article quotes a totally different Jack Campbell , in this case a state attorney reference 2 - cited to support Campbell's claim to be a ""published commentator on the American Aerospace Defense industry"" .  This is just Campbell's self-published assessment of Lockheed Martin's stock on the crowd-sourced Seeking Alpha stock-picking website.  reference 3 - Tallahassee Democrat newspaper article includes the name ""Jack Campbell"" on a list of 500+ signed up to attend a Tallahassee Chamber of Commerce meeting.  Except it's that other Jack Campbell, the state attorney.  reference 4 - another self-published Seeking Alpha piece about a defense contractor.  reference 5 is  the basis for Campbell's claim to be a military officer - his promotion to First Lieutenant in 2021.  That's an officer rank typically attained by someone two years after leaving officer training.  It's certainly an honorable job but it's such a low, low rank that it's painful to see someone using it to support their Wikipedia article.  reference 6 cites the U.S. Embassy to the Philippines , Joint Military Assistance Group's webpage.  Campbell's name is not on this page.  reference 7 cites a long Wall Street Journal article about a US Marine unit's preparations near Taiwan.  Campbell's name is not in this article.  In several hundred AfDs, I haven't seen such egregiously deceptive sourcing.  If I were Mr. Campbell, I would be so embarrassed to get caught out like this.  I'd hope Google won't index this AfD page for the general public to find.  I'd worry about the state attorney's reaction if he (the other Jack Campbell) learned about this article.  But that's just me; I don't think these are likely concerns for Jack F. Campbell.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Message received apparently.  [27] Pabsoluterince ( talk ) 07:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - should have been speedied.  Deb ( talk ) 08:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per A. B.'s source assessment, clearly fails WP:GNG. - KH-1 ( talk ) 05:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Motzoid India: Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 21:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , India ,  and England .  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 21:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per the nomination and also due to the article's bad track record.  IncompA 21:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can see some coverage in reliable sources, we can put this article as a stub and then add more information later on as we find.  Teachaiwala2007 ( talk ) 22:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you need to show that coverage in relable sources exists here in this discussion.  If the company is not notable, then there is no point to waiting for more information, as the article will be deleted.  Press releases are not reliable sources.  Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 22:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt , obviously created for WP:PROMO reasons.  Please note this is the third deletion on record, please don't let this article be recreated a 4th time.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt - fails WP:GNG and has been repeatedly recreated by socks; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhumik Pravin (2nd nomination) .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps consider upgrading to a vote to salt BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Dr. Aravindan Selvaraj: Reason/s: no sources) Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 13:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 13:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Anthony Vaz (American investor): Not meeting notability requirements.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I was in the process of deleting this as G11 at the same time.  Completely puffery, all sources were paid and known SEO sinks.  The author lit up the blacklist log with a dozen other blackhat SEO links as well.  Sam Kuru (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom withdrawn, is already G11'ed.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Acharya Satish Awasthi: Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Uttar Pradesh .  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 04:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion on simplewiki .  Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 04:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Creator has now moved to draftspace.  Delete : Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.  Fails WP:BASIC Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 06:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Jo Narbett: Nothing close to WP:SIGCOV .  TLA (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Moynaguri High School: RPSkokie ( talk ) 13:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and West Bengal .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Goa Island (India): The author claims there is an Island within the state of Goa known as Goa Island or Island of Goa.  I couldn't find any sources mentioned in the article thats states the same.  An exact copy of the article tone was previously created on Goa Island article by a blocked user.  But I reworked the article from zero as it was actually an Island of Mozambique.  This seems like a case of WP:OR .  Rejoy 2003 ( talk ) 07:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Goa ,  and Islands .  Rejoy 2003 ( talk ) 07:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see the Talk:Goa Island (India) page of the article for the justification of the page's existence as well as the reply to User:C.Fred for the sources.  You may not find the exact name (ie. Goa Island ) in sources for two main reasons:  1. Historical references to this island ( Ilha de Goa ) is in the Portuguese language, not English; since Goa was under Portuguese rule, not British.  2. Due to the construction of several bridges in recent history, connecting the island to other parts of Goa, it gives an impression that it is not an island.  Zocdoclesson ( talk ) 08:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some sources, in the form of historical maps: Notice the piece of land called Ilha de Goa is surrounded on all sides be water - which makes it an island.  (Ilha is the Portuguese word for Island)  This same body of water can be seen today.  A quick on any navigation app (eg. Google Maps ) will show you the island surrounded by water.  Geo Coordinates for reference: 15.4725025, 73.9491687 Zocdoclesson ( talk ) 08:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete under criterion A10 , recently created article that duplicates an existing article: Divar .  No evidence that the name is in common usage in English.  — C.Fred ( talk ) 12:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This island is completely different from Divar .  Did you bot see the images in the previous comment?  Zocdoclesson ( talk ) 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not* Zocdoclesson ( talk ) 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"European Football Coach of the Year: There are no authoritative sources about such an award from UEPS and AEJ.  Mitte27 ( talk ) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions .  Mitte27 ( talk ) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Awards , Football ,  and Europe .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions.  Giant Snowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete as hoax (G3).  Giant Snowman 18:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:G3 Govvy ( talk ) 19:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: After deleting an article, you must also delete Template:European Coach of the Year created based on fake information.  -- Mitte27 ( talk ) 01:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: It is also necessary to pay attention to similar cases of hoaxes based on Volodymyr VB materials: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Season , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPI World Soccer Player of the Year Award , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards . -- Mitte27 ( talk ) 06:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a hoax.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete – WP:G3 .  Svartner ( talk ) 07:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Studio Center Corporation: Not to mention that it is full of copious copy-pasting and other copyvios and is written in a completely non-neutral manner.  AriTheHorse 15:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  From the creator's talk page it seems that article about Studio Center had already been speedy deleted in the past.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, it's clearly what the section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion is talking about.  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was gona WP:G11 it, bu Deb beat me to it.  --  Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 16:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Daniel Larson (celebrity): Beyond mentions in TikTok videos and a subreddit, I could find nothing on him.  0 coverage in RS.  ULPS ( talk ) 21:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions .  ULPS ( talk ) 21:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete .  This article has been moved around at least a half dozen times to numerous different titles and namespaces by this editor, most recently deleted as an attack page at Draft:Daniel Larson (President) .  The page creator tried to hijack Dan Larson (politician) which required numerous revision deletions.  I think this article should also be speedy deleted and this editor face sanctions for continuing to create unflattering pages about this person (if they even exist).  L iz Read!  Talk!  22:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you say it qualifies under G10?  I didn't think A7 applied (the billion views thing + being allegedly killed by police), but I was unsure considering it's not an unambiguous attack.  Not a hoax either, the guy seemingly does exist.  ULPS ( talk ) 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, considering the BLP is unsourced, I wouldn't rule out that it is a total hoax and the photo might be of someone else entirely.  I think if someone was a TikTok celebrity and was killed by the police it would not just be on local news but national news.  I'd delete it myself but I've already commented here.  But I think that my POV is also colored by the fact that I've seen this exact same article with the same content many times under different page titles over the past two weeks.  L iz Read!  Talk!  00:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that the police murder thing is a lie, but he does seem to exist.  I think we should let the AfD run (most likely will end up deleted anyway) but if someone else decides to tag or delete I wouldn't complain lol.  ULPS ( talk ) 02:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I suspect this is a hoax.  The photo is apparently a selfie, so would have been created by this person.  It was taken on July 5, and the article here says he died on the 11th.  He took the photo, uploaded it to wikipedia, died, then someone else made an article about him a week later, using the photo?  The only person with the same name [3] for which I found coverage would be about 20 yrs older and only covered in tabloid sources.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Proposal to make Arabic as the state language of Pakistan: Not sure why it was moved to main namespace, we should not encourage LTA.  This version is exactly same as previously deleted version by User:Bbb23 & User:Izno ( log ).  Also, previously User:Bilorv declined the article (see User_talk:103.67.156.64#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Proposal_to_make_Arabic_as_the_state_language_of_Pakistan_(December_23) ).  Anyway, this is a WP:OR article.  There was some talk but that's it, this wasn't' any sort of official proposals or any historical movement etc.  Other than some mentions, i don't see any WP:SIGCOV .  At best, article should be merge with Languages of Pakistan#Arabic .  আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Arafat Hassan Sohan: Theroadislong ( talk ) 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Journalism .  Theroadislong ( talk ) 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete A7.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree.  This article did not explain anything that a biography article should have; unreliable citation.  ★MinecraftPlayer★ 321 Welcome!  22:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Dimitrі Torner: I’ve previously done it here , here , here and here , so I’m glad for a chance at another round.  Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, the President of the Moldovan Biathlon Federation just isn’t notable, per any biographical criterion, and no amount of routine coverage of his daily activities will change that.  One does have to admire the desperate effort to keep creating articles about him, however.  — Biruitorul Talk 06:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging various users with various levels of previous involvement: @ Xx236 : , @ Dewritech : , @ Johnj1995 : , @ FormalDude : , @ Frank Anchor : , @ 4meter4 : , @ Sundostund : , @ Thebiguglyalien : , @ Oxi2514 : , @ Ivanvector : — Biruitorul Talk 09:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Moldova .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just noting that this topic has been repeatedly deleted, as Dmitri Torner , Dmitry Torner , Draft:Dmitry Torner , and probably others.  There is a spam blacklist entry, but the creator who is obviously somebody's sockpuppet (they made exactly 10 edits to their userpage before creating this page in one edit) deliberately misspelled the person's name to evade the filter.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, this title uses a Cyrillic unicode character for the last ""i"" in the first name.  It was also deleted recently at Dimitri Torner .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 12:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Manikanta Belde (author): Fram ( talk ) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors ,  and India .  Fram ( talk ) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Procedural note This article was created by a large WP:UPE sockfarm that I'm in the process of untangling. I've speedy deleted it per WP:CSD#G11 .-- Ponyo bons mots 20:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Out of Dark: ~ Dictionary ( chat ) 01:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 .  CycloneYoris talk!  01:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"The '90s Are Blue's Clues (Block): 🍪 Cookie Monster 00:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : There is a sockfarm that has long tried to assert (usually in draftspace, but occasionally in mainspace) that TeenNick has a block devoted to Nick Jr.-type programming in some form.  It's all a hoax ( G3 ), and the socking probably will tip this into G5 territory too.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wcquidditch , should I tag G3?  — 🍪 Cookie Monster 00:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've gone ahead and done it myself.  (Note the overdisambiguation, too; The '90s Are Blue's Clues is salted .)  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wcquidditch , ty.  — 🍪 Cookie Monster 00:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Faye Travel Insurance : On this page, sources 1, 5, and 7 are WP:ORGTRIV coverage of capital raises.  Source 2 is coverage of a Faye founder and does not reference the subject.  Sources 3 and 10 are commercial, commission-driven review sites paired with Faye's advertising (editorially not under the Wall Street Journal newsroom, caveat lector!).  Source 6 is a WP:INTERVIEW .  Source 8 provides passing mention of the subject, not significant coverage, and Source 9 appears to be sponsor content/paid placement since there is a clear VentureBeat editorial disclaimer at the bottom.  Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are sponsor content, trivial coverage, or other reviews on commission-driven websites.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Travel and tourism ,  and Israel .  Owen× ☎ 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This is a startup.  Startups are usually not notable.  Exceptions exist yet not for Faye.  gidonb ( talk ) 13:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am the one who reviewed this at AfC and you can see discussion on the talk page in that regard, as well as my talk page.  I am tough on company sourcing and will say there are at least two sources that go beyond WP:ROUTINE and meet WP:ORGCRIT .  However, the argument would be moot at this point since page creator has requested deletion on my talk page.  I advised them to come here but would say that moving it back to draft would be a good WP:ATD based on their deletion request.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 08:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ CNMall41 - thanks for your work at AfC.  What sources do you think meet ORGCRIT?  If the original editor wants to draftify, I'm happy to agree to that as an AtD.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am only going off the message they left on my talk page and obviously they have not opined here yet.  I moved a copy to my userspace and can take up the task sometime in the future when I feel like digging deeper.  Feel free to delete, move to draft, or whatever.  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.",speedy delete
"Tuan Guru Haji Ahmad : Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Islam ,  and Indonesia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete There is limited substantial coverage and sourcing about him, mainly dependent on a single primary source covering him and 21 other scholars in Bengkalis regency.  Nonetheless, his name has been honored as the title of a local public library , there is an article about him on the local government website , and there is an academic publication about him indicating his significance within local region.  Ckfasdf ( talk ) 23:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [31] .  He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [32] [33] .  202.43.93.9 ( talk ) 03:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — 202.43.93.9 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Keep : This , this , this , this and the book already cited in the article should be enough for GNG.  Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards : The materials of Anatoly Skorobogadko are fake, distributed by Volodymyr VB , who was previously blocked in the Ukrainian Wikipedia.  Skorobogadko’s materials mention previously exposed hoaxes about polls by the Berlin-Britz radio station , which in reality never existed (there is actually a transmitter ).  Or polls of the Slavic Party of Ukraine to determine the best East Slavic football player, which, of course, were never conducted.  See previous discussions that provide important context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Year , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Season , uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (допомога)#Містифікація чи історія .  Mitte27 ( talk ) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football .  Mitte27 ( talk ) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a hoax.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete – WP:G3 .  Svartner ( talk ) 07:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Mushraif : Ibjaja055 ( talk ) 14:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Arab Emirates .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: this is the edit summary in the deletion log from the previous deletion: ""expired PROD, concern was: Not notable. The notable geographical feature here is Mushrif Park - the area is in any case called 'Al Mushrif' but almost entirely consists of the park. Article sourced to a GIS database entry and is fraudulent - the area (independent of the park) is not mentioned the title in the bibliography. Fails WP:GNG; WP:GEOLAND."" @ Alexandermcnabb , you live in the UAE --do you know anything about this place? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete with fire Hey, A. B. - I suspect I'm the author of the original PROD and didn't know the article had been re-created.  Per the previous deletions, the Park is notable, the area is not.  The creator went on a little spree of creating non-existent 'communities' based on a PDF of a Dubai Municipality list of area names - giving an area a name doesn't necessarily mean anyone lives there and in this case, the editor cited fallacious bibilographies and re-captioned generic photos to 'big up' the pages and make them look, at least superficially, notable.  You do meet some odd people here from time to time.  As for arguments, fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND.  Thanks for the ping and OTR.  Oh, and closer, please God salt this...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS: Should have been G5'd anyway...  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete
"Anass Maksi (businessman) : Sources are all directory listings with nothing even approaching significant coverage.  * Pppery * it has begun... 20:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete A7.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.",speedy delete