Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today

4 May 2024
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 03	May 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Air China Flight 403 edit

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

Does not appear to meet the event criteria. All coverage is from the day of the event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and China. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of lasting effects whilst also failing the event criteria and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Plenty of sources, subject compliant with other policies. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a textbook example of a lack of continued coverage. It is, however, terrifying that such a well-sourced article could be deleted based on that. The rules say delete but I can't bring myself to !vote for it. Closer may interpret this how they wish :) Toadspike (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could not find anything written after the day of the event. I added more citations to improve it. Procidic (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A classic example of WP:NOTNEWS (policy on What Wikipedia is not). The article provides the answer that there is no lasting effects in the "Aftermath" section "...the accident is still under investigation". There is no indepth coverage beyond the relatively short news cycle. There were 37 million aircraft movements in 2023 with 30 incidents involving turboprops and jet aircraft. Article is just not notable event. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor incident that fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE per previous responses. As with similar minor incidents, it can be adequately summarized in the article about where the airport where it took place. Carguychris (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CASESTUDY and WP:EVENTCRITERIA FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 14 edit

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

I'm a bit conflicted about this nomination - while it's clear a lot of work was put into the article, it appears to fundamentally contradict WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTGALLERY as a mass gallery of images with no coverage in secondary sources. Perhaps this can be transwikied somewhere else? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. On the face of it, I would agree that the the article appears to be a gallery - in its current form... It's one of a series featuring the panoramas shot on Apollo and I've been focussed on getting the basics in place first so that I can return and enrich each of them later. I'm a day or so away from completing the Apollo 17 article, but I would stand up the "Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 11" article as an example of the direction I intend to go in. Although that isn't complete either, at least it includes some of those added-value features, such as placing the panoramas in context through the use of maps, and providing commentary as to how the shots came about. (And after Apollo, there's all the panoramas from the automated missions that occurred before and after the manned missions.)

Naturally, having done the work, I think it's a worthy inclusion. If there is a more appropriate format for it to be presented in then I would be happy to transfer it, but, for now, I'd prefer to think of it as moving in the direction of being a 'Catalogue' rather than a 'Gallery'... Usedtoknoweverything (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126 edit

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

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [1] [2] [3]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Tengah station edit

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

A number of stubs have been mass-created on light rail stations for the proposed Mutiara line. They are all estimated to be opening in 2030. None of these stubs say anything of substance about the stations, and so I am proposing they all either be deleted or redirected to Mutiara line en masse. The stations include the following:

Skycab station
East Jelutong station
USM station
Gelugor station
Pesta station
Sungai Nibong station
Bukit Jambul station
FIZ North station
FIZ South station
Sungai Tiram station
Permatang Damar Laut station
Jalan Tengah station
The Light station
Macallum station
Bandar Sri Pinang station Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a line that is scheduled for construction this year. Why should we delete these pages that will have to created at the end anyways? gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 23:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mutiara line per nom as WP:TOOSOON. The groundbreaking hasn't even started on this line yet. Jumpytoo Talk 23:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mutiara line would be the wisest choice indeed. TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - no evidence of independent notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge before redirecting, some appear to have some information about what is currently on the proposed sites which feels encyclopaedic. TIL they are planning a connection to Seberang Perai. CMD (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chipmunkdavis. There is almost never a reason to delete articles on verifiable stations when a suitable merge target exists, and the outcome of these AfDs is always merge or redirect, so I don't get why they keep being nominated? Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per WP:EDRED, since WP:N looks to be a concern as of now. As with other metro lines, coverage will expand in tandem with construction, and leaving open the possibility of later conversions into full-fledged articles. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mutiara line per others. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 08:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrix the Husky edit

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

Don't see any notability and the sources probably come from the school itself. Link rot really hit it hard and when I tried to go to one of the sources, it triggered my antivirus and adblock. Okmrman (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To University of Washington Tacoma. Svartner (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Washington Tacoma. The only coverage (1, 2) of the subject seems to be in the university's student-run publication, The Tacoma Ledger. Mooonswimmer 20:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louie the Laker edit

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, sources seem to come from GVSU and that only amounts to like 2 sources. Okmrman (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎ as yet another accidential AfD nomination of a talk page where the rationale clearly proposes the deletion of the article. The nominator has subsequently initiated a PROD for The Dancing Clown itself (I am not sure if even this misfired AfD would invalidate all future PRODs), and someone else has since also tagged it for G3 speedy deletion (which would render any AfD moot anyway if carried out), so not sure a procedural proper nomination is required yet. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Dancing Clown edit

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

This article is likely a hoax; see its talk page. Its 2 sources don't mention The Dancing Clown at all. GoldRomean (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. GoldRomean (talk) 23:12, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. I see a clear consensus to keep this article. Closing before the 7-days per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion edit

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

WP:NOTNEWS - no reliable sources covering the article subject after 2023. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more work about the unit's actions in 2024. It's lazy to call for a deletion of a page because you don't find sources from a certain year. On that note, the vast majority of the sources from 2023 in this article are considered reliable. Salfanto (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important unit of the war in Ukraine. The article is sourced well enough, and the sudject has been covered rather extensively. And if @Manyareasexpert didnt delete several news articles covering the battalion, there would be no reason for nomination. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable and important Marcelus (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many RS to establish notability. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 11 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.

2012 Scottsdale mayoral election edit

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

With the deletion of 2018 Garland mayoral special election, I think some of the other articles part of WP:CLUSTERFUCK should be reassessed. Okmrman (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Arizona. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding a deletion rationale I don't entirely understand, the article is just a simple re-telling of the election result in a medium-sized American city. I could see it maybe being kept if it were somehow exceptional in any way, including regional coverage, but that's not what's here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. No reason to not confine this to the biography about the mayor. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Delano edit

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

No sign of notability. Only source is an IMDB entry. Search returns no coverage. Fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obituaries for people with the same name, but nothing found otherwise for this film person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Bill Delano created this about himself. Aside from it being his autobiography, there is no substantive content. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, California, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per — Maile . Self-promotional article of a non-notable filmmaker (here are his personal websites: 1, 2). No SIGCOV at all of him or any of his work. Surprised this article has been up for 17 years. Mooonswimmer 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass any element of WP:NPROF, either. Qflib (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as autobiography. Better Nuncio (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Wp:GNG and simple WP:42 FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Rivera edit

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

This subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG; the only hits I found were for unrelated people. Article already had a removed PROD, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLEG-CD edit

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list Not enough GNG coverage. Station called itself "KMAX" in the early years on channel 19 and apparently "Tele America" in the early 2000s. But that didn't result in enough sustained coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
State list . Found no sources, so why not list it?Danubeball (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of television stations in Texas#LPTV stations: this is presumably the state list alluded to in the prior !votes. The "merge" here is solely because the list currently does not list any of the services carried by the station, instead showing it as "silent"; other than fixing that up, this is essentially really proposing a redirect as an alternative to deletion. There's only so much we can truly say if the significant coverage is lacking and the local content has been minimal; a separate article here is a remnant of the lower standards of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1961 Kunar River Incursion edit

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

This article fails WP:N and WP:HISTRS. Two of its sources are blog sites in Persian and Urdu, and the third source includes a passing mention with no mention of an Afghan victory. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can translate it in English for you 2001:8003:3F18:1C00:F5F7:C528:9763:9738 (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Defiantly fails Wikipedia:Notability. No everything needs an article. Not ready for mainspace. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand edit

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

Unreliable sources per WP:HISTRS, many primary sources as well. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 primary sources mentioned, and the authors I cited are historians who aswell proved the event that happened the deletion is unnessecary. Alvin1783 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Lahore (1800) edit

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

Similarly one of these pages again that fail WP:HISTRS, some are also primary sources. Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Goindval edit

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

Another one of these poorly sourced pages that fail WP:HISTRS, many primary sources that could also categorize under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like a WP:FORK better suited for pages that have a broader coverage. Sources like Mehta and Gupta do not even call this "Battle of Goindval" and have insufficient coverage to warrant an entire article. Moreover, we're seeing a trend of editors creating articles based on small paragraphs from select one or two books solely so they can inundate Wikipedia with pages promoting religious heroism. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ali Masjid (1839) edit

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

Another one of these pages. -- Poorly sourced with sources that fail WP:HISTRS, some sources also fall under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how this article is Poorly sourced? Alvin1783 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these sources are not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, this has been a growing issue where many of these pages are poorly sourced as per my numerous other AFD's opened on such. Some are unreliable primary sources that can fall under WP:RAJ for example. As @Southasianhistorian8 said accurately on this AFD: "Moreover, we're seeing a trend of editors creating articles based on small paragraphs from select one or two books solely so they can inundate Wikipedia with pages promoting religious heroism." Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself. 1 Princeton and 1 Cambridge source itself, how is it even poor lol. Unless you're gonna Cambridge (one of the best unis in the world) unreliable. 2 more Punjab university and 1 more Uni of California source. I think it's alright. Akshunwar (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the information is written from unreliable sources, other sources fail WP:V. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cambridge source tho??? As well as a Princeton source??? Akshunwar (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akshunwar, this [4] "Cambridge source" is indeed unreliable. Take time and see WP: AGEMATTERS and WP:RAJ. A 175 year old book could never be cited here, especially with Raj influence. About the Princeton press, I can only see an intro part (that too not related to the article's scope) being cited. And Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself, is a personal attack. See WP:PA. Comment on the topic for you're here, not on the person. Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Sources now fit WP:RAJ and are from Renowned Historians dont need to delete Alvin1783 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per nom. Can neither find "Battle of Ali Masjid" in WP:RS neither.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also commenting:

The user that created the page attempted to remove the AFD notice: [5]. Noorullah (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Sources now fit WP:RAJ and are from Renowned Historians dont need to delete Alvin1783 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources pass the WP:RAJ issue as noted earlier. None of the sources are WP: RAJ in this article and the issues that were initially pointed have been since corrected. The current sources on the page such as Khushwant Singh and Ganda Singh are more then WP:RS. This page meets all the requirements that were pointed out. Further page 10 by Ganda Singh clearly show the success at Ali Masjid by the Sikh service.

[6].

Keep: The Sources now Fit WP:RAJ and are from Reputable historians such as Ganda Singh the Primary sources were also replaced with Reliable ones.

Comment: Many of the new sources added are still not WP:RS or WP:HISTRS at all. Richard Macrory; Not a historian, Mathew, K.S; not a historian, Lal Suri, Sohan; a primary source, "Journal of Sikh Studies, Volume 9"; Not a reliable source, Singh, Khushwant; Not a historian, Hoiberg, Dale; Not a historian.

Point is most of the citations on this page are not from historians at all, thus not being reliable sources. Noorullah (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comment: Some of the content in the article is stating complete lies: I quote "As Akbar Khan stood at the entrance of the pass, waiting for the oncoming enemy, he was informed with dismay that Ghazni had fallen." (Article cited page 43), Source: "On July 7, 1839 'Ali Masjid was lost to forces under Wade and Shahzada Timur". [7]

There is 0 mention at all of any Sikh commander.

Second example of the same source:

Article: "Dost Mohammed Khan recalled his son to Kabul once Ali Masjid fell to Col. Sheikh Basawan and Shahzada Timur's army on July 27, 1839". (page 75) Source: [8] Source is entirely unrelated to this at all. Noorullah (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern edit

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahawalnagar incident edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue it's pretty significant Claire 26 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Police, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This easily meets WP:GNG as the incident has garnered significant press coverage, which has continued even a month after its occurrence. Moreover, the lasting impact of the incident is evident as the government has initiated an investigation to look into the matter. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Wagman edit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found a couple of sentences about him in a match report here, but no sustained or in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Rugby union. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG Claire 26 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is profile here and a few bits in Scottish media, but not really enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugginenti edit

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

PROD removed. There is no evidence of notability for this surname. It is an utter WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT fail; there are no English Wikipedia or Italian Wikipedia articles about people with the name, nor are there any Wikidata items. The sources in the article don't show notability (dictionaries and name databases), and nothing I could find is any better. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOT. Rugginenti looks like a notable publishing house [9] which should replace the current namecruft Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT Claire 26 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Iaria edit

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

The subject played for the Italy national rugby league team, but I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. BLPs require strong sourcing and all I really found was four sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Italy, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Large scope for expansion, but not enough coverage to warrant keeping article in current state. Mn1548 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Infographics Show edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Inline sources few and unreliable, few no mention of notability by trusted secondary sources. This is the third nomination, however the second nomination generated a few good ideas on why it should be deleted. 2003 LN 6 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN 6 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Education, Internet, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will go with delete on this one. The sources really are an issue. In the previous discussion, Interested Engineering was outlined as the only relevant source, but that article covers only a single video with an interesting topic. After some searching, I found some more passing mentions of the same type but no in depth coverage one would expect for GNG. At least the basic details would need to be covered by some other source than youtube itself to meet the GNG. --Tone 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The listed sources in the article seem really out-of-place and don't discuss the entire subject, only a few notable videos. 2003 LN 6 01:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily fails WP:GNG -1ctinus📝🗨 19:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DannyC55. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Oliver 2024 presidential campaign edit

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

All the content here fits comfortably in Chase Oliver#2024 presidential campaign. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOPAGE, I propose the previous redirect to that section be restored. Per my WP:BEFORE search, there is simply not enough reliably sourced content to warrant a standalone page at the present time. Sal2100 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been included in national polling, and im sure we kept Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign and even Vermin Supreme 2020 presidential campaign, the latter of which didnt even get nominated. Lukt64 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national polling im referring to is this Lukt64 (talk) 18:43, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/merge. Mostly routine coverage that can be covered in his main article. Because he his a front runner in the Libertarian primaries, it probably makes sense to keep this page as a draft as the campaign will be notable if he becomes the Libertarian nominee. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect So mention the polls in the main article, that's not justification for a standalone page when there's so little content. Split when warranted. Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Blatant use of Wikipedia as political campaign announcements. See 2022 article Chase Oliver, from which this article duplicates much. This one is complete with his campaign logo. Note that his website link goes directly to his campaign video. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... have nothing to do with chase olivers campaign, if thats what you are saying. Lukt64 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to you at all. Just the fact (or coincidence) that there are two articles that make it look like this candidate was using Wikipedia two years ago to run for this year's campaign. And that Wikipedia probably needs to merge them together. — Maile (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ellis edit

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

Fails GNG. Fancruft for a fictional character. Sources in the article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article contains a significant amount of original research and unsourced content (eg: Grace Ellis#Storylines). Once the unsourced and original research not much is left other than material from promo interviews.

Source eval table:

Comments	Source
Cast announcement, promo, fails WP:IS, brief info on character	1. "Cast announced for brand new BBC One drama Blue Lights as filming begins". BBC Media Centre. 14 February 2022. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bennion, Chris (2 April 2023). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke: 'We're reflecting the reality of policing – good and bad'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 6 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Allen, Kelly (10 April 2023). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke 'talked at length' with PSNI officers for role research". Belfast Telegraph. Archived from the original on 19 April 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	4. ^ Jump up to:a b Layton, Mark (17 October 2022). "Exclusive: 'Blue Lights' creators on taking BBC police drama from script to screen". Television Business International. Archived from the original on 17 October 2022. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	5. ^ Jump up to:a b Sian Brooke (Blue Lights Actress) On This Morning [18.04.2024] (Television production). This Morning. 18 April 2024. Archived from the original on 1 May 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024 – via YouTube.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	6. ^ Jump up to:a b Cormack, Morgan (27 March 2023). "Blue Lights' Sian Brooke explains personal family inspiration for role". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Tate, Gabriel (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke: 'Policing is in a very odd place at the moment – it's been shocking to hear'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	8. ^ Jump up to:a b c "'Blue Lights' star Siân Brooke on Belfast, breaking records and a highly anticipated new season". What's On TV. 15 April 2024. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 18 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	9. ^ Jump up to:a b c Gordon, Naomi (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights star Siân Brooke hints more character deaths could happen". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 23 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	10. ^ Jump up to:a b c Szalai, Georg (15 April 2024). "'Blue Lights' Star Siân Brooke on How the BBC's Belfast Police Drama Has "Hope at Its Heart"". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 17 April 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	11. ^ Hilton, Nick (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights review: Series two may be first rate, but there are still too many police dramas on TV". The Independent. Archived from the original on 18 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Season review, mentions characters in plot summary, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV	12. ^ Jump up to:a b Hibbs, James (16 April 2024). "Blue Lights season 2 review: Police drama's return is even more assured". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 24 April 2024. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	13. ^ Sigee, Rachael (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights review: This is the successor to Happy Valley". iNews. Archived from the original on 16 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	14. ^ Nicholson, Rebecca (1 May 2023). "Blue Lights: this thrilling cop drama is one of TV's best shows". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 December 2023. Retrieved 1 May 2024.

No objection to a redirect to Blue Lights (2023 TV series)#Cast. Author disputed even tagging the article. // Timothy :: talk 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Police, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above source analysis, not enough coverage of the character, potentially become notable through planned two additional series but unlikely. Indagate (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. the plot/storyline sections do not need to be sourced, and it isn't uncommon to leave citations out of the lead either so I don't understand the claims of original research (E x a m p l e s). The articles do count as independent as they talk about the character in depth through interviews - if the subject was not notable, the interviews would not have been arranged, and they are being arranged by sources independent of the show. Additionally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this article is in no way different. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plot sections don't normally have refs, but can have notes / refs to indicate where the plot comes from, in this case the episode. An independent interview requires all people involved to not have a connection to the discussion. What do you mean about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? That's an argument to avoid and you're the only person to link to another article. Indagate (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless more sources relating to significant coverage of the character exists (see WP:FICT). The reception is just taking tidbits out of reviews for the show, not anything in-depth about the character. Spinixster (trout me!) 11:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per source analysis. The sources don't provide enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G7: the creator of the article has asked for deletion. JBW (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rectenwald 2024 presidential campaign edit

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOPAGE, and my WP:BEFORE search, not enough reliably sourced content to warrant a standalone page. As an alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to Michael Rectenwald#2024 presidential campaign. Sal2100 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The campaign of a candidate for a minor party's nomination who came fourth is very, very unlikely to be sufficiently notable for a standalone page. I'm not seeing anything to convince me otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made this at 10:00 last night and my brain forgot WP:NOTABILITY existed Lukt64 (talk) 18:31, 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.

I Miss You - EarthBound 2012 edit

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

Fails WP:GNG. Barely any WP:RS coverage. ~ lovkal (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toby Fox#Other credits where the album is mentioned. I thought about tagging the article under WP:CSD#A9, but it isn't eliglible since one of these artists has an article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CycloneYoris and because I am unable to find any third party coverage in reliable sources. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevad edit

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

Fails GNG, nothing found in article or BEFORE that this meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. 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. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 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]

EFOSMO edit

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

This article has many issues. If I understand correctly, EFOSMO is a proposed model that was presented in two academic papers that were published in several journals across the globe. Nothing further happened with the proposed model so I conclude that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion: The article has multiple issues, but chiefly does not seem notable. Constant314 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HitmanPro edit

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources and a press release. Tagged non-notable for 9 years without improvement. Previously dePRODed in 2009 claiming software is fairly widenly used and thus probably notable - this is irrelevant unless sourcing is provided, which it hasn't for 15 years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Lunn edit

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[10]] and [[11]]Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion is) Off the Record edit

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

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:

Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.

The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justi yaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sinek edit

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no medal placements at any level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and North Carolina. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear WP:GNG pass. The latest in a series of poor nominations. JTtheOG (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With sources such as [[12]], this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 15:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beata Handra edit

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no medal placements at any level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[13]] and [[14]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Rubbish. Meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 10 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.

Asim Munir (cricketer) edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, and Pakistan. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Utterly pointless nomination, obviously missed the outcome of the first AfD. AA (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination, but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think by referring to the prior AFD, AA is implying that their rationale there still applies: 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep read the last AFD, fully concur with the keep voters there. Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV. No proof offered - per WP:NCRIC cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.. Closing admin should ignore keep votes that couldn't find any significant coverage. 103.125.122.179 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — 103.125.122.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- And likewise, unless a convincing explanation can be offered, this comment by an IP that has never edited before and is likely a WP:SOCK should be discounted; not to mention that NCRIC is a guideline and common sense is allowed to be used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  IP links to Bangladesh, but definitely a WP:SOCK of someone. Checkuser? AA (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KITM-LD edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The most previous AfD resulted in the keep outcome but that was in 2020, when notability thresholds for television stations were much looser than today. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hawaii. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community consensus is clear that television stations and channels must meet at least WP:GNG therefore requiring significant coverage in secondary sources. This was a short-lived, low-power station with no indication of notability. No secondary sources at the article and I'm not finding anything else significant. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Suffice it to say, it is obvious from the way the first nomination played out that the 2021 RfC that affirmed GNG as the actual notability standard in this topic area and consequently rewrote BCASTOUTCOMES was still in the future. FCC records, databases, and the station's own website are not GNG sources (especially the station website, a non-independent source) and cannot be the only sources in any article — and as usual, this is the usual run-of-the-mill 2010s-started LPTV where the chances of there being the required significant coverage are also virtually zero. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wcquiddich and the impossibility we could ever source this station's actual schedule; this was a clear 'run for fun' distraction for a mainlander who retired to the islands. Nate • (chatter) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no article.Danubeball (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WCQuidditch, no sources and really cant be. Fails GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Waqar💬 18:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Toyota (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 15:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports venues with the name Toyota edit

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of sources establishing these entries as a group in RS. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toyota (disambiguation), which already lists several of these. Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but maybe instead target to Toyota#Sport sponsorships. This already covers it, though the section could use some clean up. Conyo14 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toyota (disambiguation). Azuredivay (talk) 06:15, 8 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of shared franchise names in North American professional sports edit

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

Unusual topic - I am not convinced it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and North America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly trivial and fails WP:NLIST as there is no significant coverage of these teams as a group. Frank Anchor 17:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NLIST. I did not need to search very far to understand that some team names are shared, but in no way is that notable. Nothing appeared on radar, and it just seems like a clash of copyright that is handled at the business level. Conyo14 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NLIST Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NLIST. This also violates WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. Flibirigit (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR and in any case, trivia. Rlendog (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's fun trivia, but still trivia. Easily fails NLIST and FANCRUFT. The Kip 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Due to WP:OR and WP:LISTN not being met. Let'srun (talk) 20:29, 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.

Beetroot cake edit

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Beetroot, where several recipes are mentioned; agree with nom it's not really notable in itself. This one can be added at Beetroot as it's reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there seems to be enough sources available, particularly if the scope is broadened slightly to include the use of beetroot as a supplement to other baked products (for reasons of extending the shelf-life, for example). Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant page. The article doesn't sit well alone, so redirecting is probably best. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:33, 27 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, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSharp edit

AfDs for this article:

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

This programming language does not have enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Just another .NET addon. Previously deleted in a 2009 AfD but resurrected by a WP:SPA in 2016. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been AfD'd, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significant coverage via my cursory look. Also should be salted. [This should not go without a consensus] X (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:17, 27 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, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable programming language. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 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.

Mehr Hassan edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.

also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR at this point for the roles in notable films she starred in. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:07, 3 May 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) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's claim of appearing in numerous films lacks verifiable evidence, thus failing to meet WP:ARTISTS. The available coverage appears to be routine per WP:ROTM and lacks the depth required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Courier-Journal article wasn't routine, and by what sources we have, Hassan was in these films, noting that the sourcing of the related film articles was light (thus my 'Weak Keep'). I suspect however that her appearance in some of them was exaggerated to make it appear she was a lead when she wasn't. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, The Courier-Journal is great however unfortunately it's no where near enough to establish notability, Not sure if her roles have been major or minor but either way I cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films" and we know she was in several notable films (i.e., films with articles). If you're saying the subject fails NACTOR, are you saying these linked films should be reviewed in AfD? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But NACTOR states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films which I can't see reflected here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Partial filmography" in the article links to five notable films (currently adjudged by Wikipedia) and I suppose it's our opinion as to whether her roles were significant in them. It's part of why I say "Weak Keep" as I don't want to overjudge. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say whether she fails NACTOR #1 but personally I would say she does and despite the The Courier-Journal link imho she still fails #2 too, FWIW all of her roles could've been one-bit/minor roles so article linkage doesn't mean anything here, (and leading on to your last point nicely) There's just not enough info to determine whether she meets NACTOR #1 or not but either way I would obviously say she still fails #2, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In NACTOR, it says #1 or #2. The subject doesn't have to meet both criteria to pass it. I accept that we would need to judge whether the roles are significant but as it was difficult, source-wise, to drill down on these films, I don't want to rush to judgment, thus my "Weak Keep". I still say the key here is to look at the film articles and see if they should be kept. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the articles and their sources as well as looked online - The Gold Bracelet is just about notable with the rest not being notable so imho one notable film and one notable paper cite is still not enough irrespective of what role she played, I guess the article can be redirected to The Gold Bracelet if really desired,

You're more than welcome to search for these films for yourself and judge for yourself, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for welcoming me to do something I've already done. :) So, if only one film is notable, why do the others have articles? (can be taken as a rhetorical question) Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. If you've searched these articles before now then why the fuck are you here questioning their notability ?. Go nominate them if you think they're not notable.

Because get this Stefen - some articles go undetected and unnoticed, ever thought about that ?, I suspect not :). –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also for future reference go read WP:BLUDGEON. You've !voted keep so as such you don't need to reply to every single delete !vote regurgitating the same line again and again. –Davey2010^Talk 18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, and it is eminently reasonable to challenge a position. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for you to be cross with me here. I have been professional and I expect the same in return. The fact that the articles exist show that they are currently presented as notable subjects, whether they deserve this determination or not. I may well prod the articles in question, but for the time-being, they cannot be dismissed. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but there nothing here to indicate a pass on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ferrier edit

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself.
And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing.
And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The French language sources aren't poor, they're excellent. Passes GNG easily on this basis. Desertarun (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the English and French articles are based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has plenty of references so it seems like coverage is enough to pass notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passed notability in my eyes Sansbarry (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a question of "your eyes", it's a question of whether the correct kind of sourcing is there or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "in my eyes" means in my opinion of whether or not the sourcing is good@Bearcat Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out precisely which sources are "good", considering that they're pretty much all primary sources right across the board. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK.Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has plenty of good references Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even just limiting my search to English language sources, I see enough to meet WP:GNG. [15], [16], [17], ProQuest 1430523918, ProQuest 821134990. Jfire (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article significantly using these sources and more. Jfire (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has reliable sources to prove its notability. It passes GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:33, 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.

Chashni (TV series) edit

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:CNMall41, i have updated the article with primary and better sources, hope now it is better. Please suggest improvements if any and please reconsider your vote. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You included one reference which squarely falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Byline is "web desk." Not sure how much clearer I can make this. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These references [18] [19][20] [21] are primary sources and also have bylines. These also do not have any churnalism. Kindly check. @CNMall41 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role, This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight, This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [22] interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune! Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This [23] the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second [24] this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference [25] tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming ad nauseam and seems to be grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 20 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) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what policy that is, as thats a redlink@CNMall41 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian:, I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well-sourced plus 6 month long run is not insignificant run. Pri2000 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, can you point out the significant coverage that does not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The series only ran for approximately 2.5 months. Despite being featured on a notable channel with a notable cast, the main issue with this article is its references. While it may meet WP:NTV, it certainly does not pass WP:GNG. & I agree with CNMall41's viewpoint, as it raises a valid point. ManaliJain (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @ManaliJain, I have just updated and sourced the plot as well as cited the cast with sources which I feel are sufficient to determine significant coverage and verifiability. Also I have removed no bylines references as well. Please check. Thankyou. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, I dont think duration is the parameter for notability because there are many Indian Series which have lasted lesser than the series or similar than the series like Pracchand Ashok (39 episodes), Sherdil Shergill, Lag Ja Gale etc. Secondly, I feel the article has enough reliable sources and has constantly been updated with regards to the problems suggested above by User:CNMall41. There are enough sources with bylines like these[26] [27] [28][29] [30] and also there is no churnalism because every media portal has taken separate interview with the cast or have written unidentical content on the series with establishes verifiability. Thirdly, if we look most of the Indian tv articles are mostly similarly referenced and I have searched Bollywood Hungama articles and every article has the same byline "Bollywood Hungama News Network" thereby certainly ensuring that not all articles are paid articles. I think every region has its own policies of journalism and litter leverage can be given on these aspects. Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Connect edit

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

Deprod by @MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 20 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) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Easily passes GNG. DCsansei (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DCsansei, both for GNG and NCORP, trivial coverage (e.g. WP:ORGTRIV) are not counted towards meeting the requirements? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:24, 2 May 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) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem to be in-depth and independent, just interviews and press releases. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the financial figures are from press releases, all other citations are from independent media outlets. Bridges&Horizons (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K32NM-D edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates: It's another run-of-the-mill Ventana Television station that has only ever carried HSN, HSN-related networks, QVC and its related networks (after they became sister networks to HSN), and a random .6 Dabl affiliation. This has never really warranted anything beyond an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watch Tower Society publications edit

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence

"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. 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. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands

"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."

So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Vyselink's rationale made you change your mind? The reason I'm asking is because you were the who started the first AfD for this back in 2015. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a perfect scenario, these all should probably have been put on Wikisource. Looks like someone started such an idea at Wikisource, The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, but it never got beyond that. — Maile (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trans wiki, or move to wiki-namespace Any of these options are fine, but I agree with Clover that the list doesn't satisfy the notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper organization edit

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs, nor could I find sufficient reliable sources to add. Potentially ambiguous term, doesn't meet WP:N. Some WP:ATDs (redirect) mentioned in last AfD, though I wouldn't agree as the term is ambiguous, and I would be reluctant to merge completely unsourced info. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think the term is clear enough but there's not really any analysis of it beyond the DICDEF which is already well coverd on it's corresponding page at wikitionary - this article appears to be an attempt at bulking out that entry. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is my start. I thought it got deleted last time. I can't argue with the DICDEF rationale against it, other than to say that it's a concept that needs an explanatory link, both for its military and political uses. Do as thou wilt. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found numerous sources describing military/political organizations as "paper organizations" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) but nothing analyzing the term. I don't think there's much to build a Wikipedia article out of, but with some more digging, a sentence or two could potentially be added to the Wikitionary entry. Mooonswimmer 18:52, 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.

Seekda edit

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 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 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.
  The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."
  The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."
2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.
  The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."
3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.
  The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."
4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.
  The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

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.
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

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.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.
  The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.
  "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.
  "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."
2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.
  The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: You said:

Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT

I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council edit

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barlaston#Parish council. I agree with the nom in that it is not a notable entity and merging in entirety and then covering all future elections I think might be a bit WP:UNDUE. As it's already covered on the proposed target article, I think a straight redirect will suffice and is appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. Owen× ☎ 14:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of Anguilla, London edit

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

Contested PROD. No sources at all other than a listing of diplomatic missions in London. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage to meet GNG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. That already contains the address so there is nothing to merge, but given the list does exist there is no benefit in deletion over redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a redirect is necessary here, this is not a very plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree, we have content about this topic so it benefits us to make that content easy to find. If the topic was notable enough for an article it would be at this title, so this is a search term people will likely use to find it, and the presence of the redirect will discourage recreation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thryduulf's rationale. I was on the fence between that and a straight delete, but it's probable it may serve usefully as a search term on occasion, while the presence of a redirect may, as noted above, discourage recreation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.G Hkh edit

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

Subject does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Zimbabwe. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails NMUSIC and GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:MILL, lacking SIGCOV, and doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSIC & WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as managing to failing NMUSIC, GNG, ANYBIO, MILL, SIGCOV, and GNG. Wow! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be retained as it documents the Zimbabwean notable rising rapper M.G Hkh, and many others may be interested in his profile too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuChiwanza (talk • contribs)
- That essentially amounts to a WP:USEFUL arguement, which is general not considered to be good.
Speedy delete: Created by Prince peter moyo. Seems like it's an autobiography of a non-notable individual. dxneo (talk) 07:04, 8 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club edit

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, bar for coverage is clearly met with over 500 newspaper matches (see [39] and [40]). The component club has existed since 1926 and is home to Olympians and World Championships medallists. Also, when nominating an article, please add relevant WikiProjects to the talk page so that it will be properly categorized by the WP:ARTICLEALERTS bot. --Habst (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of trivial coverage and mentions in articles about related topics. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first match from the London Evening Standard is about a murder in a park this group runs in? Do you honestly think these kind of mentions establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT? AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, some of the sources definitely establish WP:ORGCRIT. I agree that the London Evening Standard murder coverage isn't significant, but that still leaves over 499 matches to analyze. For example, [41] [42] is more than a mention. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:16, 4 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is less than a month old, needs improvement but meets WP:N Orange sticker (talk) 16:35, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mbowe edit

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG as it still represents the subject talking about themself); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, nominator said it all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per a very detailed nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When creating the article, my main rationale for notability wouldn't be based on inherently being a YouTuber, but I've rather tried to find enough WP:SIGCOV. Here are some other sources that mention them ([43][44][45][46][47][48], although I'm aware some of them are passing mentions). --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those count as SIGCOV for a biographical article, they're either very passing mentions or listicles without any depth to write an article from. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best, the youtuber doesn't have that many subscribers or viewers. We need neutral sources that aren't fan posts. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not qualify for an inclusion in Wikipedia. As said by the nominator, it is decorated with lots of primary sources that neither prove notability nor show significant coverage, per WP:GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are coverage but not in-depth enough. Might be TOOSOON. X (talk) 00:53, 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.

AFL Tables edit

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

Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a longstanding draft at User:Teratix/Australian rules football analytics which I really, really need to finish and move into mainspace at some point. I did a bit of searching for sources covering AFL Tables as part of my research, and it does get a mention in James Coventry's Footballistics (p. 265):

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."

(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)

As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a view to creating a redirect to the statistics article once Teratix has moved their draft to mainspace (or it is otherwise created). It is regrettable that such an important RS doesn't meet GNG or WEBCRIT but there is simply no SIGCOV. Aspirex - I think a Template:Anchor would do the trick. And there are ~12,000 transclusions of Template:AFL Tables that could conceivably link there!

Triptothecottage (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so that Teratix is able to access the material and merge it into his draft. TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Infradream Limited edit

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP, or SIGCOV meeting GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timonthy, can you please help me in improving this article. I am still looking for reliable sources for this article. I am editing this article again, please let me know whether it meets Wikipedia criteria or not. GrooveGalaxy (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 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.

Ultraman Tregear edit

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 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!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reject:~~ Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article, you have serious bias ^48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: You can only make 1 bolded vote per AFD. If you want to make another one, you must strike the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Situational sources have been a thing on the site for a long time. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this? Thing is, "situational" seems to mean there can be red flags in some sources that would normally be reliable, like if they were writing about something out of the usual scope. I don't think that applies here. Coop (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational is generally accepted to mean "use with caution" and typically means that it is unacceptable in some areas and fine in others. Some situational sources have been marked as fine for proving facts but unacceptable for proving notability. This does not apply to all situational sources, but keep in mind that you need to be careful with that kind of source. No comment on the individual links at this time since I don't speak Japanese. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we tell if a source is situational though? It felt like Greenish Pickle! was just casting their own opinion. Coop (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to cast votes, but if the consensus brings to delete, I would like to suggest an alternative by redirecting Ultraman Tregear to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. I can compress and salvage whatever remains from this page to their appropriate articles. Zero stylinx (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the suggestion of redirection? Please remember not to bludgeon an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters as a fair alternative to deletion. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general notability guideline can be met with non-English sources and with sources available in print rather than in digital. Coverage of the character appears in volumes 164, 171, and 172 of Uchusen, a long-running Japanese periodical about media and tokusatsu. There is also coverage in volumes 256, 265, and 273 of Figya Kingu (Figure King), a Japanese periodical about figurines and toys. Add to this the Tokusatsu Network coverage in English that Cooper found further up in the discussion.
If there is a dispute about sourcing or content in the article, that's something to resolve through means other than AfD. Consider reporting editors to WP:AN/EW rather than AfD'ing it to end the edit war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebb and Flow edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. I couldn't find any significant coverage on the web; it's tough to search for them as their name is shared with a few other groups, but by including band members I found only a very brief Q&A on sfgate.com and an album review on aural-innovations.com, neither of these seem like WP:SIGCOV and nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that they had a nationwide tour which is one of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's just not enough to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but it's looking like No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The thing about NMUSIC is that it says artists who meet one of the criteria may be notable, not that they must be notable or must have articles. If you have a nationwide tour but fail to generate any press, that's practically the definition of failure to be notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 11 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.

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. But a Merge and Redirect may make sense. Please start a discussion on the talk page if you support this option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion mask edit

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

Long-time unreferenced article. I am not sure if there is an overall concept/topic of 'lion mask' or sources to show its notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does seem to be a recognized motif in art. That was just from the first few hits for "lion mask" + "motif" on Google books, there are quite a few more. I wouldn't oppose it being merged into something but there does seem to be discussion and analysis of lion mask motifs. Admittedly there isn't a lot of useful content here, but something can be said about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a nice base article to work from. A stub, but an encyclopedic stub. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we're going to keep it, could we at least find some sources to cite? This article has gone entirely unreferenced since its creation almost twenty years ago. Any decent sources would at least demonstrate that it's a distinct topic worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. This AfD would seem to provide a good opportunity to locate some. P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and section redirect to Cultural depictions of lions. Noteworthy, possibly notable, but better off as a section of a larger relevant article. BD2412 T 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with the suggestion to merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lion mask seems to be a notable concept in art/history as per sources cited above. Cortador (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador ... did you mean keep? Voting delete and then saying right after you think it's notable confuses me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. That was supposed to be a keep. Cortador (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found some additional sources, and incorporated them. There's still room for expansion, but I think the article clearly meets the criteria for keeping. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review the new sources added to the article recently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable, and the article seems to have been improved a bunch Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:33, 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.

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Labour Basel (founded in 1944) edit

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

Delete or draftify. Being an orphan for a long time and lack of sources. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 04:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Switzerland. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 04:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now expanded and sourced. So it's not very easy to source the article, but we can understand that a party that emerged in 1988 and whose importance declined significantly by 1991 would not have a lot of google hits. With access to news sources from 1988-1991, there would be more material. However the PdA 1944 had representation in the cantonal legislature up to 1992 and should thus be considered as notable. Moreover PdA 1944, as it existed as the Basel section of PdA prior to 1988 had legislative presence in earlier periods. --Soman (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've seen your previous comment at the talkpage, yet I still focus on the quality. So I withdraw the proposal. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 14:30, 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's House Hospital edit

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine local mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP. Coverage found is mainly about the closing and possible replacement. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure how accurate the article is. It was a care home when it closed and not a hospital, and look like it was owned by the local authority. Current sources don't identify it as having been a hospital, nor a NHS connection. It was St Peter's Manse before that (1957) according to excerpt from A History of Stromness 1900-1972 by George S Robertson, ex Provost. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:32, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Bocchi edit

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

Rugby player who played 12 seasons in the Italian league. However, all I was able to find were transactional announcements: renewal, renewal, renewal, renewal, release. Perhaps he has a nickname he goes by? JTtheOG (talk) 03:20, 4 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) 03:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The sources used are not entirely reliable and enough to show notability. Some sources only make a trival mention of the subject. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 00:14, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Coron edit

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

The subject appears to fail to meet the GNG or any suitable SNG. Running a before using Google News results in only a list of quotes from the subject. When filtering out quotes leads to a single website which only attributes another quote to the subject. Broadening the search to Google generally only provides links to social media, links to purchase books authored by the subject, and links to listen to subject's music. Page creator found 2 sources, [49] and [50], both of which are press releases and so are ineligible for establishing notability. I do not believe there is any suitable redirect targets. —Sirdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. —Sirdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've verified the above and not found anything different. Global and Mail looks like it might be an RS, but it clearly marks both these pages as press releases. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stated clearly in the sources provided that it's press release. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. @T.C.G. [talk] 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear press releases which are not independent. Else, there is a quote in Newsweek but that isnt significant coverage Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:36, 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)#Speaker tenure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to remove Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House edit

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

Unlikely to result in any action. The vast majority of references do not pertain to the topic directly. This could be merged. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:45, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't you think it might be a bit WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTALBALL to say it's unlikely to result in anything? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Far-right Republicans and Democrats opposed to Johnson's tenure do not have enough strength in numbers to oust him. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Rather ridiculous when the background is longer than the content about the subject itself. Content belongs at Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Speaker_tenure until a split is actually warranted. Even if a vote happens (and likely fails), it doesn't inherently need its own article – WP:TOOSOON to have one! Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Speaker_tenure per nom. and Reywas92. Simply a a case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creation should future RS-based coverage warrant it. Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article about Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)#Speaker_tenure. The motion failed, so it doesn't merit its own article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak draftify. This article is not ready for mainspace and shouldn't have been moved. Coverage is pretty routine. However, I am of the opinion that once a vote occurs it will almost surely meet the GNG. This AFD will almost certainly be open by the time the vote occurs. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to House Democratic leaders, "If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed". A vote to remove the speaker of the House is not notable. A removal is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles like Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Barack Obama which were also never voted upon. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts in the title. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that a vote has a occured. But even without a vote occuring, these sources are probably good enough for a keep [51], [52], [53], [54]. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, While a vote has occured, I feel that many parts of this article could be kept elsewhere. At the same time, I feel like the vote to table the motion itself could be kept on Motion to vacate the chair#Filing against Mike Johnson (2024). I would be open to bringing the article back if additional votes to remove Johnson are held, and/or if he is removed from office.Talthiel (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Merge/relocate content?
this could all be explained in varying detail between the following articles:
SecretName101 (talk) 02:06, 9 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in Maine#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEXZ-LD edit

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Maine. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Maine#LPTV stations: 2010s-established LPTVs that have only ever carried full-time national services are not going to have much chance of attaining significant coverage these days, and there really isn't much to say about them anyway. (As it is, a good chunk of the history section is about the station owner, not WEXZ-LD itself.) Note that this title was originally a redirect to the list of Retro Television Network affiliates when we still had one, but we no longer do. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian identity edit

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European identity. Similar to the Northwestern European people, Eastern European people and Eastern European identity articles by the same user that have also been deleted, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Eastern European" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @SunDawn, Hemiauchenia, Mzajac, and Bearian: for your consideration because you participated in the 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European identity) written by the same user. This AfD is a follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks a fundamental underlying coherent concept. Its just a refbomb of random papers that happen to use vaguely similar terms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - unlike the other deleted articles, there is at least a reason this could exist, but this article has no coherent whole. It's more of a synthesis. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has no more justification than Eastern European identity. Theoretically, a proper article might be written about both (not sure what it would look like, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility a priori). But in the current state, this one deserves as much WP:TNT as the previous. NLeeuw (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Teague edit

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

Teague fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG; I couldn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage of him, besides a Russellville, Arkansas mayor (which obviously isn't this subject). ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although Teague isn't covered very much, I think we can attempt to salvage this article using a few sources from here first. GoldRomean (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article on this award winning gymnast. Moondragon21 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable gymnast who won a medal at the Trampoline Gymnastics World Championships and European Trampoline Championships. There are definitely sources out there [55][56]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MoviesandandTelevisionFan's source and no doubt we could find a third one for GoldRomean's search too. This would satisfy GNG and NACTOR Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:36, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhivehi Wikipedia edit

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

No non-primary sourcing. Sohom (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Maldives. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a subject that has been covered in-depth in reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Sohom Datta and @Geschichte.

48JCL talk 17:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage. Interesting, we get to vote to delete one of the very sites we're editing on. But rules are rules. X (talk) 22:52, 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swiss Super League broadcasters edit

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. 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. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Switzerland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Super League broadcasters edit

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are archived pages of primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 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 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nemzeti Bajnokság I broadcasters edit

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Not a single source in any shape or form. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Hungary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 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 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar case to List of Serie A broadcasters and List of Bundesliga broadcasters. No justification for a stand-alone article here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Lopes edit

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

Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO. The subject has coverage only for winning a private island. No other significant coverage on his works or states any importance for an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. None of the sources are reliable and independent, except CBC, so by definition this isn't significant coverage. What's left is a single incident that has no lasting legacy or coverage. I add that we very frequently delete articles about producers, directors, and DJs, all of whome are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only significant, secondary, independent sources are all rehashes of the same story and cover Lopes in the context of the competition he won. Simply participating in or winning such competitions, lotteries, and game shows does not make one notable. Per the CBC article, Lopes "makes video content for businesses by day and is a DJ at clubs and private parties by night". He is far from being a notable filmmaker or DJ, with 0 coverage of his "works". Mooonswimmer 18:42, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunarso edit

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

No significant coverage or importance on the subject to have an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There is no allegation of notability. What have they done beyond working in business? Bearian (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a president director of a prominent bank does not confer automatic notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:05, 10 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.

Ami Dror edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creep^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zero^talk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

Ref 1 [57] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
Ref 2 [58] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
Ref 4 [59] This is another interview. Not independent.
Ref 5 [60] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
Ref 6 [61] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
Ref 7 [62] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
Ref 8 [63] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
Ref 9 [64] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [65] Another press-release Non-RS.
Ref 11 [66] An interview. Not independent.
Ref 12 [67] Business interview. It is not independent.
Ref 13 [68] Another interview. Not independent.
Ref 14 404
Ref 15 [69] A radio interview. Not independent.
Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

Ref 32 [70] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [71] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [72] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Ref 17 [73] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18 [74] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 19 Non-rs
Ref 20 Non-rs
Ref 21 Unable to view it
Ref 22 [75] Its a passing mention.
Ref 23 Non-rs
Ref 24 [76] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
Ref 25 [77] Essentially a passing mention.
Ref 27 [78] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
Ref 28 [79] Doesn't mention him.
Ref 29 [80] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
Ref 31 [81] A small profile. Not significant.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35 [82] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 36 [83] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Desertarun (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [84] [85] [86] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:

[87] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
[88] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
[89] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far no indepth, secondary, independent coverage has been offerered. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Zero^talk 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't significant coverage for WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump WP:BLP and WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying. Zero^talk 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in WP:V. That is whole reason for WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument. Zero^talk 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete nonsense. Yes, its true that newspapers are generally a good source, I use them all the time, but that covenant only holds when when there has been research by the journalist to construct the article not to turn up and ask a few questions of the interviewee and convey it verbatim. To say such a statement makes me question your competence. It is a not question of reliablity anyway. I never questioned that aspect in all the comments above. The problem is independence. There is not a single piece of information here that doesn't come directly from Dror. Thereis no filter. There is no analysis or verification from any other source as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you have no idea how much background research was done by the journalist for that article, and you brought no evidence for its unreliability. You just asserted it. Zero^talk 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth, for the second time. I never made any mention of reliability in any argument. The problem is there is no corroborating evidence to show this individual is notable, nothing. Its all comes from him talking. All of it. Its a question of independence, not reliability. Interviews don't add up to squat. I can't make any progress with you. I suspect your involved somehow with your Freudian slip above, saying "our" article. Your views are diametrically opposed to the majority of folk who write content of Wikipedia and expect to work inside consensus. I'll not make any other comments to you, from this point forward. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing articles about people for GNG, I always discount interviews as non-secondary sources as required by GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my opinion on an answer to that question is a strong "yes". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see WP:THREE invoked I always assume it's because the three sources presented clearly pass GNG, which I do not believe was the case (they all just sort of quoted him.) As I noted I'm not really sure where to fall on this, but if there are three that stood out which clearly pass GNG, I'd be happy to switch my !vote to a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, I did not bring up that essay, nor say that my assessment was based just on those three. It is based on going through a few thousand articles during NPP reviews and taking about 100 to AFD. GNG sourcing in this article is far stronger than a typical kept bio article; conversely criteria and application advocated by someone here would have about 3/4 of Wikipedia's bio articles deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't do a WP:BEFORE on it. Your joking? scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your insulting comment is doubly out of line. WP:BEFORE refers to person doing the AFD which is you. Secondly, I never said that anything that you could derive that statement from, even if it was applicable to me (which it isn't). You need to ease up on things regarding other editors here, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with that statement on 3/4ths of bios being deleted based on these "stricter" standards. The sourcing for this particular article just isn't that great. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look pretty WP:GNG solid to me:

Ref 3 [90] - Haaretz
Ref 32 [91] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [92] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [93] - in Israel21c

--Omer Toledano (talk) Omer Toledano (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all interviews with the subject, they don't pass the secondary prong of WP:GNG, and only Ref 3 is different from the one North8000 presented. They're also all business interviews, which can be solicited by subjects for marketing purposes (not insinuating this is the case, and WP:NCORP doesn't apply because it's a biography, but similar precautions need to be taken here). If he passes WP:GNG, it's likely because he's been covered independently as a protestor. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omert33, Ref 3 (Haaretz) is mostly an interview with 2 short paragraphs of texts followed up by primary elements, it's just him talking about himself and his activities. Ref 32 (Shine News) is also more of the same. Ref 33 (Calcalist), is even a more prevalent interview, from the starting paragraph. Ref 30 (Israel21c) is also like the rest here. X (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The "3/4" was just my off the cuff guess. On your last point, I never said that the GNG sourcing on this article was great, just stronger than average. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added references (notability):

Ref 14 (current) [94] - The Times of Israel
Ref 36 (current) [95] - TechCrunch

-- Omer Toledano (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are passing mentions and Techcrunch is trash. Nobody uses it except UPE editors. Both of the again are not independent, more evidence to show that it all comes from Dror. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gonna keep this short since we're at the 7-day deadline, but I find myself agreeing with scope_creep's source analysis more than anyone else's. The sources presented by Omert33 are passing mentions or not independent. Interviews usually are not independent from the subject, and they lack the kind of analysis and critical assessment we usually find in WP:RS. A final thank you to the closer who decided to reopen this to let me !vote. To the nominator, consider a renomination with a source assessment table if you choose to renominate this. Pilaz (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. It's unanimous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina M. Barkume edit

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

Rejected speedy deletion. Non notable academic. Fails GNG, WP:NACADEMIC Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a 2008 PhD, she has no non-student publications in astronomy (there is one on social media monitoring with many authors and low citations). She does not appear to have a subsequent academic career of any note, and instead has been working for Meta (for which she has no significant publicity). Her best first-author student paper, "Water ice on the satellite of Kuiper belt object 2003 EL61", has only double-digit citations, not enough to make a case that she was such an exceptional student as to be notable through her student work. So although I agree with the A7 decline (the bar is very low for that) I do not think she can be notable through WP:PROF nor through WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the analysis of academic publications above. For other AfD reviewers interested in more context, there seem to be some brief mentions in various outlets from 2006 and 2007, e.g., these Sky & Telescope articles from April and October 2006, this AAS meeting brief from October, and this New York Times article from March 2007. Best, Bridget (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I think you meant to link this AAAS article, which mentions her, while the one you linked does not. BhamBoi (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nice summary by David Eppstein. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF; discovery has not received significant coverage. Qflib (talk) 20:12, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Ultimately, User:BusterD is correct, sources must be present in the article or brought into the discussion. A "There must be sources" attitude could be used to justify an article on any subject imaginable. We have to deal with information available now, that exist during the course of this discussion, not at a hypothetical future time. This deletion doesn't disallow the future creation of this article should adequate sources be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andras de Lisocky edit

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE, WP:GNG. Only source included is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think WP:NATHLETE is not the appropriate policy because de Lisocky is not a track and field sportsman, road racer, or cross country runner. De Lisocky is a gold medalist at a major international competition, so I do believe that we can be confident that contemporary coverage must exist. Finding those newspapers / other sources may be difficult, but we have to at least put in an effort. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Bolivarian Games is not a major international competition. It is a smaller event with 6 participating countries. The Pan American Games would be the major competition in this case. Geschichte (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, how is the Pan American Games relevant to this deletion discussion, because the athlete did not participate there? I agree that the Pan Ams are also a major international competition, but there is no rule that there has to be only one major competition in the world. For someone from Colombia, the Bolivarian Games are certainly one of the biggest competitions an athlete could win outside of the Olympics (which he also competed in). Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because you claimed that he is a "gold medalist at a major international competition", which is an uncorroborated claim made by an anonymous person on the Internet, i.e. you. The South American Games also has sailing and is a lot bigger in scope than the Bolivarian Games. Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, thanks for your response. Both the Pan American Games and the South American Games are also major international competitions, but their existence does not invalidate the fact that the Bolivarian Games are, as well, a major competition. To qualify this with a source, see Rengifo, Lisandro Abel (2022-06-26). "Juegos Bolivarianos: ¿sí tienen la importancia que dicen?". El Tiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-05-02., which asserts that the Bolivarian Games are crucial to advancing to the Olympic Games and are a major competition. That isn't an uncorroborated claim; it's sourced to reliable news sites. --Habst (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 2 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to notable event. More unsourced Lugnuts nonsense. A series of articles written solely to populate a list on an Olympic event page. Just because it's true doesn't make it notable. Those who disagree are required to bring sources to prove that assertion of notability. All these stubs should be sourced sufficiently or redirected to the event. BusterD (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD, thanks, what do you think about a procedural keep because the nomination used an invalid criteria (WP:NATHLETE is intended only for track and field / cross country / road racing athletes, not sailors)? --Habst (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly pointing out the nominator used an imprecise shortcut doesn't help the subject meet notability by the correct guideline. The nominator's assertions are 1) doesn't meet the criteria for specific notability, 2) doesn't meet general notability, and 3) only applied source was a bare mention. These assertions go unrefuted in this process. The correct SNG link is WP:SPORTSPERSON, and that guideline (amended specifically to deal with lightly-sourced Lugnuts-type creation) tells us at least one reliable source is required which directly details the subject. Can anybody present one? BusterD (talk) 15:02, 10 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.

Deon Kraemer edit

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Ineligible for PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. A discussion about a possible Redirection can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America Computing Olympiad edit

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated a year ago and the result was no consensus, because an organization that is the main feeder competition for the IOI has to have sources. I agree, but really, there is nothing, I've tried. I propose redirection to International Olympiad in Informatics. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a couple of news sources I found (however, they aren't in-depth):

- https://www.oregonlive.com/my-north-of-26/2015/06/daniel_chiu_from_catlin_gabel.html

- https://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_ae8b9bf0-f355-11e4-a52a-a7cc90dfff19.html

- https://scnow.com/news/local/clemson-university-to-host-usa-computing-olympiad-for-top-high-school-students/article_b3187844-0e21-5ed9-877c-8158b66bc8f9.html Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:57, 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! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Staraction's sources. I feel there aren't too many sources outside of WP:PRIMARY, but what they provided, looks like it's enough. Conyo14 (talk) 00:45, 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Hey there) Little Miss Mary edit

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

Article about a song, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NSONGS. As always, songs are not automatically entitled to have their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to show and reliably source some claim of significance -- but the main attempt at a notability claim here is that versions of the song appeared on albums that had gold certification as albums, which is not in and of itself evidence that the song has its own standalone notability independently of those albums, and the article is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about the song in media or books shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the song from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (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.

Logs: 2024-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of songs written by Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway.Delete per nom Fails N:SONG. Redirecting to List of songs written by Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway is a potential alternative but the article only seems to include notable songs, which "Hey There, Little Miss Mary" is not. Mooonswimmer 18:36, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 00:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Beaudoin edit

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

Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government that isn't support for notability at all, one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years [96] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected [97]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has 2 refs that indicate notability. Desertarun (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting GNG, good sources. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Tohira edit

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

A Japanese racing driver. Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Doesn't have much beyond when he was born and died, and some scores. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~for lack of viable press and statistical content other than subject's death. Ernesto Wong, another recently deceased sports figure, nominated for the same reasons.~~ Changing to Keep after digging up of sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page on Japanese Wikipedia appears to be more in depth and has more sources than the page here currently has. I was initially going to withdraw this nomination but I think even with those sources the page still doesn't qualify for WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is dailysportscar a good source? If you take his name in Japanese and search for it in Google Books and Google News a bunch of results pop up. Dude was born in 1941 so there is probably more coverage of him on paper than digitally. as-web.jp is also a good in-depth source. Polygnotus (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good sources on the Japanese article as noted above. Also [98] Odd that this was nominated the day after his death, but from his obituary in Chunichi Shimbun: "1960年代後半から高橋国光さんらとビッグレースに参戦。スカイライン2000GT－Rで通算4勝を挙げ、フェアレディ240Zで日本グランプリを連覇（71、72年）。90年代にはN1耐久シリーズや全日本GT選手権にも参戦した。" Lots of other obituaries in outlets in Japan (from what I can dig up on noticeboards, it appears obituaries in national publications count towards notability?) including this particularly indepth one. Here's a piece from 芸文社 [ja] discussing his car in the 80s. It appears there's a feature on him in the 2022 issue of RacingOn magazine. Another piece from 2019. Agree with Polygnotus that there's likely a lot of coverage that has not been digitized since Japan is only now partially undergoing digital transformation. DCsansei (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs look good to me. Desertarun (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DCsansei. What's with the trend of nominating long retired Japanese race car drivers, less well known in the west. This is now the third I have to put my vote in. Japanese Wikipedia shows that he has a well accomplished career being the 1994 Super Taikyu champion. A database listing on JAF will prove this otherwise, thus passing WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment: IIRC, he was one of the works Skyline GT-R racers of the early 1970s (though not as notable as Takahashi, Hasemi and Kurosawa), thus he is bound to be notable by that association. Additionally, he is known for being one of those in Nissan's celebrated 50 consecutive race wins (by C10 Skyline GT-R) they like to promote. Thus, this is another. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:25, 10 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.

Silesia national football team edit

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

Silesia is not a country, so it cannot be this. Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here, and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia.

The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question.

Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are football teams that cover non-sovereign territories, such as the most notable cases of Catalonia and the Basque Country, as well as some CONIFA members such as Occitania and County of Nice. If there are sources that cover the team, there are no problems, as Silesia is competing in the UEFA Regions' Cup. Svartner (talk) 01:35, 27 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 coverage, team doesn't appear to play regularly (5/6 matches in 90 years???), no evidence of notability. If it is kept, it should be renamed to Silesia official football team or Silesia representative football team, as it is NOT a national team like Poland national football team etc. Giant Snowman 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Why is a regional team titled as national? Should be titled Silesia regional football team. Next whats with the Notable players section? That should be removed. Seems to have been abused? No history section? Must be something surely for the regional team. Certainly needs sorting out. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For renaming, WP:RM should be used, not AfD. Glancing at pl wiki, just removing 'national' should work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could be improved, but the topic is notable - can easily tell by looking at German and Polish language articles, though the Polish one is under sourced by English standards. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunaina Chautala edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL and generally WP:GNG. Being a candidate for the imminent general election in June does not automatically help the subject pass WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL. Mooonswimmer 19:31, 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.