Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion

User talk:0.0.0.256

User talk:273.261.192.29

User talk:372.92.179.17

User talk:999.999.999.999

Draft:Abhishek Bansal

Template:AFL Sydney 2023 season

User:Avalpardakht

Bader bin Saud bin Mohammed Al Saud

Cassandra Ebner

User:Freeborn Joshua

User:Himanshi Kushwahaa/sandbox

User:Kesarlong/sandbox

Li Yu-yun

Draft:One India One Pension ( Mother Organization Charitable Society )

One One Tonight

Draft:Silicon Sensing

Tania Brishty

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 19	May 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Dearne & District F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC because there aren't any reliable secondary sources and fails WP:NTEAM because they only play in the minor-leagues. Plus, I searched for them online and there are no reliable secondary sources that feature the team in any kind of significant depth, unless you count the Barnsley Chronicle which I don't.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Killi Luqman (2017)[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well WP:NEVENT - not WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emji Spero[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all.
There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 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!} 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Shandermani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NPROF, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t read Farsi but he may be a GNG pass. A Google books search brings up his name in multiple publications though I can’t judge which are in-depth or independent. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra Yes, these are things I did as WP:BEFORE, they're mostly not about him directly but about events he's involved in or something of that nature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 13 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!} 07:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Computer Emergency Response Team[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to be a notable company. I searched for sources using all alternatives: "CERT," "CERTIN," and "CERT India," but couldn't find anything that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Dafydd y Corach (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Software[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Annoyingly the company appears to have changed its name several times (previously BSG Alliance and nGenera), so an AfD rather than a PROD just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Best sources I could find: [1] [2] [3]... "not great" would be an understatement. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, California, and Texas. – Teratix ₵ 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Italy, Tirana[edit]

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

Article is based on 1 primary source and merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 13 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!} 07:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DayxDay[edit]

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

I didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Zella Day. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 06:42, 13 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!} 07:28, 20 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This is a useful list that gives good information and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: You do realize that all of the sources cited in this list are the religion's own publications, right? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to something like List of notable Watch Tower Society publications (emphasis added). An inclusion criterion requiring that the publications entered on the list are the subject of acceptable Wikipedia articles instantly transforms the list from a sprawling hodge-podge into something of encyclopedic value. Alumni lists and many other lists prone to indiscriminate growth routinely have this type of inclusion criteria, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshield[edit]

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

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page's sources still do not establish notability sufficiently. The references are from relatively minor sources or primary sources. "cooperating with governments of various countries and international organizations" is not in of itself a consideration for noteworthiness. A paperclip company could be said to "cooperate" with international governmental institutions by selling paperclips to them, but that does not make the paperclip company notable. CapnPhantasm (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like I should clarify a little bit more. The firm's research has been actively used and publicly praised by UNESCO, with their book listed in the references and their chart included in the article. It's important to note that EBRD and UNESCO official websites shouldn't be considered primary sources or "minor". Additionally, some other media mention that the Whiteshield research was commissioned by the UN and the government of Kazakhstan. They are also mentioned on the official websites of UNIDO and UNDP and are quoted in other UN documents.--Del Amol Banora (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Del Amol Banora. Being cited works for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, in some very rare cases, the works themselves. It does not work for companies or organisations, the articles of which we require to be based on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources. There needs to be stuff written by the UN (or any other source with a reputation for fact checking) in sufficient depth on which to actually base an article, for any of us to, well, actually write a policy compliant article. Any source lacking analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the casting votes, the subject seems notable and passes WP:ORGCRIT. MeltPees (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per GNG, added some additional sources, likely passed ORGCRIT --Assirian cat (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assirian cat, I see the two sources you add mention Whiteshield, in the context of quoting from one of their partners, but I don't see any content about Whiteshield. Can you confirm which of the sources you think provide WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:SIGCOV? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maicol Azzolini[edit]

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

Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements (1, 2, 3), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 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) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just about enough here to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Obviously a lot of team announcements and transactional stuff, but there are a few bits in there that could pass WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 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!} 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Vee[edit]

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

lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Africa, and Uganda. Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems to have enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. ([4][5][6]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 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!} 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Dragaš[edit]

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

The article has a serious lack of WP:RS, which is why I have doubts about notability. There are only five links, and the last one is the website of his own organization, International Security Institute. HPfan4 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Serbia. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Wells[edit]

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

I have been unable to find sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The single source cited in the article is a Wordpress blog. She doesn't seem to me to meet WP:NACTOR either; Coronation Street is a notable show but her role in it was not significant, Kisses at Fifty is one episode of an anthology drama. Overall, she doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum weirdness[edit]

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

PRODded with the following statement:

Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024

Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:

deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024

The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the article Bare particle, which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion. --Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles. --Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article:

Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.

While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition. --Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~. Wishy-washy long neutral comment. This article does not say anything that is not already covered in a range of other existing WP articles on physics. It mostly appears to be some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As to quantum being weird, yes, even physicists say this. Anecdote: When I was a young student, my prof pulled me into his office, closed the door, and made me swear a secret oath: I must not talk about quantum to anyone who does not have a formal education in physics. Why? Because quantum is weirder than Hollywood or anything scifi authors could ever imagine, and people's heads would explode, and cranks and snake-oil salesmen would come out of the woodwork. I got the impression this was a standard oath administered to anyone studying physics, dating back to the WWII Manhattan project. Now, if this article was actually about that oath, and/or some sociological study of physicists, I'd be thrilled to vote "keep". But we don't need a compendium of weird stuff. Also p.s. excuse me: most of QM is weird for one reason: because weak convergence (Hilbert space) is fugnuts weird. So this is just math being weird, and not physics. And once you tune in, lots of math is really deranged and weird. Like way more weird than what QM has come up with. (I changed my tag to wishy-washy. I dunno, since everyone is talking about it, anyway, what the heck. Article could mention the U. Columbia prof who dropped his pants for Physics 101 to show how weird QM is. See youtube videos. My ex is a Dean of Students there, we chatted about this. CNN (2013) Columbia professor strips down for lecture) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally only about the festive challenge, but was renamed and expanded 3 years ago. Any rivalry between them appears no different than most other clubs in the area so the first part of the article could be section moved into West Yorkshire derbies. The festive challenge could be kept as a separate article but needs some improvement – currently this section is poorly sourced and incomplete (sources indicate it stared before 2009: BBC Sport, RFL). EdwardUK (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festive challenge wasn't always exclusively a Leeds v Wakefield friendly (Leeds have played other opponents in the past: [7] [8]), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer information and redirect to West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If adequate sources, can be found supporting that the Festive Challenge was once more than Leeds vs Wakefield then this should be created as a new article. Mn1548 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are sources which have the festive challenge first being played in 1996 and mention Halifax, Bradford and Castleford as taking part before Wakefield so a move back to the original page name would be suitable for this section. But I could find very little about Leeds and Wakefield being regarded as rivals and it is not mentioned in lists of derbies: [9]. EdwardUK (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this rivalry, along with a few others, seems to have just been bolted on to the "West Yorkshire Derby" section of Derbies in the Rugby Football League which from what I can gather, the West Yorkshire Derby is between Leeds and Bradford. Would support a move back to the original page name for Festive Challenge content only with the rest being transferred to the West Yorkshire derbies page, then a clear up of said page for any rivalries that appear to have just been made up. Mn1548 (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge. Thanks to @EdwardUK:'s work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be merged or deleted. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: To preserve the page history, it would need to be a merge or redirect rather than a delete. If it was merged, I doubt it would be kept following any clean-up of the WY derbies article. The head-to-head needs updating, and I am not sure how relevant the collective honours table is to any rivalry if the teams have never played each other in some of the competitions and Wakefield have never taken part in others. EdwardUK (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypelist[edit]

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

This is an WP:ADMASQ of a non-notable app/company. Speedy deletion was contested by a new editor who claims to be a "fan" of the app. No evidence of satisfying WP:NPRODUCT or WP:ORGIND. The references all provide routine coverage and/or are from unreliable sources. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Software. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analyzation of the article:

Like said in the nomination, the article, especially the product section, is positive about the "mobile social application". Buzz words like popular and AI-driven are used along with a dose of ethos, stating that several celebrities use it.

The citations seem to mostly based in trendiness or promotion. For example, HIGHXTAR is designed to advertise to the youths. Trying to research the topic, most of the citations seem to be of the same caliber but there may be a few citations. Any additional citations should be analyzed. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, as with Alfonso Cobo and related articles. There are sources from MSN, Conde Nast, Avenue Illustrated, and many other well-known sources. The article is meant to be a summary of existing sources, some of which might be bordering on the promotional side, but that can easily be fixed. There is no overtly promotional wording either, such as "award-winning" or "innovative" for instance. Moreover, this article satisfies basic notability criteria. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Id looked up to see if there was any new news and didn't find any. Then given there already are some references in Spanish thought id see if there are other results in Spanish and there are:

https://www.larazon.es/tecnologia/hypelist-aplicacion-compartir-recomendaciones-que-necesitas-movil_2024020765c3721a9d142a0001894b5d.html https://www.elcorreo.com/sociedad/hypelist-nuevo-proyecto-exitoso-emprendedor-espanol-triunfa-20240415142712-ntrc.html They seem to say more of the same thing ie new app from this guy and it does xyz. I dont know if this helps establish notability. If the issue isn't the references, but the subject matter, so be it. If I had to vote it would be weakish keep but I also get the desire to delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete ~~It's all hype about hypelist, and it may be TOO SOON, but the sourcing is reasonable. If this app does not pan out, the hype here may not be enough to save the article in the future.~~ I looked again and the software has no reviews in the mac app store, and it only has one rating. All that we have are product announcements. I'm !voting to wait and see. Lamona (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing might not be enough in the future, then it definitely won't be enough now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your comment got me to look again. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems almost A7, wouldn't go G11 though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft[edit]

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

Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [10]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".

Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:

This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Transportation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources I find are the Urban Dictionary and various word groups, none of which help notability. Almost survived for 20 yrs in wiki without deletion. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, though the English language sources only show novelty, and the German sources aren't fantastic - however between the tango, the company, and the fact the word is used in German as an example of German compound word usage. [11] is one example. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like merging with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a viable option. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a good idea if there's a couple reliable sources, yeah. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word is notable in its own right given the tango and the discussion of its length in reliable German language sources, but given there's another merge suggested to a different page, I think a merge to the company makes more sense if that is the chosen deletion alternative. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The German wikipedia has more context and sources. This might not need a stand-alone article but there's enough coverage to avoid deletion. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Striking user banned for this behavior (User_talk:Okmrman#Please_stop). Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it actually existed or not, reliable sources have long reported it and it has gone down in legend as one of the longest words in history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a particularly good reason to keep the article though -- "gone down in legend"? Really? Come gather 'round, kids, while I tell you the story of the great Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft. How do sources "report" a word? None of what you're saying makes any reasonable sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to German nouns § Compounds, where a brief mention might be appropriate. You might even be able to justify a standalone article on long German words, with this example certainly worth mentioning, but WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOPAGE pretty strongly favor not having a standalone article here. There's simply nothing to say about the word itself other than "it's long". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, just one of many made-up extensions of that word. There are no reliable sources, unlike for the Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, which used to be a real law. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Gál[edit]

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

Subject should have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of it, excluding database sources. Lacks references. Shinadamina (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Romania. Shinadamina (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now.Shinadamina (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two GNG passing sources in foreign language Wikipedia. I imagine there will be sourcing offline also, given he won well over 80 caps for his nation and appeared in 3 World Cups. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE. I added some references from the corresponding article in Romanian. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua[edit]

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

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak keep There's coverage of his World Cup appearances, and his post playing career in law. I think there's enough here for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Forshee[edit]

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

Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show WP:SIGCOV; WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season. Dolemites (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability cannot WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage." Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airespring[edit]

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

Clear promotional content, and there is no significant coverage in any media that I could find, unless we are counting the "Telecom Industry News", which doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NAIA Road[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. The guideline states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." The only two sources used here do not support the article: from DPWH (non-independent) and from the Philippine Star (does not mention NAIA or MIA Road even once, only references the proposed rehabilitation of the airport that gave the road its name). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for news sources on Google is of no help too:

2014 Pilipino Star Ngayon article: only mentions about the road as one of the areas of frequent cutting-trip actions by jeepney during 2010s. Less weight on the roads, more weight on the behavior of jeepneu and tricycle drivers and their impacts to the commuters.
2018 Pilipino Star Ngayon article: mainly talks about Puliscredibles film as an entry of the Metro Manila Film Festival, with the road being mentioned once as part of the parade float's route.
2019 Philippine News Agency article: "NCRPO director, Maj. Gen. Guillermo Eleazar said joint operatives of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), NCRPO's Regional Special Operations Unit (RSOU) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines in coordination with the Chinese embassy, swooped down on the Golden Unicom Technology, Inc. 7th Floor, Millennium Building on NAIA Road on Wednesday night." (Brief "cameo appearance" of the road in the article as the address of the incriminated Chinese-operated establishment). This is also the same case as the Inquirer article of the same news.
2018 photo essay article of the Philippine News Agency: not strong enough to provide GEOROAD compliance of "NAIA Road" article. Also the case for this 2022 photo article of the same news outlet.
2015 Philippine Daily Inquirer online article: only about a traffic rerouting advisory with NAIA Road as among the roads mentioned once.
2024 tabloid story of Remate: only about a crime incident that occurred along the road.
2023 GMA News article: only mentions a severe traffic congestion along the road as a result of a nearby fire
2016 article of Philippine Primer: mostly about NAIA Expressway with a single, fleeting mention of NAIA Road: "In a report published by Business Mirror, the newly completed NAIA Expressway’s Phase 2-B, link from NAIA Road to NAIA Terminal 3, Villamor and the Skyway System, will be toll-free. This will be from Decemeber 21, 2016 to Jan. 10, 2017, a representative from the Department of Transportation said."
2018 Philippine Star article: only mentions the road as where a tricycle driver disgusing as a law enforcer was arrested.
2015 Philippine Daily Inquirer online article: only mentions the road as among addresses impacted by a temporary power interruption.
2014 GMA News article: more on the damaged electric pole than the road itself (where it is located).

The rest of the sources, includes some foreign sources about unrelated matter (from Malta et cetera), strangely. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ninoy_Aquino_International_Airport#Ground_transport per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zobel Roxas Street[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GEOROAD guideline which states: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."

The four existing sources here do not support the article: both the DPWH sources are non-independent since the DPWH is the government agency that maintains and manages the national roads like Zobel Roxas Street (see WP:INDEPENDENT). The third source is from a real estate company, but the current "About us" page does not state the origins of the road (failed verification). The fourth citation is a vintage US-published map, and it is uncertain if it can be used as a reliable source for the history of the road.

A brief search on news content on Google does not give fruitful results. The only reliable source is an old news about a fire that hit a commercial building along the street; the rest of the news search results are mostly hotel sites, travel sites, social media advertisements of establishments found along the road, and other obviously unreliable and unencyclopedic sources. All in all, "Zobel Roxas Street" is not notable per GEOROAD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pattani bombing[edit]

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

The sources are all from the time of the event. Need lasting coverage and impact to meet WP:EVENT. A search for sources yielded sources for a different bombing in Pattani in 2016. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well sourced and the incident has continued to be discussed both for itself and as part of the overall security situation in Thailand. A short documentary was made about one of the suspects. I've added links from 2018 and 2020. Article needs some cleanup especially the "attack" narrative that lacks inline citations. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Timeline of events related to the South Thailand insurgency#2017, where it is mentioned. If what Oblivy says is true, then I'd vote keep, but I can't actually find what is mentioned above, or verify that it has long standing significance. The added links are bordering on run of the mill and don't seem to have much commentary. Or commentary on the documentary. If that is provided I would change my vote to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage can be found in the Al Jazeera, CNA, and International Business Times articles. I don't think run-of-the-mill applies to any of that.

The deletion rationale was about lasting coverage and impact. The event gets continuing discussion by security researchers like this[12]. It seems to have gotten extended discussion in Wheeler, Thailand's Southern Insurgency in 2017: Running in Place (2018, paywalled). The court case was reported as a standalone article in the Bangkok Post, a good indicator of lasting impact, as is the fact that a filmmaker decided to make a documentary about it. The article isn't about the documentary - it's cited to show that there was lasting coverage of the event via the documentary - and I don't think it's reasonable to require commentary on the documentary. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 13 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!} 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Surikov (diplomat)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Recently deceased Russian diplomat. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	1. www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject.	2. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2017 No. 348 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Mozambique”" . Archived from the original on 2019-01-26 . Retrieved 2017-09-14 .
Government decree, fails WP:IS, does not contain SIGCOV about the subject.	3. ^ "Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 16, 2018 No. 76 “On the Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation in the Kingdom of Swaziland on a part-time basis”" . Archived from the original on 2018-02-16 . Retrieved 2018-02-16 .
Government obit, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	4. ^ www.mid.ru https://www.mid.ru/ru/activity/shots/vnutrivedomstvennye_novosti/nekrologi_pamyati_kolleg/1949977/ . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .
Obit based on government sources, fails WP:SIRS, all the normal obit problems plus the Russian government should not be considered a reliable source	5. ^ "Russian Ambassador to Mozambique Died" . TACC (in Russian) . Retrieved 2024-05-13 .

BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, and an interview, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 02:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First and foremost, lower your tone while nominating the article for deletion. Secondly, government decrees can be used as secondary sources as if you can type the full name in a Russian, many sources will pop up, (in Russian of course), apart from the official government statement. Here's my third point, he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office. Would you delete the ambassador of the United States of Mozambique for that reason? Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he is the ambassador to Mozambique, the highest office of any diplomat in office Ambassadors are not inherently notable, several hundred have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Africa, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 of the sources are primary. The other is routine coverage of his unfortunate death. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm leaning to keep, but if if it's drafted... I wouldn't be surprised as well.Ivan Milenin (talk) 05:55, 15 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!} 02:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium[edit]

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 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!} 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things

-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)

-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure

-A functional sandbox for enhanced security

-Google Sync

-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content

-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags

-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags

-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs

-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium

-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Silvestri[edit]

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

Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, United States of America, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a strong keep, but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability (Exclaim, The Diamondback, Vulture) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety. Shazback (talk) 19:38, 30 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) 01:26, 6 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!} 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. None of the sources in the article meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, the above sources, one may meet SIGCOV. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Appears to be part of a database of actors, questionable SIGCOV	https://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/max_silvestri-jfl42_the_garrison_toronto_on_september_26
Promo, "people to watch" type article	https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-lvfrh6zdvvdzjmqjjc3mgs7o3a/
Promo, "people to watch" type article	https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/11-best-stand-up-specials-of-2014.html

Ping me if other sources with SIGCOV are found. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:SIRS is the correct standard for evaluating these sources, since the article is not about an organization or company.

I'm surprised that a review of his show by Exclaim! doesn't attain SIGCOV. Exclaim! is recognized as a perennial source by WikiProject Albums since 2009, a view which was supported on the Reliable Sources discussion board as recently as 2020 [13]. The article is by a staff author, not an external contributor, and is well over the WP:100WORDS guideline, even after excluding the paragraph talking about the opening act.

Regarding the other two articles, what makes them WP:PRSOURCE ("promos") or on what basis are "people to watch" type articles excluded? As far as I can see, the Vulture article is not identified as a press release, does not appear to be churnalism (I can't find an article with similar wording) and is identified as being written by a staff author. It's short, but as Vulture is a perennial source [14] I am surprised 100+ words is so easily dismissed. The Diamondback article does not appear to be churnalism, but as it's a less reputable source & authorship is less clear (DBK Admin, incoherent publication date) I understand this one is more open for discussion.

I haven't been involved in many AfDs, so more information on these topics would be useful for me going forwards. Shazback (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd be interested in seeing another review of the sources in the article and this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Ryder[edit]

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

Very questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability Amigao (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Head of a UN Agency might be notable, but sourcing is about the initiatives of this agency, not about this person. I don't find much else we'd use for RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the subject worked at a UN Agency as head policy and partnerships. She was pivotal to the Initiative which is why I used as source Gold Junior (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete present version, which definitely does not comply with NPOV policy. "As the chief executive of Development Reimagined, Ryders's Afro-centric posturing is implicit in her reports" - for goodness' sake (and since when is her surname "Ryders"?) Deb (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hannah is very adamant on Africans developing Africa with win-win partnerships with other blocs. I should have put it this way to underscore this fact Gold Junior (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that it was you who wrote that sentence? Deb (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that sentence, but added other coverage of Ryder. And, to be clear, the typo in her last name was my fault. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I have edited the article a bit. She is cited in multiple reliable sources in conversations about Africa-China relations, and I have added some of this information to the article. The best coverage of her is here [15], [16],[17]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. The main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the undeclared conflict of interest and the original promotional intent. If we keep it, we'll need to ensure it complies with NPOV. Deb (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though to be clear I have no COI on this article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I must state that for me I have no COI regarding this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold Junior (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 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!} 02:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*: "keep" this article has been edited to comply to NPOV since it's nomination allied by a declaration of COI from editors in the View AfD the page in its current existence complies with NPOV User:Gold Junior Talk 09:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim[edit]

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

WP:MILL structure that fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. No sources to describe the significance; two news sources provide evidence in cursory coverage that it was constructed but no detail to constitute WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional evidence of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of hits about the clock tower in the Singapore National Library, such as [18], but it seems you need to open them on-site in order to be able to read the articles. I've been able to pull these up [19]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this @Oaktree b. There are actually numerous merdeka (aka "independence") towers/monuments in Malaysia, and this article is specifically about the one in Kulim. The searches you linked are for other cities' merdeka towers. A search adding "Kulim" brings up just the one cursory result already sourced in the article, see here. Just sharing in case this info changes your !vote; thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Found a few more sources to establish notability.

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ce1b4842-51cd-4107-891f-94cb820ff093/Merdeka-Clock-Tower-kulim-kedah

https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia-star2/20180825/281513637011166 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is just a 3D model of the building. What makes you think this is a reliable source or provides significant coverage? What does this add to the article? Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources each have a paragraph about the place. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what @Reywas92 may be getting at is that that 3D model page is user-generated content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If found non-notable/deleted, it could be copied entirely into Kulim District. CMD (talk) 07:31, 14 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!} 02:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little indication of notability. The Jordan Times reference reads more like an ad and comes from a source of questionable reliability, and the second source only mentions it in passing. I could find an article by the UN environment programme [20], but I don't think that comes anywhere close to establishing notability. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jordan. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about an e-business app, unchanged since it was restored at request of the article creator after a previous AfD soft deletion. Since the previous AfD, the company appears to have moved its base and broadened its operation. An article here describes the company's change in personnel / location, but this still appears to be coverage promoting a niche startup; I am not seeing the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect this article to the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Loock[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. JTtheOG (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLNN-CD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Minnaar[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. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Telecommunications Limited[edit]

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

As with many regional B2B companies, this one does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP standards of notability. While there are a lot of sources, they are almost exclusively to WP:TRADES that do not help establish notability. Moreover, virtually all of the coverage is of the WP:ORGTRIV variety (hirings, market expansions, product offerings, acquisitions, etc.), or they are Q&A interviews and thus primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search found that the author has put just about every available source into this story and even then it doesn't come close to NCORP. As a result, I propose to merge any encyclopedic content into KT Corporation, Epsilon's parent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Reza Seyedi[edit]

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

BLP fails WP:GNG and all relevant biography guidelines. The basic problem is a lack of WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Quick review of existing sources: 1, 3/8, and 4 are WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL coverage, not significant mentions. Source 2 has no reference to the subject. 5, 9 and 10 are primary source bios. 6 and 7 are trivial mentions in lists of speakers. 11-15 are references to the subject's own writing and thus ineligible for notability. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to point to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axtell High School (Nebraska)[edit]

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

This is not actually Axtell High School, as near as I can tell, but Axtell Community School. There is an actual school that is a combination of junior high and high school in Axtell. It's at a different address. See here. In any event, the article is a nothing, consisting of one sentence that says it's a school. If the community decide for some reason to retain the article, the name needs to be corrected, and I'm not sure about the data in the infobox. Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Wham! featuring George Michael US release.jpeg[edit]

The North American (or US) cover art was de-PRODded without rationale, so I can't help wonder what I'm missing when reading the article and looking at the cover arts. Sure, this cover art credits "Wham! Featuring George Michael", while the other cover art solely credits "George Michael".

However, is it needed, and would deleting this cover art detriment the understanding of the topic in question? Do both cover arts convey same or different information? Is the understanding of the song inadequate without this (American) cover art? Honestly, there's already one (British) cover art, but I just now see an extra cover art uploaded and then inserted about five years ago. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Decades in Punjab[edit]

Propose merging Category:1930s in Punjab‎ to Category:1930s in India and Category:Punjab Province
Propose merging Category:1940s in Punjab‎ to Category:1940s in East Punjab
Propose merging Category:1950s in Punjab‎ to Category:1950s in Punjab, India
Propose merging Category:1960s in Punjab‎ to Category:1960s in Punjab, India

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in each of these categories, that is not helpful for navigation. Besides Punjab is divided between India and Pakistan since 1947, so the 1950s and 1960s categories should not exist anyway. Since the content of these categories is about Punjabi film which is primarily about film in India, I have added East Punjab and Punjab, India as targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions[edit]

Propose merging Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions

Nominator's rationale: Technically all G13 eligible AfC submissions are candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. I see little reason to isolate this category since the latter category will give a larger list for users to find a draft and update so it does not meet G13. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A merge closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ These are two categories for two very specific and different use cases. The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions tracks not only drafts that are 6 months of inactivity, but also 5 months of inactivity. This category is specifically for AfC reviewers and other editors to rescue these drafts, if the topic is notable or has turned notable, before the drafts hit the guillotine block at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions, which is an outright CSD category that is meant for draft of 6 months of inactivity and above. In my experience, the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category has been used by well-meaning editors, and if there are dummy edits made nefariously, these editors should be surfaced at an appropriate forum. Merging the categories will not resolve the behavioural issue, they will just monitor the CSD category more rigorously to make the dummy edits before an admin can action on it. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is meant to contain drafts of more than 5 months old then the category name is obviously not clear enough. The category is currently empty, so is anyone actively using it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit of a misnomer to say that because it is empty no one is "actively using it"; the category is automatically populated based on the age of the draft; if there are no drafts that are old enough then it will be empty (hence the {{empty category}} tag). Given that we have (literally) hundreds of drafts submitted every day, and only a fraction of those are ever worked on past their initial decline, I would say that someone is keeping an eye on it to make sure that drafts worth keeping are saved, and drafts worth nuking are then G13'd. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The category is probably never populated. Note that quarry:query/25817 yields 115 drafts as of now, while this is supposed to replicate the category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That quarry was last run in 2018... Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It also, as of about thirty seconds ago, has three pages in it. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Just so I don't have to keep updating this page, it has 0 pages as of the time of last refresh. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: I believe you are thinking of Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions (5-6 months), which is a different category from this one (6+ months). See Template:AfC submission/draft (lines 22-23) or the description on each category's page. SilverLocust 💬 07:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverLocust thanks for clarification. I was/am still recovering from effects of a flu, after having travelled for half the month for various conferences. In this case, I would question if there is indeed a need to have two separate categories for the same purpose. – robertsky (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky, the intention is to have a category for pages that are eligible for G13, and a category for pages that have been nominated for deletion under G13. I've asked Liz and Explicit to comment since they've been deleting G13 pages straight out of this category, which might give a better indication of how best we could utilise it if it's kept. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have notified Liz and Explicit about this discussion, since they seem to be patrolling it and directly deleting pages from it. Primefac (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. While automatic (i.e. bot) tagging of eligible drafts has been approved in the past, populating this category instead of directly feeding a page into the G13 cat itself means that there is one more set of checks that users can do before a page is formally nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates