User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The page is now updated at User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention. Please change links accordingly. You can still see the table below.

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 01:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

AfD Time to close Votes Size (bytes) Relists Score
Silicon Slopes 11 years ago 1 6621 0 299181.72
Chloe Lewis (figure skater) 46 days ago 4 5724 0 3466.49
Ewart Potgieter 32 days ago 2 4305 0 2570.05
2018 Caloocan Supremos season 19 days ago 0 4962 0 1799.69
Sindhuja Rajaraman (2nd nomination) 20 days ago 3 8185 0 1630.95
Battle of Ajmer 16 days ago 1 6755 0 1541.02
French ship Gapeau (B284) 32 days ago 7 11100 0 1522.94
Liverpool Privateers 18 days ago 3 7163 0 1518.64
Reproduction speed 18 days ago 3 7259 0 1478.45
Zinedine Booysen 17 days ago 2 6057 0 1475.03
Faria Sheikh 17 days ago 3 6900 0 1430.25
Max Silvestri 16 days ago 2 7131 0 1401.06
Sukaina Khan (2nd nomination) 17 days ago 4 8157 0 1380.74
Wilson, Indiana 16 days ago 2 6064 0 1377.12
Quatuor Habanera 13 days ago 0 2909 0 1354.42
Gary L. Coleman 13 days ago 0 2683 0 1338.86
List of WNBA Finals broadcasters 12 days ago 0 4420 0 1318.04
Raphaël Bohren 13 days ago 1 3217 0 1310.63
Azhar Mashwani 13 days ago 1 5721 0 1307.75
Hum News (2nd nomination) 15 days ago 2 11400 0 1298.6
Owen Buckley 14 days ago 2 3699 0 1284.98
Leinster Chess Leagues 13 days ago 1 21560 0 1280.45
Lee Harris (figure skater) 15 days ago 3 3973 0 1273.39
Michael Breen (human rights activist) 13 days ago 1 7223 0 1265.32
Mehak Malik 14 days ago 3 4185 0 1263.08


Silicon Slopes[edit]

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

Article is well sourced and well written, however, it does not refer to a municipality, but an ill-defined geographic area. Silicon Slopes is essentially a commercial high tech real estate project that over time grew out of Thanksgiving Point with a large amount (over 40%) of vacant real estate and this article is the ad for that . Article makes more sense merged into Utah Valley since having a standalone article is nothing more than advertising for commercial real estate in Lehi, Utah. Recommend delete or merge into the previously mentioned articles. KindHorta (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep and refine. As this well-sourced article notes, the concept is distinct and well-established, but there's no evidence to say Silicon Slopes is centered on Lehi versus the broader Wasatch Front region. Compare the lede for Silicon Valley: "Silicon Valley is a region in Northern California that is a global center for high technology and innovation. Located in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area, it corresponds roughly to the geographical area of the Santa Clara Valley." Likewise, for this, I'd suggest that framing Silicon Slopes like this: "Silicon Slopes is a term that defines the part of Utah that is a major economic center for technology and innovation businesses. Centered on the cities of Salt Lake City and Provo and their surrounding suburbs, it corresponds roughly to the geographical area of the Wasatch Front." In fact, I'm going to make that change right now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for advertising and honestly, that's all this article is about. Your corrections help a little but seriously, this article is an advertisement. I am not certain that claiming the entire Wasatch Front, which is hundreds of miles long, encompasses Silicon Slopes just because the article says so. Silicon Slopes is centered at point of the mountain north of Lehi, and that's where it started from the Thanksgiving Point commercial real estate complex which expanded over time. This article is a blatant advertisement and is written as such. KindHorta (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
If the article's too promotional, then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Deletion is for articles that don't belong on Wikipedia at all, usually for notability reasons. There's plenty of WP:SIRS sourcing for "Silicon Slopes" as a concept (and it's sourced as well as or better than most of the other "Silicon ___" appellations with articles on Wikipedia). This debate isn't about whether the article is promotional; it's about whether the topic is notable. Do you disagree? Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
From Lehi, Utah - Ancestry.com moved its headquarters from Provo to Lehi in May 2016. The headquarters building is located in The Corporate Center at Traverse Mountain. Microsoft has an engineering department specializing in the next version of its MDOP (Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack), code-named "Park City."[19] Initially employing 100, Microsoft has built a second building to house its staff.[20] Microsoft Southwest District is located at 3400 N. Ashton Blvd., Suite 300 Lehi, Utah 84043.[21] Other Thanksgiving Park tenants are Oracle Corporation, Infusionsoft, Workfront, Vivint Solar, Agel Enterprises, DigiCert, Jolt and ProPay Inc.[22]. Article should be deleted are merged, preferably merged into Utah Valley which is where is belongs. KindHorta (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources make clear that "Silicon Slopes" refers to a wider area beyond Lehi: Draper (Deseret News, SL Tribune), Midvale (KSL News Radio), Ogden (Utah Business, TechCrunch, Axios), South Jordan Utah Business), American Fork (Utah Business), and Provo KUER). Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree there are a lot of promotional articles claimed to be sources, and I also agree the topic is notable. What I am debating is where it should be mentioned. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that are well sourced but turn out to be advertisements and get deleted or merged. "Silicon Slopes" is now a marketing term for any high tech company in Utah. I lived in Utah for 30 years and was living there when Silicon Slopes was being built and I can tell you with certainty it only referred to the area north of Lehi, and it did not embrace the 200 or so miles along the entire Wasatch front, which is what you are claiming. You are just flat wrong and the sources you quote are all promotional nonsense advertising high tech real estate in Lehi, Utah. KindHorta (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Chloe Lewis (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. I withdraw this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a useful short article on a skater who was successful in international junior skating tournaments; her best result was the Youth Olympics. Articles such as Figure skating at the Winter Youth Olympics work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles. Deleting articles such as this one, through an over-zealous application of rules to borderline cases such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as mentioned below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1, consensus was to relist for further discussion. I will strike the sockpuppetry above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Previous votes failed to assess the article's sourcing. At the time of the nomination, it was sufficient to pass WP:GNG—namely this profile in the Oregonian and this briefer one in the Colorado Gazette. The nominator has also since said I felt my original nomination was flawed, given that GNG tops an SNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    I am unable to close this as a "speedy keep" because there are additional "delete" votes, but I would endorse this being closed as "keep". Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes GNG per the references provided by Hamelton. These in-depth profiles offer SIGCOV of the subject. Frank Anchor 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ewart Potgieter[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found a transactional announcement, as well as coverage of an alleged criminal incident in Spain (1, 2, etc.), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails GNG and ANYBIO. The relevant SNG, WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least once source which directly details the subject in RS. Nothing but stats here. BusterD (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

2018 Caloocan Supremos season[edit]

2018 Caloocan Supremos season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG explicitly says that these are not presumed notable and thus require GNG sources. Misses that by several levels. The one source that the article has is about the league. "Stats" only article also relates to wp:not. Tagged for sources since January. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: Have you noticed that all the teams from 2018 have season entries? Geschichte (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
No, but now I looked....at just the ones in the NPP que. It is then further multiplied by articles on pairs of those teams. Titled as rivalry articles, where (per a quick preliminary look) the sources don't describe them as rivalries. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment as it stands, fails GNG on its face, but I'm not sure how to conduct a BEFORE search for this. SportingFlyer T·C 17:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
IMO the ones excluded by the SNG have a near-zero chance of having GNG level sources. North8000 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already deleted by PROD so a Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sindhuja Rajaraman[edit]

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

Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:

1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.

2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html

3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.

No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Comics and animation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  • 'Delete. Oh wow, the youngest person to .... Please. It's very easy when you're a nepo baby. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion is not an option as it was JUST at a previous AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 explicitly allowed the renom. Suggest a focus on content and not process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: For my part I'm not seeing anything recent or meeting RS about this subject, and I'm not satisfied with the applied or presented sources meeting WP:BLP. Reading the DRV leads me to believe there is not much community support for keeping (as the side comments in this process might lead one to believe). BusterD (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - the previous AfD found coverage spanning a period from 2011 to 2019. 8 years is too long of an "event" to invoke WP:BLP1E and the nature of the "event" in this case is not well defined. The fact that there has not been significant coverage since 2019 is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Ajmer[edit]

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

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I agree, I'm seeing more and more articles written on little-known or little-documented battles fought in Central and South Asia. Many of them end up being disucussed here in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep or Draftify The sources do actually have SIGCOV around this battle, although it's not well formatted but could be fixed. I think the author has cited the different volume of History and Culture of the Indian People therefore we find nothing about this event in that volume, but after my findings in its preceding 5th volume, there is a significant coverage:

"In A.D. 1195-6 the Mher tribes of Ajmer combined with the Chalukyas to expel the Turks from Rajputana. Aibak had to rush to the help of the Turkish governor of Ajmer. Finding the Mhers camping near Ajmer he engaged them in a battle, but when the enemy were reinforced by the Chalukya ruler’s army, Aibak was forced to withdraw into". I guess these two sources should be enough, if not then draftify it, so that the author of the page could improve it by adding some more sources. Also the source from Thapar should be removed. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

French ship Gapeau (B284)[edit]

French ship Gapeau (B284) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
      • So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
      Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
      • That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A "no consensus, leaning keep" closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 17:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Unless actual WP:SIGCOV can be presented from sources (and at this point, I will need the actual text from the references copy-pasted here to prove it since they're inaccessible), then there isn't notability being shown for this article subject. And it's already well known that sources like Lloyd's Register are not significant coverage and just list basic info for all military ships that have existed period. The Dictionary of French Warships seems no better. In fact, all the sources used in the article seem very underwhelming on actual significant coverage (and is Netmarine.net even a reliable source?).
The closer should disregard any Keep votes above claiming "we always keep them", as this isn't an actual notability argument. It's the same sort of nonsense that was done with sports biographies previously and we finally forced that group to follow WP:GNG requirements. We are long past time to force the same requirements on the walled garden that Ships wikiproject editors have been constructing. SilverserenC 18:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep 84.142.24.48 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep As notable as many other ships with similar references. Until such time as the guideline for which ships are sufficiently notable for their own article is debated at a more visible venue the article should be kept Lyndaship (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Liverpool Privateers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 talk contribs 14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Unfortunate accusations against the nominator aside, there's nothing approaching significant coverage applied, linked above, or found during my reasonable BEFORE which renders this subject sufficiently notable for its own article. I see no evidence this can be improved. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @BusterD: There was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. My only intent was to convey that I felt a BEFORE was not done. We simply disagree on the sources. I have nothing personal against @Curb Safe Charmer:. Best wishes and happy editing. Flibirigit (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
      • @Flibirigit: And that language would have been more appropriate to a civil disagreement, like AfD. "I-messages" are helpful because they're not so threatening. We must be able to argue freely, even sometimes beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Sometimes screaming is quite necessary. Give yourself permission to step over the line occasionally, if in doing so you might push our entire Wikipedia movement forward. IMHO, that's the heart of WP:IAR. I am proud to participate in a process in which civil disagreement makes us a stronger (and more cohesive) community. Nice to meet you. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Reproduction speed[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Generation time. A quick Google search of "replication speed" focuses on the term's use in microbial genetics, highlighting that a telecommunications-focused article on this term would be inappropriate. Even adding the word telecommunications to the query returns very few sites using the term, mostly with an entirely different use as the RPM of turntable discs. However, given that the term is mostly used in a biological application. I would support a redirect to Generation time over Reproduction (disambiguation), as none of the articles on the latter disambig page appear to contain wikilinks to former article. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). It may be more likely that someone would search for this term in the context of biological reproduction or replication, but the content is clearly intended to be for telecommunications. I could also live with a delete, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. The context in which reproduction speed is being used will determine the relevant meaning of reproduction. If our best option is to link to a disambiguation page then we're saying that we can't anticipate what that context will be. It seems better to me that people search or link to the appropriate reproduction page, rather than being directed to Reproduction (disambiguation).
I will also mention that if we were going to redirect to the biological meaning, Basic reproduction number is the target for Reproduction rate so could be appropriate here. The reason I am not !voting for that is that I don't think reproduction rate is regularly referred to as reproduction speed, and a Google search showed pages about photocopying, faxing, and sound and video reproduction all used the phrase reproduction speed before I found anything biological. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
With the perspective of a public health graduate student, I want to note that the basic reproduction number is how many people we expect an infected person to pass the disease onto, so reproduction speed, as opposed to a rate, is not an appropriate descriptor. When I use Google, the first five results describe the generation time of crops, generation time among baboons, generation time under asexual reproduction, bacterial generation times, and the generation times of large animals. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The Google results are odd. Clearly Google's algorithm doesn't think I am interested in biology. When I search for reproduction speed, 19 of the first 20 results seems to he about video and sound reproduction, which isn't at all a subject I spend time reading about.
I will certainly agree that the basic reproduction number not a measure of speed, but then of course it is also not a "rate". I was thinking what we might guess someone was most likely to be interested in if they searched or linked to reproduction speed. Given the diversity of answers we are finding in our searches, I still suspect we're unlikely to find a widely useful redirect target. Mgp28 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. This article (as written) is about data (not biology), literally a pair of definitions taken directly from a tertiary source. If we're looking at choosing disambiguation pages and unrelated topics for redirect targets, we're much safer nuking the page from orbit. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Zinedine Booysen[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best sources I found were two sentences of coverage here and four-ish sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think with the sources found and a few other bits in a search, it's close to a WP:GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. A few independent-ish sentences interspersed within an interview are not enough for SPORTCRIT or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: Since this article is verifiable per sources that the player exist and has appeared in few sources though not ready for WP:SPORTSCRIT, Why not redirect to Free State Cheetahs#Current squad. This will better save the total deletion of this game/sports I don't know much about but have seen many of the articles being deleted. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Courtesy pinging to @JTtheOG, @Rugbyfan22, @JoelleJay, and @Okmrman for the above comment. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not a fan of redirecting to current squads, as he could well not be in the next squad (I think his contract has just expired also). Realistically with the change in guidelines we need lists for teams like this, but I don't see there being the interest (given there's only a handful of rugby union editors left) in creating them, given the time required to do so. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    We can't redirect to the current squad since that will change. I think if everyone here agrees that there isn't GNG-level coverage of the subject, and no suitable redirect, then deletion is the only option. It's not like any info is being lost that wouldn't be recoverable from the current squad page history (i.e. that he was on the team in a particular year). JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Faria Sheikh[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  • This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    I wonder why the IP copied all the formatting for Mushy's signature? ;) Must be a fan.  // Timothy :: talk  12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, in a non promotional way. Sources in article are programming annoucements, promo, etc, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Max Silvestri[edit]

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

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

  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
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 [6]. 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 [7] 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)

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)

Sukaina Khan[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.
  • I acknowledge that she is an actress and has appeared in TV dramas, which naturally garners some media coverage. However, this interview alone ( a primary source) is definitely not sufficient to establish that she had significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing from neutral, independent, reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo material, interviews, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the complete lack of discussion since the 2nd relisting, this is less like a 3rd relisting (which, of course, it technically is) and more an extension of the 2nd listing. It would be good to have some other views because some of what has gone on so far seems a bit disruptive (not pointing fingers).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wilson, Indiana[edit]

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

Here we have a puzzle. There are two data implying that this a rail point. First, the label starts out right next to the tracks before drifting south on more recent maps, towards a string of houses on Rt. 60. Second, GMaps informs us that the name of the road that crosses the tracks at this point is named "Wilson Switch Rd." Against this I have, well, nothing, because searching is pretty much hopeless. The question is whether that string of houses is now known as Wilson or not, and here I draw a blank. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting one, partly because there seem to be multiple names associated with the same location. A 1908 map identifies the settlement as "Dallas", while others like this plat map show it as "Wilson". (An 1875 map gives it as "Wilson Station" and notes an accompanying mill.) When time permits I'll aim to check the local histories in more detail, but the fact that it's been consistently present on area maps for the last 150 years suggests it was at one point an actual settlement, so for now I think it's best to keep it. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Searching for just Wilson got me nowhere, so I tried Wilson Switch, and I got some interesting results. A 1973 story about sales tax called Wilson Switch a community of 300, but this 1991 story about the local landfill just refers to the locals as "Wilson Switch Road residents", as do later stories about landfill projects. Earlier mentions of Wilson Switch were mostly about car accidents or railway incidents in the area, which doesn't clarify much. Wilson is still on the latest Indiana state highway map, though I don't know how thorough Indiana is about vetting small communities. Not sure which way I lean on this one. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete I can still sleep at night if this is deleted. It's Rail station on the C., I. & L. (Monon) Railway [8], this same source explains that the post office was called Dallas. Lest we not forgot that old post offices were one word names, and were not required to share a name with their location. Huwmanbeing's observation that it is variously known as Dallas, Wilson's switch, and Wilson suggests it doesn't have a strong identity and that people were just referring to the landmarks as a way of being clear about locations. That book I cite above would use the place as a reference if it actually existed. Google snippets from this source [9] states the area around the switch was known as Dallas, and later Wilson, and is an "Unplatted village". I believe that source is just assuming that the place was called Dallas because of the post office at or near the train station. The name Wilson is almost certainly taken from the station, and post office was probably just that. The local paper only has mentions of for about 20 or so years starting 1942. Just life activities of people living near it. The satellite imagery would be very different if some sort population center had existed there in the twentieth century. Be careful researching it, it's not the only rail infrastructure with this name.James.folsom (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Quatuor Habanera[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Gary L. Coleman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Entirely unsourced but a single one that is a TV listing, not asserting notability either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  • The main article for the WNBA Finals also lists the television networks to broadcast the event in its Results section, but not the names of the commentators themselves. So the commentators could be added or merged to the main WNBA Finals articles as a secondary option. Otherwise, the list could be cleaned up or given additional context behind the media rights holders, such as NBC, who was the initial main WNBA television partner when it launched in 1997 as well as Lifetime, who was an early cable television partner. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    Had a check through the sources: as ESPN neld the rights, they are considered WP:PRIMARY as is WNBA. Some of these are about the game with the broadcasting being a tiny part, some are broadcasting schedules, some are announcements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Raphaël Bohren[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Azhar Mashwani[edit]

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

The subject evidently falls short of meeting WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't appear to satisfy the basic WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a SPA InamAleem990 (talk · contribs) and subsequently, the BLP was moved from the draft NS to the main NS. Much of the press coverage he received occurred during his detention, which may not be enduring enough to establish WP:N. Also see Draft:Azhar Qazi Mashwani. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  • KEEP. This, this, this, this, this indicates that the subjected person is notable in Pakistan as his kidnapping issue is widely covered by Pakistani media. If not a notable one, why too much outrage over his kidnapping issue? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    So as I mentioned in my nom. above, a significant portion of the press coverage he received stemmed from his detention/kidnapping but this is not be substantial enough to establish WP:N. Describing himself as a social media activist, it's understandable that his detention would attract some media attention. However, does this attention render him notable enough for a Wikipedia BLP? Likely not. Furthermore, considering that this BLP was created by SPA - possibly by the subject themselves and was created in a questionable manner by moving an unapproved draft to the main NS, we shouldn't consider its inclusion based solely on insufficient press coverage that fails to meet even basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Creation by SPA is another issue. You must take it to WP: SPI as you have accused the page creator as SPA. Being rational, I don't find any issue to entertain this AfD. Excuse me if I missed somewhere. Fair is fair. So we should come to the rational AfD discussion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    The coverage you're referring to was published in March 2023, coinciding with the subject's detention. According to our policy, individuals known solely in connection with a single event typically don't merit an BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. While none of the Keep !votes was able to present a coherent, P&G-based argument, after three weeks, there was still no support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 05:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hum News[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references on the page and i cannot locate any online that could be used to show notability. Appears to be one of many pages here to promote Hum Networks. Redirect to Hum Network could be an option as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the !vote although I find it highly suspicious. Regardless, you have just proven why this does not meet notability guidelines. Every single reference you provided falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and is NOT considered reliable. There is also no inherent notability for it being "one of the very few news channels that avoids sensationalism." Your arguments are more of WP:ILIKEIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, retain it for now; while this article lacks references, it's imperative to enhance it. Considering it's from a prominent news channel, deletion seems unwarranted.
Crosji (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you point out the policy based reason to keep the page? Keeping it because it is from a "prominent news channel" would be fine assuming the sources are there to support the assertion of notability. Unfortunately, they are not. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  • KEEP Sincerely believe this article is worth keeping because it's one of the major TV news channels in Pakistan. Although I understand it was nominated here because it was previously unreferenced. Took 4 of the above best newspaper references shown above, archived them and added them to the above article. Passes WP:GNG now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, none of those references show notability. This is about a correspondent, not the news channel. This is an announcement about an even that was organized by Hum Network Limited, NOT the news network. This and This are both NEWSORGINDIA and even if they were not, they would be considered WP:ROUTINE.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, this was not nominated because "it was previously unreferenced." Please do not misquote me. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note to closing administrator All of a sudden most reliable newspapers from Pakistan are being SLAPPED with the label NEWSORGINDIA on this AfD forum and accused of paid editing. Where is the evidence that they are!!! I strongly urge the closing administrator to take a look at the article itself to form an opinion...Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It isn't all of a sudden. NEWSORGINDIA has been in place for a while. You are also asking for a WP:SUPERVOTE instead of presenting references that are reliable. I am wondering why you brought up UPE though since I have made no mention of it here. Again, you seem to misquote me. Please stop. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Let's focus on the Hum News article which is the subject here. All the references are reliable at the article despite anyone's personal assumption and assertion that they are not. Without any evidence for NEWSORGINDIA here, we are all encouraged to 'assume good faith' by Wikipedia. It would be a waste of time for the nominator and I to engage in personal back and forth debate here...Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Wasn't focused on anything but until I read you misquoting me and saying I made an accusation which was not made. So, yes, let's focus on the "reliable" references here. Source assessment below. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Source assessment - Reviewing the sources on the page and those presented in AfD, they still do not show notability based on my assessment:--CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Dawn, falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and clear reprint of a press release – “The Hum Network Limited has announced……”
Profit, also NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and also a reprint of a press release. Notice it was posted within one day of the reference above which indicates churnalism based on an announcement from the parent network.
Daily Pakistan, also NEWSORGINDIA but let’s assume that it is reliable for a minute. It is an article that talks about television ratings of many networks and only has Hum News on the list with its ratings. Being included in a list is not significant coverage.
PM AWARD, promotional blog and the reference isn’t even live anymore (used the archive link).
Dawn, While Hum News is in the title, this is NOT about Hum News, it is about the parent company. It doesn’t even mention Hum News. It is related to this article about a takeover of the parent and even that article only mentions Hum News as being a part of the parent.
Dawn, Not sure why this was presented in the AfD as significant coverage. It is about a person who gave an interview on the network and not about the network itself. Brief mention and only verifies it exists. Verifiability is not notability.
Dawn, mentions Hum News in the caption only. Article is about someone who gave an interview on the network. Brief mention (if that) and not significant coverage.
So far we both are giving our views back and forth. That's why I said earlier above to let a neutral closing administrator look at the article itself...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Administrators weigh the strength of arguments that use policy based reasoning to vote. They do not review the page and make a supervote. My vote and comments are not my "views" or "personal assumption and assertion." You stated "Without any evidence for NEWSORGINDIA here, we are all encouraged to 'assume good faith'." I simply provided that evidence above based on your comment. Are you able to point out which one of those references I listed can be used towards notability? Or, if you can provide alternatives I would be happy to review and withdraw the nomination if they do show it. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Owen Buckley[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2) with a combined five-ish sentences of independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Undecided: Sufficient room for expansion, but not enough coverage in current state. Mn1548 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I was able to find this source, which I think is detailed enough be considered non-trivial, but it's a local media article, so it's pretty borderline. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Transactional announcements such as signings and trades are not considered in-depth sourcing, especially when most of it is in quotes. JTtheOG (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak delete I lean to delete as not quite meeting notability guidelines but will support the consensus of the group of editors. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Leinster Chess Leagues[edit]

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

The Leinster Chess Leagues article, and the articles I am combining in my nomination below that represent to tropies of the different leagues for the main article, fail the test of independent notability for each article and further, these articles are large WP:NOTDATABASE violations and full of WP:OR. This content would be better suited on the website of the organization and not Wikipedia as the pages often boil down to league rules and not secondary independent coverage.

Also nomintated for deletion:

Armstrong Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heidenfeld Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ennis Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O'Hanlon Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BEA Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O'Sullivan Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Branagan Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, Organizations, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I have written a reply in the Talk page attached to this article. If you cannot read that reply I will copy it here. With thanks, sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Comment. You should copy your reply here yourself. A closing admin may not (and is not necessarily expected to) search for comments placed outside the AfD discussion thread. You could consider leaving out the parts, of your comment, which are unrelated to the concerns raised in the AfD nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    @JohnPDLoughran are you associated at all with the Leinster Chess Leagues or any of their associated divisions? microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Dear Marcus, copying my reply here as directed. Please excuse me as I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was confused as to where to post it. Some of the help files are confusing and mention the Talk area as a way to respond. Can I ask, should I prepend this reply with something like {{MicrobiologyMarcus}}? Here is my edited reply and answer to your query.
    I was shocked to see that you were recommending the deletion of a large number of articles relating to chess in Ireland. These are valuable resources not only of current but also of historic interest, albeit to a small population of chess players. The Leinster Chess Leagues page links the different articles including one on the Armstrong Cup which I read with interest. It started in 1888 and may be one of the oldest such competitions in the world. The information in these articles is supported by two independent Irish chess history websites which are not affiliated to the Leinster Leagues. They quote many independent sources of information including newspaper articles, one written in 1888. If you delete these articles you will delete a valuable resource. Because the chess playing population is so small it is difficult to source more independent references, although I am continuing to work on this with collaborators, and I would be glad of advice on ways to improve this. Needless to say I am new to publishing in an encyclopaedia. One of the articles which first spurred my interest was the article on Chess in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
    Regarding my links with the Leinster Chess Union. Firstly I am a player on a team that competes in the leagues, and currently the chairperson of Skerries Chess Club. I have no official membership of the LCU. Our club pays them a small fee to participate in the leagues each year. While it is true that Skerries did win the BEA Cup one year, it was before I was a member, so I had no personal interest in writing that first article. I added the article on the Leinster Chess Leagues after that simply to link various articles on each league together, and to avoid duplication of material within each league article. The reason I wrote the article on the BEA Cup was that we were given it by accident. Because it was a cup which had been donated in 1972 and passed from club to club since then and miraculously survived I felt it was worthy of note, so I did quite a lot of research, still ongoing, to discover the winners each season and record them in the article as well as taking a picture of this, in my opinion, priceless artefact, before getting its base repaired. I am of course open to suggestions as to how to improve the articles (BEA Cup or Leagues article) but I would be deeply disappointed to see these articles disappear, even moreso if their deletion was to have a knock on effect of causing the deletion of other valuable articles, which I had no hand in writing, on the other Leauges: Armstrong etc. With thanks, yours sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: The two independent sources in the article are WP:BLOGS and are therefore not reliable. I was able to find a few brief news items in the Irish Independent: [18] [19], but it doesn't seem like quite enough on its own to demonstrate notability for the leagues, much less for the individual divisions. I would either redirect everything to Irish Chess Union#Team competitions or otherwise redirect/merge the divisions into the Leinster Chess Leagues article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I just saw that the blogs cited old newspapers. If these sources can be confirmed, the individual divisions might very well be notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


  • Given that there are several titles here to consider, my own recommendation is to:
  • Delete O'Sullivan Cup. This article, on the seventh (childrens?) tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient reliable sources to even support its text. Not to mind a claim to notability. Under any applicable criteria. (The article itself states that there aren't sufficient sources to establish what happened in relatively recent runnings of the competition. I mean, we're relying on this random picture to "guess" that the people (children?) pictured might have come third in 2015? Seriously?)
  • Delete BEA Cup. This article, on the fifth tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient sources to support its text. The author (within the text) states that there aren't even sources to establish who won the competition on any given year. That we reliant upon "reading the engravings off a cup" (and using that as a basis for content AND justification a stand-alone article) is a very clear indication that WP:SIGCOV is not met. By a significant margin. The thing (the cup) cannot be a reference for itself or represent coverage of itself. It's just backwards and bizarre.
  • Redirect Armstrong Cup, Heidenfeld Trophy and Ennis Shield. And maybe O'Hanlon Cup. Either to Leinster Chess Leagues (if that title is kept). Or to Irish_Chess_Union#Team competitions (if not). Similar to the above, I have significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the sources and content in those articles. And do not see any justification for the project being a WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST repo for previous winners of these amateur regional chess competitions. However, there is some limited coverage - to just about justify a redirect as an WP:ATD. And to mention the competitions WP:WITHIN the target article. For example, the Armstrong Cup is mentioned (almost always in passing and always/only in regional newspapers), in places like this, this and this. Which could justify covering it in either the Leinster Chess Leagues or Irish Chess Union articles. And perhaps leaving a redirect.
  • Weak keep Leinster Chess Leagues (or redirect to Irish_Chess_Union#Competitions). While I'm not swayed by the creator's arguments ("I'm shocked", "It's useful", "supported by 2x special interest websites"), there is a small smattering of limited coverage in some local sources. Like this, this and this or this. If kept, as a standalone title, the article needs significant work however.
My 2x cents anyway. FWIW. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Source assessment with many, many thanks to @Guliolopez for collecting a list of sources. I want to preface this by saying I am trying to be fair and impartial and stave off concerns that I am attacking a particular chess league or its members and, should the evidence arrive that any or all of the articles I nominated are WP:Notable, I will gladly change my vote. Please let me know, I would be happy to add to the following table. As it stands, I still believe the articles are a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE and would need to be reworked, but I am a big believer in WP:THREE. With that said:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:MicrobiologyMarcus
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Garden squad win promotion". Irish Independent. 4 April 2012. Yes Yes No coverage about a team winning a match to advance to the Ennis Shield, a part of Leinster Chess league, does not surpass trivial coverage of either of those subjects. ✘ No
"Chess Club". Irish Independent. 11 March 2009. Yes Yes ? I would evaluate this as significant coverage of the tournament/event, I don't now if I would consider that coverage to be of the league itself, or if coverage of this extent would be inherited to the organization, such to meet WP:NCORP ? Unknown
"Chess club wins promotion to division two after dramatic final round of matches". Irish Independent. 14 June 2023. Yes Yes No as the first, coverage is of a club with trivial mentions of Leinster Chess League and Ennis Shield ✘ No
"It's checkmate for local club at Leinster Finals". Irish Independent. 11 May 2011. Yes Yes ? I would say this may meet SIGCOV of Leinster Chess Championships, which again is not the leagues. The extend of the coverage of that in the article is The cup was first competed for as far back as 1912 and has been won by a distinguished list of top Irish chess players over the years. The rest is, as before, coverage of the tournament/event with the same inheritance concerns. ? Unknown
"Chess club move into history books". Irish Independent. 24 April 2003. Yes Yes No subject of the coverage is again a club with passing trivial mentions of Heidenfeld trophy and Armstrong Cup ✘ No
"Chess mates descend on Bray". Irish Independent. 17 March 2010. Yes Yes ? strongest argument for SIGCOV of the tournamentevent articles in my opinion, coverage of the 203-word article is split equally among the event and then between the season structure of Leinster Chess Union League ("The league begins in September every year and lasts until March.") and the history of Armstrong Cup ("...new owners of the infamous Armstrong Cup, which was first presented in the 1888-1889 league, therefore making it one of the oldest sporting competitions in Ireland.") ? Unknown
"Chess club has come a long way over 25 years". Irish Independent. 3 August 2005. No interview with a member club member Yes ? this is definetly SIGCOV of a club with probably acceptable mentions of Leinster Leagues ("...in the Leinster Leagues that run from September to March each year.") ✘ No
"Chess Club finally secure Ennis Shield". Irish Independent. 8 May 2002. Yes Yes No coverage of a club with mentions of the Ennis Shield, same inheritance concerns with all tournament/event articles, but even weaker argument here as the article itself isn't about the event. ✘ No
"Your weekly sporting club notes". Irish Independent. 3 October 2006. Yes Yes No trivial coverage of the tournament/event Heidenfeld Shield mentioned, nothing in depth about subject or organization ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would gladly add to the above table if sources are provided, or if you believe my assessment of any of the above are wrong, I would be happy to discuss. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Given all the sources and analysis done to date in the table, I feel the like strongest !keep argument would be to have a Leinster Chess Union League as that seems to be the most frequently used identifier of the WP:NCORP, but I think this would come down to how strong the passing mentions are of the leagues in the event coverage above, and whether the coverage of the event is WP:Inherited to the Chess Union League itself or not, and whether the coverage satisfies as significant; I'm leaning no, based on my reading of WP:SIGCOV:

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

but I would understand where this might be interpreted differently here. Given that, then all the other articles could be redirects (see WP:CHEAP) and the ones which are sourced by only event coverage could have their own sections on the main article. I think that would be the strongest possible argument for keep, however, given the current references. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
A chess blog website claims that newspapers such as the Irish Times and Irish Press have written some sort of coverage about the various leagues decades ago, e.g. for the Branagan Cup. I have no idea what this coverage looks like, whether it's also trivial, etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. With respect to WP:OFFLINE, I can't help but feel as if these were present and properly cited in the article, they would be suitable, but to mass copy and paste them into an article from their collection on the organisation's website feels less-than-inline with WP:V. Given the context of the page, I would suspect someone has gone back (probably very labouriously) to compile the records and statistics of the page, but I doubt they are significant coverage of the organisation itself in such a manner to establish WP:NCORP. They would, however, be suitable to cite the (probably WP:NOTDATABASE violation that is the laundry) list of past winners, in such a manner to satisfy WP:OR concerns—that is, the ones that cite news articles and not tweets. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • keep/merge my sense of the source analysis is we have enough coverage for the topic to have an article. I'm not sure which article title is best. We do have reason to believe there are offline sources too. For now I'd say keep Leinster Chess Leagues and merge the rest (a couple sentences at most for all but the Armstrong Cup) into it. I'm happy to take an expansive view of this article having coverage count that covers those various topics... Hobit (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lee Harris (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; not sure whether the rest qualifies as notable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Michael Breen (human rights activist)[edit]

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

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete: The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization. Only edits theyve made. And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right? Appears to be undisclosed COI. Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First? Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Mehak Malik[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBIO nor WP:NMODEL. Entirely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Snotbot/AfD%27s_requiring_attention&oldid=1064578135"