Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 17: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:18, 17 February 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 16	February 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kuderewszczyzna. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brzozowy Borek

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

Similar case as Czarnorzeczka, but it is a part of a village rather a full one. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the village this is part of. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's not clear what the suggested Redirect target is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz It should redirect to Kuderewszczyzna. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Almaty Metro. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avtovokzal

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

It isn't open, and with many of these projects, it is hard to know if/when they will. Possible merge/redirect to Almaty Metro or userify as WP:ATDs. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Almaty Metro until such time that sufficient secondary coverage can be established for the subject to have an independent article, with no prejudice against deletion if that is what others !vote for. I could not dig up any English language sources that discuss this subject explicitly (although there are mentions of other bus and metro stations with the same name in other countries). Further, Wikipedia is not a directory for every metro or subway station that exists (or is planned, but hasn't been built yet). MaterialsPsych (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only if unverifiable. Without speaking Kazakh it's extremely difficult to work out what coverage of this exists, but if it is verifiable that the station is planned to be constructed (or indeed is being or has been constructed) then it should be merged to the article about the metro or a list of station on the metro/line. If it's verifiable that it has been officially proposed or widely called for then again it should be merged. Only if unverifiable is deletion the appropriate course of action, but this needs attention from someone who can read Cyrillic (and ideally Kazakh). Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Almaty Metro unless someone can find sources to meet WP:GNG, right now it's just a WP:NTRAINSTATION. I also couldn't find any English language sources and agree that it needs attention from someone who can read Kazakh or potentially Russian. Shaws username . talk . 12:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Avtovokzal" is a transliteration of "Автовокзал", the Russian for "bus station". Trivia question: do you know the etymology of "вокзал"? This gets in the way of searching and it seems that it may have led the author of this article to misinterpret the source. However, don't take my word as gospel on this - it is nearly 50 years since I studied Russian. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Discussion over a possible Merge or Redirect can happen on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Church Youth Organization of America

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

It exists , but I couldn't find evidence of meeting WP:OG / WP:GNG. I considered a merge/redirect to Armenian Americans as the only real WP:ATD, but wasn't convinced this was appropriate in that article. Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks like a barely notable youth organization. I'm seeing some reliable source, independent reporting on the body from a variety of local sources. There's also extended coverage from Armenian-American-interest news orgs like the The Armenian Mirror-Spectator. Not enough for me to firmly !vote keep, but I'll dig deeper if I have the time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Would you mind providing these sources? QuicoleJR (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: Per above comment- there is hope for the article. Archives908 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failing to see significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Simply asserting sources exist is not sufficient. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found some coverage here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — I think the The Armenian Mirror-Spectator articles just push it over the edge to notability. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am on the fence as to whether the sourcing is sufficient to support an article but it is certainly enough to support a redirect to Armenian Apostolic Church rather than a straight delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miloje Šarčević

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

Played 5 minutes of professional football over a decade ago but has no other claim to notability. I found a passing mention in Radio Pozega but it's nowhere near enough for WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any guideline and is not eligible for Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Universities Debating Championships

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

Exists, but doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all sources are primary and most of them just say what country is hosting. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Roaring Twenties (band)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND r WP:GNG or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing. I really don't know why it was deproded. It is a bit of a puzzlement, since a notable band always makes an impact at any time in history, it is always recorded, even if its 100 years ago. It's not some writer, or a historian or playwright, may be so obscure that they are invisible. There is no coverage, no social media, nothing on fb, nothing on myspace, reliable source doesn't turn up anything, Gbooks has nothing, nothing in the open web or some fan wordpress site. scope_creep^Talk 14:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment The reason I deprodded this, as explained in the edit summary, was because my google searches were so filled with false positives that I was not, and still am not, confident that I would find true positives if they existed - especially given that the most obvious ways to exclude this hits about (other) bands that perform in the roaring twenties style would also exclude any hits about the band in question. Accordingly I felt deletion should not occur without the the subject being accorded the more in-depth look for sources that AfD provides over PROD. Additionally, the article claims coverage in sources that appear to be offline and which I don't have access to. In short, I don't know whether this band is notable, but I do know that it is impossible to tell either way from just a simple google search. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All these magazine are still available, Map in Scotland, God in the TV and Art Rocker here: [1] scope_creep^Talk 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's seemingly 0 coverage of this band online. While offline sources may exist, they're hard to verify because no article title or author has been provided. Also, they're all from Spring 2006 and notability should be WP:SUSTAINED. Their discography was seemingly limited to a rare release EP and a couple compilation albums which doesn't bode well for notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. There is disagreement about whether the sources are sufficient so I'm closing this as No Consensus rather than relisting this discussion. The fact that sources are not in English is okay, it just makes the search a bit more challenging. It would be nice if sources were moved from the discussion to the article but it's not mandatory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bela Duarte

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. She has been in CAT:NN for 14 years now, so hopefully we can resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think she is likely non-notable, which is unfortunate as she looks to be a good artist. Lots of passing mentions,perhaps promoting her work but nothing found in the WP:BEFORE which is substantial. Essentially a local artist. Fails WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
Comment- My Google search didn't bring what I can use to defend, maybe because some of the publications not in English, there is possibility of it being notable but I doubt with my search.Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure why the prior !voters have been unable to find sourcing. I found four SIGCOV obituaries without much difficulty:

"Morreu a artista plástica Bela Duarte". Expresso das Ilhas (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2024-02-14. – obituary in one of the largest newspapers of Cape Verde.
"Morreu a artista plástica Bela Duarte - Sociedade - Santiago Magazine". Santiago Magazine (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2024-02-14. – another obituary.
"Bela Duarte - Artista plástica da Modernidade de Cabo Verde - Vatican News". Vatican News (in Portuguese). 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-02-14. – obituary and audio profile.
"Faleceu "Bela Duarte", um dos expoentes máximos das artes plásticas". A Nação (in European Portuguese). 2023-06-21. Retrieved 2024-02-14.

Jfire (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: am not find any additional RS information to add to the article. No RS for biographical information, no sources for exhibition or collections. None of the information listed above has been added to the article. No birth or death dates. I don't understand Portuguese. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources adduced by Jfire above appear to be enough to support an article. While the first two look to be duplicates, there is enough coverage to work with. There is no requirement that sources be added to the article immediately nor that they be in English. In many cases, including this one a machine translation can go a long way in helping understand sources in a language one doesn't read.
During his[sic] artistic career, in addition to Cape Verde, he participated in exhibitions in Austria, Belgium, the United States of America, France, Italy and Portugal. She was distinguished with the First Class of the Volcano Medal, in 2010, and First Class of the Medal of Merit of the Republic of Cape Verde, in 2018. In a statement, the Ministry of Culture and Creative Industries says it received with a feeling of regret the news of the death of the artist-teacher, Bela Duarte; “An unavoidable figure in weaving, who leaves, but is eternalized in her Art”.
google translated from Expresso das Ilhas

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saikat Baksi

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

I don't think, subject passes WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Maharashtra. Macbeejack ☎ 13:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly Fails WP:NAUTHOR — QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NAUTHOR, no significant coverage in RS, all I could find was the ToI interview already cited (interviews are primary sources), and this obvious paid puff piece on Mid-Day [2]. Article creator is a blocked sockpuppet of a serial spammer. Wikishovel (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Schmidt (photographer)

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Successful career for notable projects, but notability is not inherited. No suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His website's about page conveniently lists a bunch of significant coverage.

De Stefani, Lucia (2015-11-19). "See the Photographers Behind Some of the World's Best Images". TIME. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
"Caught in the art". The Los Angeles Times. 2007-02-25. p. 67. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
Rosenberg, Karen (2006-10-12). "Show and Tell". New York Magazine. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
"Portrait of the Artist" (PDF). British Journal of Photography: 18–23. January 2007.
Lombardi, Lisa (July 2001). "Meet the new Portraitists". Photo District News. 20 (7).

Jfire (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references listed above seem to establish that he is an important photographer in his own right (not just by association with famous subjects he has photographed). There are at least three reputably published books of his work – which is also widely published in periodicals, exhibited and collected. As such, the article seems like one that should be kept and improved (perhaps by adding some of the above refs). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above points that the references listed suggest notability and the article could easily be improved. Editing84 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Strony

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an immense amount coverage particularly in organ magazines, reviews of other work, his work reviewed in at least two continents. The man has had a long career. Lots of GBooks refs. I think it needs a copyedit to remove the early WP:PRIMARY stuff and promote the WP:SECONDARY. He even has his own signature organ product line, organ review (physical instrument review) how it sounds, how it should sound (Never knew they did that). scope_creep^Talk 15:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Walt is an internationally known and highly esteemed classical and theatre organist. He has published arrangements, as well as an authoritative book on theatre organ registrations.

I don't know how to edit citations, but #6 should be:

Theatre Organ Journal of the American Theatre Organ Society, Vol. 54, No.1, January-February 2012, page 31.

21 should be:

Theatre Organ Journal of the American Theatre Organ Society, Vol. 54, No.1, January-February 2012, page 28. Wmcoale (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the keep above for accuracy and for brevity's sake. scope_creep^Talk 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Heaslip

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

Non notable author. Lacks independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This paywalled article on her 2020 book from NT News ("Tanya Heaslip to debut 'An Alice Girl' at Red Kangaroo Books") seems to be promising, but I'm mostly finding radio/podcast appearances (ABC: [3][4][5] and 6PR: [6]) and passing mentions (NT News and Books+Publishing). Bridget (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also found Eclectica Magazine's reviews of Alice to Prague (2019) and An Alice Girl (2020). Bridget (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good part of these articles from The West Australian [7] and The Times [8] talk about her experience at the School of the Air and also discuss her books. There's also a piece on An Alice Girl in a smaller newspaper, the Stock Journal [9]. Bridget (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 appears to be written by "STEPHEN SCOURFIELD and School of the Air alumni", so it's not independent. 6 is also a primary source that lacks independence because it's based on an interview with Heaslip in which she is liberally quoted. I don't have access to 7, but if it's a book review, that could contribute to meeting NAUTHOR, but I don't think NT News, Eclectica, and Stock Journal are enough. I also don't have access to the NT News source, but from its title, it appears to be a routine announcement. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS ^💬 13:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NAUTHOR and I haven't found enough significant coverage to meet GNG either. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thin covg and unconvincing notability claim. 128.252.172.14 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinco (company)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Might be a case of WP:COI. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Salopek Macbeejack ☎ 13:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Norway. Macbeejack ☎ 13:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional page, the organization is not notable per scope or independent coverage. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Salopek

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Might be a case of WP:COI. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinco (company) Macbeejack ☎ 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Norway. Macbeejack ☎ 13:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet ANYBIO / GNG. --BoraVoro (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Pavlović

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

Played 10 minutes of top level football before disappearing into the lower tiers and with no apparent evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. In my searches, I found a blog post in BB Glas, but it's about a goalkeeper who turned 17 in 2021 so clearly not the same guy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any guideline and is not eligible for Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czechoslovakia at the 1936 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Star Mississippi 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Blechschmidt

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG; person has/had never gained medal record. Google search come up with silly, random namesakes.

Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub. Interestingly, it states that this athlete "was a bobsledder of German nationality" but there is no statement whether he is dead or has/had German ancestry. The article even doesn't cite his place of birth!

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1936 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. FromCzech (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RotateRight Zoom

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any significant coverage. popodameron ⁠talk 17:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the 2009 AfD was closed as "No consensus", despite what I see as a rough consensus to delete. Today, evidence of notability for this esoteric old product is even harder to find. Owen× ☎ 15:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet GMC. Cinadon36 16:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung i627 Propel Pro

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

Hatnote since 2012 (!?), seems like there has been plenty of time to sort out the notability issues of this page. Does not appear to be a notable model unless someone can show the expected level of RS to meet the notability guidelines JMWt (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology. JMWt (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a larger list covering the series. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Do we really need over 600 articles on individual Samsung products?, still ongoing. BD2412 T 15:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets notability with reviews from CNET, Engadget, TechCrunch, and Windows Central. I have added them into the article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 21:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Fikri Boarding School

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

The boarding school existed, but it didn't satisfy WP:NORG. Searches show that the school existed, but nothing notable about the school has been shown. Some news articles that are cited in id-wiki showed how some students of this school survived a tsunami in Sunda Strait in 2018, but that didn't show any notability to the school. Other references in id-wiki showed the school won some awards but that didn't confer any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Islam, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is not much to go on in the article. No sources, and apparent low enrollment. However there are books mentions. The only one I could track down to start with is [10], which talks about "Sekolah Islam' schools and cites this school as one of two examples (although there is a long note about why this school is a Sekolah Islam and not a pesentrans). It says, inter alia, Pesantren Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School [is] known for producing top students who ace the national exams and win trophies in national and international competitions (see Figure 6.2). Figure 6.2 shows a trophy cabinet but it is not clear if this is their cabinet or that of the other school visited. There is more about high quality teachers, it is run by school management, and has a non traditional currciulum. The book doesn't say how big the school is, but I would put this down as one reliable secondary source that appears independent of the subject. We need multiple for GNG, but despite the parlous state of the page, I don't think this is a clear delete. I'll keep looking. Also please note the name used in this book "Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri" would be an alternative and search with or without "boarding". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another ref:

Salmon, Yoseph; Saefudin, Didin; Mujahidin, Endin; Husaini, Adian (8 February 2024). "Pengembangan Kurikulum Sekolah Islam Terpadu Tingkat SMP di Pondok Pesantren (Studi Lapangan pada Pesantren Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School Serang Banten)". Jurnal Global Ilmiah. 1 (6): 321–324. doi:10.55324/jgi.v1i6.50.

This one is about "Development of the Integrated Islamic School Curriculum at the Junior High School at the Islamic Boarding School (Field Study at the Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School Serang Banten Islamic Boarding School)". There are a lot of these, in fact. Scholar shows at least 10 such references I could post. It seems that a lot of people are looking at this school as an exemplar of islamic boarding schools and curricula. But there is also a question of whether there is some kind of promotion for this, and I note that few of the papers have any citations at all, and some are just preprints. Writing a paper is one thing, but not all papers are born equal. The school website tells me they have nearly 1000 pupils, and they also have a large staff. The various papers speak highly of the school, and even taking into account my caution regarding lack of citations of these, their own alumni pages and other pages seem to bear this out. If I was better versed in the culture and background I might have a stronger view, but on the basis of the evidence here, it is a large school, open for 25 years, studied in academic papers, mentioned in books and newspaper reports. It looks like a keep to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In contrast to the paucity of material on many schools put up in AfD this one does have coverage enough to satisfy the GNG. It seems to have been used as a model for research. ~~Another paper is here [11] (assuming it's this school) same name but identifies only the province, not an exact location.~~ Another here: [12]. Further coverage:[13] and here.[14] Rupples (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Re strike through: having read through this paper, I don't think it's of a standard to contribute to notability.Rupples (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMA Negeri 1 Purwakarta

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

The school existed, but a search on Google didn't show any notability that will pass WP:NORG. A search showed school's social media, a single news article about the problem in the school's admission system, but none showed any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ based on the number of research papers featuring the school shown in Google Scholar. They would together with coverage such as this, this, this and this likely amount to a GNG pass. Rupples (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've taken a closer look at some of the Google Scholar reports and I can't see anything of note with which to develop the article. Google Scholar has research reports for each of the 3 schools at this level in Purwakata. The one's I've looked at for this school are not helpful in establishing notability, and as there is no evidence of notability in the Indonesian wikipedia article on this school, I've struck my keep above. Rupples (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Gateway

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see various governmental documents but not enough independent secondary sources to show that could be added to the page to show how it meets the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per JMWt points- no references used at all, and doesn't have the potential sources to be deemed notable. Editing84 (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Brkljač

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

His professional career lasted all of 44 minutes and I can't find anything even close to meeting WP:SPORTBASIC #5 when searching in Serbian Cyrillic or otherwise. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Youprayteas (t • c) 11:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Association of Canada

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

Agree with the hatnote, I don't see the level of independent and secondary sources needed to show notability JMWt (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Piper (author)

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much on the page offered to suggest why this author is particularly notable or meets the inclusion criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Youprayteas (t • c) 11:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kuehne

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

No WP:RELIABLE/WP:INDEPENDENT source here has anything remotely close to WP:SIGCOV – some don't even mention Robin Kuehne. TLA (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources don't mention Robin Kuehne at all. Of the ones that do- The Psychology Today one is just brief mentions, the article is not about him, The Forbes one is brief mentions- and is a contributor piece anyway, The Spa Butler one mentions his name once, the Chalkboardmag one mentions his name once and is then an advert for a product. Editing84 (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sources in this article are just mentions without significant coverage so fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detachments (British band)

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a major overhaul of the article and added several references. There are plenty of reliable sources about the band out there, and more work can be done, but I have made a start. Deleting the article seems extreme. If people really don't think the band itself is notable, then what about renaming the article to "Bastian Marshal" (the vocalist and seemingly "leader" of the band)? And then making it about his work in general with this band and his other work as well, as it seems he has had a lot of involvement with music apart from just this specific band. Vontheri (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, if it wasn't obvious, my vote is for keep. Vontheri (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about sufficient independent coverage and reviews have been added to the article from sources such as BBC, The Guardian and Resident Advisor to get over the line and meet WP:NBAND. ResonantDis_tortion 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiana de Barros

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Studied at notable places, related to notable people, but notability is not inherited. Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources in the article are primary or don't even mention the subject. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Of the sources I found, virtually all were mentions of Fabiana de Barros in the context of her father Geraldo de Barros. WP:NOTINHERITED. Jfire (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for this article. It is a promotional article. I agree that the existing sources are weak or fail verification.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Technology Transfer Network

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. I may be missing something in Ukrainian or Russian. Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

Youprayteas (t • c) 11:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youprayteas, can you say more on why you think this article should be deleted? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No references, unclear notability for over 14 years as I see. Nothing added too. Youprayteas (t • c) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecha Love

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

This is borderline, but it doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG / WP:GNG. Reaching number 20 on a non-notable chart and some coverage doesn't quite make it. Suitable WP:ATD could be merge/redirect to album or artist, but I am not sure if the title is unambiguous enough. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wakelin

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. It could merge/redirect to his wife, Tia Carrere, but I am not convinced it would be appropriate. Claims to notability seem to be be married to and working with and on notable people and projects, but notability is not inherited. Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Photography, United Kingdom, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Housing Conference

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the generic name makes searching difficult. Google Scholar and Google Books do show fairly regular references to the NHC in academic work, and occasionally studies they have sponsored or hosted are cited. There is not a ton of in-depth coverage of the organization, but there is some, especially with regards to their 1931 founding, work in the 30s, and their founder, Mary Simkhovitch (example and especially example 2). —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There are plenty of sources under the former name of National Public Housing Conference. Here's a findsources for that so you can see what I mean:

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

Central and Adams (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Star Mississippi 21:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Labs

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

Subject does not meet WP:NCORP. Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Singapore. Macbeejack ☎ 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said elsewhere, I added categories to it and linked to it elsewhere on Wikipedia. That should satisfy two criticisms.

Besides that, it's worth pointing out that the three sources are major outlets. It's not quite scientific, but that seems like it establishes a reasonable basis for being notable. It's also supported by major investors, although I didn't add those in - not yet, anyway. I'm debating in my mind how to do it without being promotional.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ar-glasses-multimodal-ai-nets-140019767.html#:~:text=Since%20its%20inception%20in%202019,at%20Y%20Combinator%3B%20and%20others. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes at least WP:NPRODUCT, and probably WP:NCORP. Besides the Forbes (staff) and Axios articles already cited, The Verge [15], South China Morning Post [16]. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both The Verge and Axios weren't really about the company but the Forbes and South China Morning Post pieces are good and seem to satisfy WP:NCORP. Editing84 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references provided to date all rely entirely on interviews/quotes from company officials and other information provided by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akari Saho

AfDs for this article:

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

Could possibly merge/redirect to Up Up Girls Kakko Kari but it could unbalance that article. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual. Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make more sense if all members of the group (current and former) had at least a small bio section, if it were to be merged. Then maybe it would be slightly unbalanced but not so terribly much. It wouldn't be that hard to at least include their basic info and other accomplishments, because a lot of them have appeared in various media before, which could fill out a general "members" section.

Just my two cents as a fan of Akari and the group, but not really an active editor.

Yamakirisei (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage to establish notability within the article. Clearly a notable person, for example, could quickly find two pieces of coverage about her recently getting a black belt in karate [17] [18] [19]. Scant evidence of a WP:BEFORE search including Japanese sources not just English. DCsansei (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there does not seem to be WP:BEFORE ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SIGCOV in Japanese media. She was ^afairy 09:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File Commander

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Lachenkov

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

Non-notable blogger. Кронас (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Кронас (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is he “non-notable”? СлаваУкраїні 10:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a close one. The best sources I could find are probably [20] and [21] which are pretty basic. Most other sources are interviews or passing mentions. On the other hand, even a passing mention in The New York Times is pretty impressive for a Ukrainian blogger. He is also the most popular news blogger for young Ukrainians according to a UN sponsored study. Having an article on him improves Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Next time, please include a more substantial deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and question: the Uk article looks substantial. Can the text and cites be translated and added? Bearian (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of sourcing is written in ukrainian, but per Eluchil404 there is sufficient sourcing that relatively meets notability. She was ^afairy 09:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Richards (disambiguation)

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

A clear case of WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Bhargava

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

fails WP:GNG B-Factor (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Andhra Pradesh. B-Factor (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails all notability guidelines. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a newly created article, if it closes as Soft Deletion, it will be quickly restored. So relisting for a few more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Career civil servant, article supported by routine announcements of his postings. I believe multiple AfD outcomes demonstrate that such subjects are not notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Pinto

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

fails WP:GNG B-Factor (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Bands and musicians. B-Factor (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is from a single-purpose account and was probably written by self or supporter for promotional purposes. Under WP:NMUSICIAN his homemade music hobby is nowhere close to notable. Under WP:NAUTHOR he does not meet the requirements for "well-known work" or "significant critical attention", because beyond basic retail and promotional listings his books have not received any pro reviews or commentary that I can find. Also note that there are several other people of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very newly created article. If this is deleted as a Soft Deletion, it will be restored quickly. So, let's try relisting it for a few more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find anything to establish notability for Pinto or really any coverage at all of him or his works. I found some general primary source hits and some junk hits, but nothing that would actually be usable for notability purposes. This seems to be your run-of-the-mill self-publishing creative who has not gained any mainstream attention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Thomas Crowther (ecologist). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restor

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

Do not meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. B-Factor (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Switzerland. B-Factor (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Crowther (ecologist). The reliable sources cited don't mention Restor, and the best actual coverage is probably in connection with the Earthshot Prize nomination, but none of it is really WP:SIGCOV. Verifiable enough, and enough mentions, to have at the section in the founder's page. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Crowther (ecologist) per A412. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Kumar G.B

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

Fails WP:NPOL B-Factor (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Karnataka. B-Factor (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not yet elected to any office, and I can only find routine coverage of his candidacy for secondary coverage. Most of this article is about his business career, and again I can't find substantial secondary coverage of him as a businessman per WP:BIO. Wikishovel (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. There is no coverage on the subject's biography or background or early life. All the sources are about him as the founder of InsightsIAS and his viewpoint. There are also inessential and unreliable sources on this page. One of the source comments "Another UPSC Mentor, Vinay Kumar G B found the Mains GS - 1 paper quite relevant and interesting" and this source has been unnecessarily linked to founder. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a full fledged article on himself. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardi (lecturer)

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

Do not meet WP:GNG. B-Factor (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Indonesia. B-Factor (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are five sources I haven't included that could prove he's notable. It's just that I'm feeling lazy at this moment, maybe could u move it to draft first instead of immediately deleting it? SoilMineo39 (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SoilMineo39, if you can demonstrate notability, then now is the time to do so. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPROF and WP:BIO. Not yet notable, but best of luck to him with his commendable charity work. Wikishovel (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF. The sources listed in the article have passing mentions, but little more; I also have concerns about the reliability of the publication venues. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Servoy

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any reliable sources providing significant coverage on this. popodameron ⁠talk 03:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as far as I can tell, the product fails NSOFT, and the company of the same name fails NCORP. Owen× ☎ 15:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Palmer

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

Unnotable. A BEFORE search only shown her self-published profiles. Additionally, her only claim to notability, a book which criticized Peter III, has no sources documenting it. ''Flux55'' (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ''Flux55'' (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Germany, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - before this article was nominated for deletion, a source from Welt in the External links section references the book: Kiel bekommt ein Denkmal für den umstrittenen Zaren Peter III. (21.02.2014) "„Peter III war ein progressiver Herrscher, der durch wirtschaftliche und soziale Reformen das feudale Russland aus seiner mittelalterlicher Starre in die Moderne bringen wollte“, sagt die Journalistin Elena Palmer. Am Rande: Auf Basis ihres Buches „Peter III." (Google translate: "“Peter III was a progressive ruler who wanted to bring feudal Russia out of its medieval rigidity into the modern age through economic and social reforms,” says journalist Elena Palmer. By the way: Based on her book “Peter III."). There also appears to be a source in sh:z about Palmer and her work/book: Wer war Peter III. wirklich? (07.06.2013) but this is subscription/payment-blocked. Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is also a section on the article talk page opened in 2020 with a list of suggested sources, including Volksstimme (17.06.2014), mentioning "Um diese jüngste Bewertung des Zaren aus Kiel hat sich vor allem die Autorin Elena Palmer mit ihrem Buch "Peter III. Der Prinz von Holstein" verdient gemacht." (Google translate: The author Elena Palmer made a great contribution to this latest assessment of the Tsar from Kiel with her book “Peter III. The Prince of Holstein”. Beccaynr (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable at this time. Maybe in the future. Fails GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google news search comes up with namesakes and no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ignacio

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

Can't see how this person is notable. Has won some routine competitions. The article suggests he's won big international tournaments, but simply hasn't. Didn't have the sort of coverage to meet WP:GNG in my WP:BEFORE Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Polly Had a Dolly

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

Contested prod. Original nomination rationale, which I agree with, was: Unsourced aside from a personal blog. If this nursery rhyme is as historical as claimed, there should be ample sources verifying that it isn't just made up. Jfire (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source (see "Children's Column" in the link provided) from 1871 that appears to have published an early version of this nursery rhyme. It’s also in this children's songbook from 1970—there are numerous indications it is likely historical, though popularity seems to explode mainly around the 1990s, just from a cursory overview of Google Books.

Someone else would need to fix the article, though—I googled this quickly out of curiosity, because I have a young child and (unfortunately) hear it constantly, but I do not have any more time to give to this task.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more references. This is notable and well sourced 84.78.242.197 (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are much more sources than when the PROD was initiated. Seems notable also. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable only if there are reliable sources that discuss it in detail. So far, the only sources in the article lyrics sites, content farms, and database entries. User:Hermes Thrice Great found some marginally better sources above, but they still do not cover the topic in depth. They aren't enough to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take a look a the newly added references. There are even references to the history of the rhyme. 90.167.203.25 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none of these sources help establish notability.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.mamalisa.com/?t=es&p=2359		Self-published website		✘ No
https://www.classical-music.com/articles/miss-polly-had-a-dolly-lyrics			Lyrics and a couple sentences saying it is a nursery rhyme of unknown origin	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/school-radio/nursery-rhymes-miss-molly-had-a-dolly/zbjcy9q			Lyrics only	✘ No
https://nurseryrhymecentral.com/miss-polly-had-a-dolly-nursery-rhyme-lyrics-history-video-lesson-plans-more/		Self-published website	~ Some coverage, but may be machine generated	✘ No
https://www.vedantu.com/poems/miss-polly-had-a-dolly	? Dead link	?	?	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20090201105833/http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/missmolly.htm		~ Government site, unknown author	Lyrics only	✘ 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}}.

Jfire (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I took my time to add more reliable, secondary sources. At least the nominator @Jfire should know that a nursery kids song like this should be notable regardless of insufficient sources. I made my research and I can see over 50 to 100 million views per video on YouTube for this song, it has also often received features on BBC radio. This topic is very NOTABLE. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my source assessment. Like the previous sources, these do not help establish notability.

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/kids/english/kids-songs-nursery-rhymes-baby-songs-miss-polly-had-a-dolly-kids-nursery-rhymes-in-english/amp_videoshow/73904230.cms	Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/arts/television/cocomelon-moonbug-entertainment.html	Single passing mention	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/kids/english/nursery-rhymes-in-english-children-songs-children-video-song-in-english-miss-polly-had-a-dolly/videoshow/90220581.cms	Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0dzc48c/cocomelon-stories-176-miss-polly-had-a-dolly?seriesId=p09jn536&page=5	Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme	✘ 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}}.

Jfire (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for consensus. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If it's in the Roud Folk Song Index it's notable. Also, while some of the new sources are sketchy there are sufficient good ones to meet GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer evaluation of the newly added sources to see if they meet GNG and SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, and the latter table analysis is wrong as BBC and Times of India are reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the BBC is a reliable source for news reporting (WP:RSPBBC). That doesn't mean that when BBC School Radio posts content for children that recites a nursery rhyme, that means that the nursery rhyme is notable.

Regarding Times of India, there is actually no consensus that it is a reliable source for Wikipedia, even for its news reporting. See WP:TOI. But again, we're not talking about news reporting, we're talking about an affiliated infotainment site posting videos for kids which recite the rhyme. Such sources make no significant contribution to meeting the GNG.

To demonstrate notability, we need reliable sources that go beyond merely using the rhyme in a video for children, for instance by discussing the origin or history of the rhyme. As far as I can see, nobody has located this type of source. Jfire (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Central and Adams. Current sourcing is sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agra (given name)

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

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME as having no Wikipedia articles about people with the name, and having failed NNAME fails WP:GNG as having no WP:SIGCOV and having hardly any reliable sources outside of simple databases. It might even fail WP:NOTDICT. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only information is that a few hundred people have that name. The only person listed is redlinked. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication this meets the WP:NNAME, with a lack of coverage either in the article or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, namecruft. Geschichte (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NNAME. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in the article are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. A few mentions in databases, calendars and frivolous sources of questionable reliability does not seem to indicate notability. And the sources you added are about the person listed, so I don't see how they contribute towards notability of the name itself. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. To be honest, I'm not sure how to carry out "Delete and Merge". I think you have that backwards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling, Virginia house explosion

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

Copying from a previous nomination template:

I am skeptical of the notability of this event under Wikipedia's guidelines for event notability. The inclusion criteria notes traits related both to the event itself and to the coverage of it:

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. While it is too early to tell for certain, there is no reason to believe that this event serves as a catalyst for anything broader.

Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The effect of this event is localized to one block of one neighborhood, plus those nearby who heard and felt the explosion.

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The coverage is limited to a discussion of the events themselves.

Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. So far only one domestic news source has been cited, largely following the pattern of simply restating events according to investigators and eyewitnesses as they occurred.

Borgenland (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has yet to be demonstrated as a notable event, and Wikipedia is not a news service. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Houses explode sometime, it happens. I haven't even heard of this town and I live in Virginia, so it's unlikely to have any sustained coverage or ramifications. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a simple WP:NOTNEWS case here, and I'm really tired of these obvious cases being based on generic wire reports; build articles from local sources first and go from there. Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS greyzxq ^talk 15:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm actually the one who wrote out the nomination language that Borgenland used, and I agree that it applies here as well. I suspect that people don't realize how common home explosions are (not so common that the average person would experience one in their lifetime, but common enough that a few of them happen in the United States alone each year). When I set up a news alert for the house 2023 explosion in Arlington, VA, I got a lot of articles about home explosions in other states as well that had happened since then. It's dramatic, but that does not make it newsworthy. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 00:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to instead suggest Delete and Merge into Loudoun County Combined Fire and Rescue System#Notable Incidents. Within the context of the LC-CFRS, the incident actually is notable as possibly the single worst incident by casualty count for its members. A quick search actually does not turn up any other line of duty deaths for Loudoun County firefighters, and the large numbers of injuries in addition to the death does raise the degree of notability. That said, the notability of this event is relative to the LC-CFRS, and so it likely does not merit its own article. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 01:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefania Donica

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG after searching w/ both of her surnames. Not to be confused with the "relationship expert" of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Wenliang (disambiguation)

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. Already taken care of by a hatnote. PROD removed due to it having been PRODed in the past. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Disambiguations, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER, specifically: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed. I don't see a need to have this DAB page, when the hatnote serves appropriately. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom; WP:ONEOTHER. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 22:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. since there is a promise to revise the article to current WIkipedia standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on mixed script and hangeul exclusivity

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

This article presently seems like a pure personal essay with many dubious suggestions and claims, and moreover a pure WP:TNT case. I am pretty sure its subject is notable, but it cites almost no sources, and the ones it does cite only tangentially or ephemerally relate to the claims it makes. Since it likely requires some working knowledge of Korean to rewrite this article into any adequate state, and its value is presently purely negative, I suggest deletion for now. Remsense诉 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Korea. Remsense诉 06:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how bad it is, I Support deletion, or at the bare minimum, draftification. ''Flux55'' (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. The subject is definitely notable, but the article's bad.

For notability, if anyone wants I can pull up sources, but hopefully it's evident why changing the standard Korean writing system was seen as a big deal. Debate involved nationalism, Korean independence activism, and practical linguistic concerns. IMO the debate went on for around a century; it only really died down in the 1990s. toobigtokale (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, and that's why I flinch so much nominating it—but the very fact that it's an important subject means it's a problem that the article is presently in such a state, and I do not have the expertise to properly fix it. Remsense诉 08:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article several years ago when I was several years younger and therefore (only slightly) stupider than I am now. I have gained a lot more legitimate expertise on the topic now to probably be able to write a legitimately good article on it and could do so if you would like. The original is very charged and highly opinionated. I agree, is not well suited for this website. Zgw3kszo (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this cordially, I appreciate the good faith. I would appreciate the opportunity to read another revision of this article. Remsense诉 06:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear that. Should I just revise the existing article? Zgw3kszo (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from me as well for the dialogue and offer to revise. Yes, if there's a guarantee of significant revision, I'm happy to vote keep, and I think others would vote to keep as well. toobigtokale (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to revise it into a far better article. What kind of timeframe should I aim for? Zgw3kszo (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a native Korean speaker, I will try what I can do with it. The article itself is definitely notable, and I think it most of its issues are susceptible to revisions. 00101984hjw (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. I think the article still has some hopes of being revised into a decent article. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'll try my best to find additional sources and copywrite the text. 00101984hjw (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the edits that are now being done to the article. I often run into relevant information about this debate; I may add my own copyedits and details at a later point too. toobigtokale (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (WP:G3) by User:Bbb23. (non-admin closure)‎ Jfire (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Codex coemeterium

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

De-prodded article. Original PROD reason, by Pallidus-leo: This codex almost certainly does not exist. No evidence for it's existence predate this wikipedia page and none of this pages sources refer to it in any way.

I seconded the PROD: The manuscript index catalogue of the Czech national library is here: https://www.en.nkp.cz/collections/by-document-type/historical-book-collection/manuscripts-and-incunabula/rukopisy-en. There is no "sb" shelfmark.

Declined by Kvng, reason: Deletion contested, PROD is for uncontroversial deletions asilvering (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suspect the other creation by User:Lucien Astor, Ordo Secreta Sapientiae, is a hoax as well. Jfire (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking out the sources in the article, it turns out that they only support the parts of their respective sentences that are not about this subject. Neither of them say anything about the claimed subject.
But what stopped me looking for serious sources was turning up a WWW forum post made by someone with the name Lucien Astor stating that xe had invented this as a piece of performance art where xe and two others pretend to be psychics for corporate entertainment, apparently another magic trick that xe was selling to people. And xe put it as a hoax in Wikipedia, ten months after posting that, it seems.
This is not only a hoax, it is a hoax for commercial purposes, intended to support someone selling decks of gimmicked cards.
Uncle G (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, a successful prod results in WP:SOFTDELETE. That is not an appropriate outcome for a WP:HOAX. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Hoax created as part of a magic trick. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went ahead and called for speedy deletion since it was blatantly a hoax. Someone can close this AfD now. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Dewan

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

non-notable, inflated promotional User4edits (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... Looks fine. More than a trivial mention in sources. Meets general notability, though the article could do with adjusting prose and replacing some references. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and West Bengal. User4edits (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A more solid deletion rationale would have been welcome. Right now, we need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is mostly promo, with lots of non-notable awards listed, website refs, etc. 128.252.172.14 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on a review of sources in the article and a search for sources, there does not seem to be significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Multiple sources also seem promotional; for example, Kanika Dewan: Meet the diva who designed floors of IGI's T3 terminal (Economic Times, 2013) is interview-based and seems to be promoting the business she 'vertically integrated' with her family's mining company, e.g. to "capitalise on the exclusive availability of exotic marbles and granite." Girl power (India Today, 2010) is primarily interview-based. Guinness World Record holder Kanika Dewan has done projects for Sultan of Oman, for Roman Abramovich, airports in India (American Bazaar, 2014) is an interview that begins with a brief summary overview of several projects. Larger than life (Khaleej Times, 2011) is about the Guiness World Record for the marble mosaic portrait, with quotes and recollections from Dewan. 'Corruption, contract enforcement major hurdles for ease of business' (Business Standard, 2016) is a report on a "discussion round in a session titled ‘India Means Business’, at the India Economic Summit, jointly organised by CII and World Economic Forum" that briefly covers what she discussed about corruption. 4 Indians make it to World Economic Forum global leaders list (Business Today, 2016) is a mention of her being listed without specific detail, and the Economic Times announcement is similar. In the non-independent source of Dewan's alma mater's Wharton Magazine, Dewan is quoted in 2019 saying "my zero tolerance to corruption in India finally paid off and I earned a reputation for whistle-blowing against bribery, within my industry, on a national level" but I have not otherwise found support for article content that describes Dewan as a campaigner against corruption. Overall, this seems WP:TOOSOON to develop a neutral and balanced article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. BusterD (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbar Ghelich

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSINGER. No indication of notability or coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to denote notability. nearlyevil 665 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This person is not only because of his activities in the field of music, but also as the presenter of a program on Iranian television that was simultaneously broadcast on two national channel 2 [22] and Nasim TV [23], and was also welcomed. It can help to find more comprehensive information on the Internet. In addition, his program was not segmented and had 30 episodes and was a complete television program. And in Iran, he seems to be one of the popular presenters.Google Trends Search -- Meyboad (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be omitted

Hello, as an Iranian wiki writer, I do not know this gentleman, and he is not known among Iranians either. And the sources mentioned are not enough, also the sources are personal blogs. Adolfzl64 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Adolfzl64, I have no role in the article's retention or deletion, and I express my opinion as the author of this article.

I have extracted the sources of the article from reliable sites such as Iran's official TV channels [24][25], Tabnakjavan news agency and Iran's official IRIB news agency.In addition, I have included the music of the TV programs that this person was the singer of, from the main archive of Telewebion.[26] And I don't know which of the news are from the blogs that you are saying this. If I have included a blog as a news source, please let me know so I can correct it. Meyboad (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio of the Islamic Republic does not have a public audience. It is not valid because no one else is watching except for people like singer Mullahs and... And the government media has no credibility. among Iranians and the world. A media that proudly promotes war, bloodshed, lies and demagoguery, and the lack of women's rights and the LGBT community. There is no media that can give fame to a madah. Adolfzl64 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is mixed with politics, while Wikipedia's rules emphasize an unbiased opinion. It is written in the WP:NSINGER: A singer who performed the music of a television program that was broadcasted nationwide can be qualified as an encyclopedia. I have also created it according to the rules. Besides, you said at first that the sources are from blogs, but now you say that Iranian TV is invalid! So why didn't you explain the problem you made to the sources? Meyboad (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Nik Salehi and Tabnak Javan are independent and official news agencies? Performing a eulogy and music for a television program of the Islamic Republic It is interesting that dictators are praised. Adolfzl64 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TabnakJavan has been operating independently as a Persian language news website since 2018, and a large number of Persian Wikipedia sources are also from this website, and it has a standard news process and an editor.[27] (I don't know which faction or political front he is connected to).

Nik Salehi is one of the most visited and old Iranian websites that publishes the biographies of famous Iranian people, and I only quoted the biographical part from this website.

However, I found more reliable sources from Mehr News Agency [28], Young Journalists Club [29], Borna News Agency [30] and ISNA News Agency [31], which are all official news agencies, and I will add these sources to the article. And thank you for making me find better and more reliable sources for the article. Meyboad (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG as I see it, I also have suspicions about it being an UPE article. Tehonk (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we focus on the sourcing including examining the new sources that have been added over the course of this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz there's a consensus for delete here with 3 delete votes, there's no keep other than the article creator, who will be blocked soon as a sock after I post my SPI, so this will be a G5 eligible too after all, I mean there's no need for these relists really. Tehonk (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. But I'd like to make two comments in this closure. "Fancruft" gets used a lot in AFD nominations but according to WP:FANCRUFT, which is an essay not a guideline, it can be seen as pejorative comment and is not grounds for deletion.

Secondly, I sense a perception that Doctor Who articles are somehow protected by the relevant WikiProject but as a regular AFD closer, there were dozens and dozens of DW-related articles nominated in 2023, some for companions, and they almost all closed as "Delete" even though the WIkiProject was notified of the discussions. I remember one day when about 50 Doctor Who articles were all nominated for deletion and we had to ask for renomination of some because it was just too many articles for editors to evaluate in a week. So, there was a big clearing of the project of many less important articles on the TV series and books. I'm sure even more could be done, especially merging content but I just want to say that nominating a Doctor Who article is far from an automatic Keep decision. That's all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companion (Doctor Who)

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

Primarily fancruft. Though this article is extensively footnoted, a closer look reveals the sources as officially licensed, in-universe material with few to no RS, thus failing SIGCOV. In addition, each companion has their own standalone article, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. (Whether each companion deserves their own article under WP:NOPAGE is another discussion, which may well become part of this one.) My attempts to rectify the problems of this article have been reverted, with discussion stonewalled and talk page comments censored. It's possible the individual Companion articles could be merged into this one and/or turned into a WP:LIST. Either way, something needs to be done and I haven't made any progress on my own, so here we are. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your concerns about this article are valid, but it's a highly notable topic. A move to List of Doctor Who companions or similar may be appropriate, and further improvements would certainly be welcome, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Also note that some companions do not have their own articles, with some such as Katarina (Doctor Who) deleted in recent months as they're not independently notable. That move arguably gives this article more purpose. U-Mos (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been said above (and numerous times in previous discussions, both in the talk page and Dispute Resolution), your concerns are valid and there are definite issues with the article. But it is a notable article and deletion is not the way. There have been numerous requests for suggestions on how to improve the article with constructive edits, but by and large the suggestions that have been provided call only for deletion, whether of content or the article as a whole. Your opinion not being agreed with is not the same as being "stonewalled". The outcome of the DRN was for the filing editor to post these concerns in either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, and then potentially to file a Request for Comments in order to discuss and to get opinions from the community on what is needed to be deleted, changed, reworded, better sourced, etc. As far as I can see - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - this has not been done. Could it be clarified why the filing editor has escalated to AfD before going through the measures suggested by a moderator after extensive discussion and feedback from multiple editors? Irltoad (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username I would also be curious as to your answer to the above final question. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to answer. As I've said from the beginning of this whole kerfuffle, most of the issues with this article result from its having been written "by fans, for fans," as the saying goes. (I'm guessing it's a holdover from an earlier iteration of WP where notability standards were looser and WP was explicitly pop culture-focused.) If you go to the Dr. Who project, all you'll get will be more Dr. Who fans. Bringing it to AfD and raising the issues of standalone notability, duplicative material, etc. will get more eyeballs on this article and hopefully bring forward a much broader consensus. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, when advised to not go for the deletionist point of view, you decided that instead of discussing it further, you'd go for the deletionist point of view once more. Unfortunately this hasn't seemed to work for you, since there is a clear consensus forming here. Is there a reason why you have not attempted to improve on the article at all? -- Alex_21_TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several attempts, all of which got reverted in short order, which is why we're here.

And I don't think there's any doubt about my being an unabashed deletionist. It's right there on my userpage for all to see. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply an admittance to the desire to not improve articles. It's clear the majority of editors are against that opinion here. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having trouble collaborating with other editors is not grounds for deletion. Current state of the article is also not grounds, as deletion is not cleanup. The thing that matters at AfD is whether sources exist that talk about the subject of the article, specifically and in detail (see WP:NEXIST). There are certainly sources that discuss the role of the companion on Doctor Who — for an entire book on the subject, see Who Travels with the Doctor? Essays on the Companions of Doctor Who (McFarland, 2016). Toughpigs (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. My argument echoes those of above editors. There are significant sources that discuss this topic in depth just from a simple search, and the current state of the article is not grounds for deletion, as AfD is not cleanup. This article needs substantial work, yes, but the article should be improved by other editors instead of deleted. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No valid policy has been quoted to supports its deletion; this editor's issue with the article are over their own conduct, not the content. No attempt at a civil discussion has been attempted. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge I don't agree that a content fork can be fixed by the mere existence of sources. But that doesn't necessarily mean editing, either. If there isn't support for a merge here, I would at least agree with User:U-Mos that a move to List of Doctor Who companions would clarify the scope. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that there's already a List of Doctor Who companions article, this appears more redundant than ever. Anyone want to discuss merging as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link is just a redirect to the Companion page that we're talking about. Toughpigs (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you intending to merge? Can you explain how you'd merge an article with a redirect? What about the redirect makes this article redundant? Or did you not actually view the article you linked? -- Alex_21_TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep See previous discussion(s). Again, it can be improved. So, improve it. I've tried to be nice about this, but here's the bottom line: quit *whining* about it and do the work to improve it if you're serious. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the work. You just didn't like what I did. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the difference between recent edits (careful deletion of unnecessary detail, along with justifications for such) and the ones which sparked this discussion (sweeping removal of entire sections due to "Excessive detail"). Evidently, the consensus here is that there is excessive detail and fancruft in the article, but that there is also plenty of encyclopaedic value that warrants more care than that. No one would take issue if you looked for sources where they are needed and only deleted content that genuinely contravenes WP:NOR or WP:NOT. At no point have you actually attempted to fix the problem. If there is excessive detail, you could remove the detail instead of the entire section. Irltoad (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is excessive detail. It's in-universe and sourced from the show itself. Moreover, the same information is duplicated in each companion's individual article. This should be a general interest article about the concept of the Companion as a whole with an emphasis on real-world discussion, not just a reiteration of Dr. Who lore. As my tag suggests, what's there now may be of great interest to fans of the show, but we're not here for them. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Irltoad here. These sections are very iffy and fall under excessive detail, but you've made no effort to improve the article. You deleted swathes of information and put in nothing of substance that actually would improve it, arguably leaving it worse off than it was before. No one would have said anything if you had axed those sections but instead replaced it with paragraphs of Reception or Analysis of the role of Companions in the show, all properly sourced and cited. Your edits provided no benefit, and you then took it to AfD solely because you had a disagreement with other editors about this. These are consistently bad faith actions. I respect your effort to try and improve a middling article, but your efforts right now have proven disruptive, and I'd suggest taking the advice of other editors on what to do when it comes to improving it in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all the time spent complaining about the article actually equalled actions to improve it, the article would be a lot better already. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is WP:DEADHORSE and WP:NOTHERE. JACU, you have no consensus here, your arguments have no support. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly significant and obviously meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Software

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't believe this holds up to the general notability guidelines. It reads like an ad/catalog and doesn't have any news or scholarly articles (or anything at all, really) that I could add to save it. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable SME; fails WP:NCORP. Jfire (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated in proposal, this article isn't notable. ''Flux55'' (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hardly any independent sources found. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Instinctively, seeing this AfD my reaction was "What? But I've heard of Pegasus Opera!" - which seems to have been the overriding sentiment in the 2006 "Keep" AfD. But my searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. A redirect to Infor could be a possible WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Of course, if an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, they are free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iridium 77

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

There doesn't seem to be anything remarkable about this single satellite in the Iridium cluster - it hasn't received independent coverage of any kind. No other satellite has an article except for Iridium 33 (which was destroyed in a well-documented satellite collision), and I don't see why this one should either. I'm not really sure if it should be redirected or converted to a disambiguation page or straight-up deleted. Kdroo (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Spaceflight, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iridium satellite constellation: unlike Iridium 33, this one has no SIGCOV about it. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNC criteria. Redirection is not the optimal solution. Cinadon36 16:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little original content that isn't readily available at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1998-051E (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Clancy (politician)

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

Completely and utterly non-notable congressional candidate. No news attention outside of routine campaign-related coverage. Get this guy out of here. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could also be redirected to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10, but I feel like that might be getting a bit too pedantic, and he also ran in 2022. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah a redirect makes sense KchTheWikiKid (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>> 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10 Djflem (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10, all the sources that apear in a search are just WP:ROTM for an election candidate and I can't find anything to meet WP:GNG either. Shaws username . talk . 13:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a redirect makes the most sense or if you still want to delete it just put it into draft space instead KchTheWikiKid (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete campaign spam for now. Fine with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 10:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katerina City Hotel

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

Both Russian and English language search gives nothing but trivial mentions or databases/bookings. The most substantive results are 1-2 sentences in a couple travel guides. Rusalkii (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have no idea why this hotel even has an article and it is the creator's only contribution to this wiki. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searching under the Russian translation returns very little beyond typical agent websites and customer reviews, not the independent and secondary WP:SIGCOV needed for an article. That said, I don't have the means to thoroughly search Russian material but it doesn't appear to be an extraordinarily remarkable hotel. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Gallegos

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

Completely unnotable mayor in a relatively small city failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No sources found that come remotely close to showing notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability found. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The vast majority of secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN and there's nothing to pass WP:CRIME either. Shaws username . talk . 13:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry C. Gonzalez

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

Unnotable mayor in a relatively smaller city failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. He received some coverage upon his death and for his attempted assassination in 1999, but that does not meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCRIME. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the LA Times obit is good enough coverage so he's closer to a keep than most of these, but we're not there yet, and I can't find anything else that would push him over the edge. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lostwave. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives)

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

Only good source is Rolling Stone article. Other than that, all others sources are not notable or constitute as original research Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Internet, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Brainulator9 listed this video from French TV channel TF1 on the talk page, if that changes anything. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seconding Pyramin that Rolling Stone is the only reliable source here, and I found no others. Would consider supporting a merge/redirect to an appropriate target if anyone else has one; I had thought about lost media but that page doesn't have any examples listed or substantial mention of music, so it's probably not a good fit, at least in its current state. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Id recommend a merge to the Lostwave article Pyraminxsolver (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aware of that article, but it makes perfect sense and already has a section on this song. I support this merge target as well. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, I think with the French TV Station and time this article can be brought to standards, similar to the most mysterious song on the internet. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As mentioned above, there are at least two known reliable sources: the Rolling Stone article and the TF1 broadcast. It's not much, but at least WP:GNG is met. That said, it is on the thin side, and there might be merit to merging it into Lostwave (or another article that serves as a list of songs notorious for being unknown). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lostwave. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lostwave. I'd need at least one more good source than the TF1 video and Rolling Stone article to feel good about keeping it, and a merge makes a lot more sense than a draft to me. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lostwave, It's significant enough to be worthwhile to be as a particle but not significant enough to be an article at it's own. 78.190.59.94 (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two sources mentioned above (Rolling Stone article and TF1 broadcast). I also found a newser article referencing it. I didn't look into the reliability of the newser article, but it's also an original article, and not just an aggregation; and we're talking about notability, not citations. I'd say 3 sources is enough for WP:GNG. Crystalholm (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per @Crystalholm's point, it has gained two mentions in two generally notable perennial sources, and will continue to grow in its search to be found while gaining more traction on TikTok and Reddit. More so to my other point, if The Most Mysterious Song on the Internet can have a listing in the same set of circumstances (not being fully found but of enough interest), this should be able to also. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lostwave. The song does not have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to warrant an individual article, at least at this time. Underclass King (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify &/or merge with Lostwave. While I personally have an interest with the search, I feel the notability as of now is not quite enough to constitute an article. I will say that the subreddit & interest in the subject is growing pretty rapidly, which means it’s likely to gain more coverage. It could just be too soon. Not0nshoree (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Cain as an ATD supported by most participants here. Owen× ☎ 15:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caim

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The subject is in the Lesser Key of Solomon book but I cannot find sources to back up these many other claims. Short of the Lesser Key book, the subject is not notable and, since this article has been unsourced for twenty years, a fair bit of this may have caused citogenesis. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Religion, and Ireland. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It turns up in another encyclopaedia (Bane 2014, p. 96) and the sources that it cites at the end of its article do not include Wikipedia. Two of them, for what it is worth, are books by Lauron William de Laurence and a third is Collin de Plancy's Dictionary of witchcraft. These three significantly pre-date Wikipedia. The stuff about dogs and thrush can be found in Godwin 1994, p. 64, a third encyclopaedia. The mythology is verifiable as mythology.
Uncle G (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Bane, Theresa (2014). "Caym". Encyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and Cultures. McFarland Myth and Legend Encyclopedias. McFarland. ISBN 9780786488940.
Godwin, David (1994). "Camio". Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia: A Complete Guide to Cabalistic Magick. Sourcebook Series. Llewellyn Worldwide. ISBN 9781567183245.

Weak delete or Merge- the sources found by Uncle G indicate that this is certainly not a hoax, but I'm unable to dig up further references (especially significant coverage) in reliable sources. On balance, delete (or Merge to Cain. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Times like this I wish that Uncle G would break their habit of neutality and let us know what they think should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage found in three reliable sources (Lesser Key of Solomon, Encyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and Cultures, and Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia: A Complete Guide to Cabalistic Magick). Merge to Cain can be considered outside AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect the coverage still appears to be trivial mentions, and not enough for WP:SIGCOV. This can be covered at Cain, with a short section based on reliable sources, after the unverifiable information is removed. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Shooterwalker. No WP:SIGCOV, insufficient sourcing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMA Negeri 1 Yogyakarta

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

The school existed, but it didn't satisfy WP:GNG. Google search showed the school in passing, notably that it is one of the best-performing school in the province; but I didn't think it satisfy notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only found the one web search source with significant coverage. There's mentions or more in quite a few Google books but unable to translate so cannot confirm whether they amount to much. The Indonesian Wikipedia lists many notable alumni, which to me indicates the school is notable. Added a couple of confirmed notable alumni who have articles on the English Wikipedia. The school has been going in its present incarnation since 1957 and traces its roots further back. It seems to be recognised as a top Indonesian public school. The school features in a number of research papers in Google Scholar so I believe there's sufficient coverage to pass the GNG.[32] Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wirobrajan. Anything that the school has can be merged there. Keep, sources should be enough to satisfy GNG. ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the Indonesian Wikipedia article it definitely seems like this is a notable school, just not one which happens to have a lot of sources available in English.— Moriwen (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muttpop

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

Could not find any sources about this toy company. Not really sure if its even still active at this point. GamerPro64 03:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Companies. GamerPro64 03:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur that what we have is not good enough for mainspace; fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG, also WP:V _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhanoti

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

Largely unverifiable. I can't find references to "Jassi Khan Siddozai", "Sidhnuti"[33], Sudhanoti combined with 1407[34]...

The same applies to other creations by same editor or around same topics, e.g. in First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947, I checked the first two and the last sources, and neither mentions Sidhnuti or Sudhanoti. Fram (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Also nominated:[reply]

First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947

If these creations are indeed problematic, then the relevant edits to other articles like Sudhan and Sudhanoti District need to be reverted as well, and their other edits checked. Fram (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Pakistan. Fram (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respected, as I have quoted in this article Pirzada Irshad Ahmad's book (Handbook on Azad Jammu and Kashmir) from Nawab Jassi Khan's capture of Pounch to establishing his government near Bhan and this The details of naming Sidhnuti are available from pages 150 to 156. See the link

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nawab+Jassi+tribe&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=4f6f0c95dc8e20e4&biw=384&bih=714&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn08rZ_BeRhSG4C71rsfhcYwgdN5S_A%3A1706953110807&ei=lgm-ZY_pMNHnxc8P-d-hiAk&oq=Nawab+Jassi+tribe&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAiEU5hd2FiIEphc3NpIHRyaWJlMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIESN89UKsJWPA0cAB4AJABAJgBvQagAdAfqgELMi0yLjQuMC4xLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGKAhltb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwLW1vZGVzwgIEEB4YCsICBBAjGCeIBgE&sclient=mobile-gws-serp

Second, the first government of Azad Kashmir was established in Palindri tehsil of Sudhanoti District and it was the area that first became independent from the Dogra continuum in present-day Azad Kashmir. As mentioned in this article, Siddhavanti was a district of Jammu province of Jammu and Kashmir from 1940 to 1947. The first capital of Azad Kashmir was established here. For references, see the book Prospects for Peace in South Asia

https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=TwO9zmj6aQ0C&pg=PA115&dq=What+is+the+old+capital+of+AJK?&hl=ur&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEwaH8iI-EAxWYcvEDHUyWA7A4FBDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=What%20is%20the%20old%20capital%20of%20AJK%3F&f=false مشرا (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That first source doesn't even mention Sidhnuti[35] or the year 1407[36], so it's hardly a good reference for an article about a country supposedly established in 1407. The second source doesn't mention Sidhnuti or Sudhanoti. There is no evidence that reliable sources ever call this the "First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir" or that any entity is called "Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir". There is also no evidence that a government was established on 4 October, the source you provide gives the date 24 October for the establishment of the Government of Azad Kashmir (page 115). Fram (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Book Pakistan-1967

World Historian Ian Melville Stephens

The movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the movement of Sidhnuti, which after the Sidhnuti rebellion, this movement changed into the movement of Azad Kashmir Page 200 link book 👇

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sudhnuti+revolt+-+which+later+evolved+into+the+%27+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movements+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+.+At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29+of+.&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=714&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn0-hxoUu5w455Bz4NldMyxjyNnYYbQ%3A1707149297086&ei=8QfBZd_sBNiBxc8PytuckAs&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt+-+which+later+evolved+into+the+%27+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movements+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+.+At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29+of+.&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAi7gFTdWRobnV0aSByZXZvbHQgLSB3aGljaCBsYXRlciBldm9sdmVkIGludG8gdGhlICcgQXphZCBLYXNobWlyICcgbW92ZW1lbnRzIGhhZCBzZW50IG1lbiBhY3Jvc3MgdGhlIEluZHVzIHBsYWluIGludG8gUGF0aGFuIHRyaWJhbCB0ZXJyaXRvcnkgdG8gc2VlayBhcm1zIC4gQXQgdGhpcyB0aW1lICwgYW5kIG9uIGludG8gTm92ZW1iZXIgLCB0aGUgZnV0dXJlIHBvbGl0aWNhbCByZWxhdGlvbnMgKCBpZiBhbnkgKSBvZiAuSP0iULsJWK0ZcAB4AJABBJgBngOgAdQQqgEFMy01LjG4AQPIAQD4AQGKAhltb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwLW1vZGVzqAIAwgIEECMYJ8ICBRAhGKABiAYB&sclient=mobile-gws-serp مشرا (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing is to check this article again

Because in this article

First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947

It is clearly written that no government was established in Sidhnuti on October 4, 1947. Rather, on October 4, 1947, Siddhnuti, when all the areas of present-day Azad Kashmir were the first to be freed from Dogra continuity, the Azad Kashmir government was announced in Siddhnuti on October 4, 1947.

The government was established on 24 October 1947 at Chonjal Hill town of [Pallandri Tehsil] of Sudhanoti District.

The main reason for this was that on October 4, 1947, there was no parliamentary house in Siddhnuti from which the system of government could be run.

Therefore, this temporary government structure was started from Moti Mahal in Rawalpindi.

After which this rebel revolutionary government prepared a 40-room Parliament House at Sidhnuti Chunjal Hill within twenty days.

Subsequently, on 24 October 1947, the same government was shifted from Moti Mahal in Rawalpindi to Sidhnuti Chonjal Hill.

If you want more information then on October 4, 1947 the government announced in Sidhnuti

And on October 24, 1947, a whole book has been written on the government that was established in Palindri of Sidhanuti, you can visit it by opening the link.

https://www.academia.edu/43135608/Azad_Kashmir_is_it_Azad

_______

Secondly, the movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the movement of the Siddhnuti state because Siddhnuti has been an independent and independent state for many centuries.

That is why people believed in his independence.

I am not saying this, but all this is found in the history of world intellectuals. For references, see British historian (Ian Melville Stephens) book (Pakistan) 👇 https://www.google.com/search?q=Sudhnuti+ revolt&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=714&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn08shxb3dVqOHMG6pvwM9yfbqJf7KQ%3A1706901368404&ei=eD-9ZZKZGOrBxc8Pn4O4iAM &udm=&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAiD1N1ZGhudXRpIHJldm9sdDIEECMYJ0jqTFD-M1igQHAAeACQAQCYAY0GoAH1HqoBCTMtMy4xLjMuMbgBA8gBAPgBAYoCGW1vYmlsZS1nd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAtbW9kZXOIBgE &sclient=mobile-gws-serp

In which he writes that the movement of Azad Kashmir was actually the Sidhnuti rebellion and the movement of Sidhnuti which later turned into the Azad Kashmir movement.

Such is the founding president of Azad Kashmir

Sardar Ibrahim Khan

He also writes in his book The Kashmir Saga. See the link👇

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sudhnuti+revolt+--+which+later+evolved+into+the+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movement+--+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+Plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+.+At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sca_esv=82c0f5fcf9e8a56e&biw=384&bih=770&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ACQVn0_0hEbhy4AYGoiLbint4SaCWdPv2g%3A1707146269720&ei=HfzAZe-2K4-A9u8PrdSF2Ak&oq=Sudhnuti+revolt+--+which+later+evolved+into+the+Azad+Kashmir+%27+movement+--+had+sent+men+across+the+Indus+Plain+into+Pathan+tribal+territory+to+seek+arms+.+At+this+time+%2C+and+on+into+November+%2C+the+future+political+relations+%28+if+any+%29&gs_lp=Eg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAi6gFTdWRobnV0aSByZXZvbHQgLS0gd2hpY2ggbGF0ZXIgZXZvbHZlZCBpbnRvIHRoZSBBemFkIEthc2htaXIgJyBtb3ZlbWVudCAtLSBoYWQgc2VudCBtZW4gYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBJbmR1cyBQbGFpbiBpbnRvIFBhdGhhbiB0cmliYWwgdGVycml0b3J5IHRvIHNlZWsgYXJtcyAuIEF0IHRoaXMgdGltZSAsIGFuZCBvbiBpbnRvIE5vdmVtYmVyICwgdGhlIGZ1dHVyZSBwb2xpdGljYWwgcmVsYXRpb25zICggaWYgYW55IClI9hNQ9wpY9wpwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEBigIZbW9iaWxlLWd3cy13aXotc2VycC1tb2Rlc6gCAA&sclient=mobile-gws-serp مشرا (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion about Nawab Jassi Khan's rule in Sidhnuti has been answered by Pir Irshad's book. I have no more time to work on this free project. Do with this article as you see fit. Thanks, this is the last discussion from me. مشرا (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academia.edu is not a reliable source, anyone can post there, and even then the source you give[37] doesn't even mention Sudhanoti/Sidhnuti... Your source about the Sidhnuti revolt[38] doesn't mention e.g. 1407, so I guess it is about the 4 October government? The quote you give at least mentions Sidhnuti, but that's it. Your second book, "The Kashmir Saga", literally repeats the first book. Do you have any reliable source for the independent kingdom founded in 1407? Fram (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guide, there is an article on State Siddhanoti on Urdu Wikipedia. How about linking this article to the Sudhanoti article on the English Wikipedia? Link to article on State of Sudhnuti on Urdu Wikipedia👇

سدھنوتی ریاست

https://ur.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA مشرا (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sudhanoti District#History: The page as published is not ready for mainspace, it is mainly unreferenced original research. I think the combined info from all the sources make this a two paragraph summary in the target article, not a stand alone article. There is nothing properly sourced for a merge, but no objection to someone merging RS they think useful into the target.

re: First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947 not ready for mainspace, a lot of words but very little information, and sources do not demonstrate notability for a stand alone article. This should Redirect to History of Azad Kashmir. There is nothing properly sourced for a merge, but no objection to someone merging RS they think useful into the target.

No objection to a consensus redirect(s) to another target. // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, redirect to Sudhanoti District. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947. I could support a redirect of the second article per commenters above, but I consider the article title to be so implausible as a search request as to be of no benefit. As best I am able to determine these central assertions of these articles are unverifiable. I am no subject matter expert, and certainly could be mistaken, but the links to Google book searches are unhelpful as there is often no way to know whether any given user will see a specific page. In my case, nothing relevant to the discussion was shown. I tried my own search, but was unable to locate an Kashmiri kindom in 1407 that in any way matches the article. There may be a notable topic that can be written about with foreign language sources, but we will have to do a much better job of establishing that they comply with WP:V. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sudhanoti to Sudhanoti District#History and delete First Government of Sidhnuti Azad Kashmir on October 4,1947--between the ultra-specific title and the typo in the date (no space between the comma and 1947), I agree that this is not a useful redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 and no merger possible since the target does not exist. Star Mississippi 16:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Access Signalling System 1

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

This article closely paraphrases part of a section about it on this website. Other than that, there's nothing more than mentions of this signalling system. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 02:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are quite a few books available online describing DASS1, other offline sources likely exist:

https://archive.org/details/bte-198407/page/n17/mode/2up?q=%22DASS+Signalling%22

https://archive.org/details/bte-198501/page/n27/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22

https://archive.org/details/telecommunicatio0000farr/page/76/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22

https://archive.org/details/communicationsys0000brew/page/128/mode/2up?q=%22Digital+Access+Signalling+System%22

Based on the coverage in these sources, it seems that a discretionary merger of DASS1 and closely related articles such as Digital Access Signalling System 2 into a single article about the history of ISDN in the UK may make sense if somebody decides to write such article in the future. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, merging sounds like a good idea. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 00:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 05:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Bredesen

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

Major WP:Puff piece, lacking notability under any guideline. Sources are primary, local news or trivial/passing mentions, political achievements are in a tiny municipality. Geschichte (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Video games, Norway, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several of the sources are the Norwegian national broadcaster NRK, where he is not just trivially mentioned / passing. There are more sources and articles online not referenced in the article.

Political work also not really in the local municipal level, but rather the county level, there is among other things debates with parliamentarians and criticism of cabinet policies, and most of the sources I at least find cover non local issues.

However I do agree that the wording and structure suffers from puffery.

I am trying to create articles and content that cover this area, as Wiki was previously missing a lot of content from it. Tried to understand the notability guidelines, but perhaps they are stricter than I was aware.

There are several more individuals I was planning to do biographies of, that have made an impact in the Nordfjord region, so it would be good to understand how high the bar is before I continue this work. A lot of those have a few national articles (such as the case here) and a large amount of local and regional coverage. I was under the assumption that a few national + lots of local / regional would be enough, assuming they are not passing mentions / minor comments in larger articles. Nordfjording (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Captain Miller (film). (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Miller (soundtrack)

AfDs for this article:

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

I realize that this page recently went through AfD and easily passed, but the point that was missed in the first discussion is that this soundtrack album does not exist and I can find no evidence that there is a planned release. Five singles were released from the film and nothing else. The music section at Captain Miller (film) should certainly suffice. J04n(talk page) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. J04n(talk page) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Captain Miller (film). I think the nominator is correct about what went wrong in the first AfD last week. There are indeed plenty of sources but they are about individual songs that have emerged from the film. None indicate that this collection of songs will be released as a stand-alone soundtrack album. In other words, we can confirm that the songs exist, but the article under discussion here has been set up as an album article so that is what needs to be confirmed in the sources. Until that happens, the songs can be described at the film's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to ping @Hey man im josh, Wcquidditch, Geschichte, Kailash29792, and Ozzie10aaaa: and Tame Rhino. I may only speak for myself but nobody said the article was about an album; it's a detailed page about the soundtrack and that soundtrack received coverage. I still think a keep is OK, and although I am still not opposed to redirect, see my comment at last Afd about it. Still opposed to deletion anyway, as nominator and Doomsdayer520 also seem to be, if I understand well. In general, I don't think that such speedy renominations are a good idea unless there's a really urgent problem, but maybe that's just me. If we are looking for a relevant guideline, maybe WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material applies, that states "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings, and related items) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Which seems to be the case. But one can also consider the music was released as part of the film. Music in Indian cinema has, as everyone knows, a quite specific role. I am not shocked by a standalone detailed article here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the infoboxes of the article and the main page about the film do indeed indicate "Album"; but that can be easily corrected. A note can even be added indicating that no album was released, only singles.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Mushy Yank (I believe it is OK as well)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: merger to Captain Miller (film) is the ideal outcome. The page is written as if there is a soundtrack album which there is not, just 5 singles that have been released from the film. I do not believe that reworking the page and titling it 'Music from Captain Miller (film)' is appropriate. The majority of the sources are reviews for the film that merely mention the music or announcements of the release of one of the singles. J04n(talk page) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: as to WP:Notability (music)#Unreleased material, there is no significant coverage of the soundtrack as I detailed above. J04n(talk page) 17:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already voted and I'm the outlier, but I will agree with J04n again. The "keep" voters above have provided no convincing evidence that this is an album. An album is a stand-alone item that qualifies for a Wikipedia article if notable, but a group of songs with a common association are not an album or any other stand-alone item. Therefore we have a violation of the unreleased material guideline because no album has been described as something that has been or will be released. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the film article as above. As a general proposition I'm not in favor of speedy renoms, but it is not disruptive in this case, and I do agree that the previous discussion failed to grapple with the core issue. The article is engaged in a bit of OR by presenting this as an album - it is the collected released songs from the film, and should be presented as such at that article. I see no sourcing that deals with the music collectively apart from the film, so we should not be the first to make that distinction. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 05:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Perryman

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

Some mentions in coverage, but not enough to make me think it passes WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the NYTimes article isn't really WP:INDEPENDENT, Huffpost contributor article is not WP:RELIABLE, the Intellectual Conservative review is not bad. It actually helped me find a strong Sports Illustrated piece, Seattle Times (though this isn't very WP:INDEPENDENT so marginal contribution to notability), and claims that there are several others, though I can't find them online at the moment. There are multiple YouTube videos from news organizations/reliable sources too (though they are speeches). Regardless, I think notability is met here.

TLA (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning Keep, although for opposite reasons sated above, and userfy. The New York Times, whatever you might say about their editorial choices, is a reliable source. I think, again, without agreeing to his opinions and controversies, appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, the current state of the article is terrible, and it needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added to the article that Perryman is himself African--American and had first-hand experience of the issue of which he writes. Seemed odd that the article never mentioned that. — Maile (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silvaco

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

100% of references are press releases, i.e., then don't ensure notability per our standards - Altenmann >talk 02:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [39] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [40] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions. [41] ~ A412 ^talk! 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [42][43] Mach61 (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising till Overthrow

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH Tehonk (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Politics, Internet, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While with the foreign language sources, I can not state with certainty that the sources provide SIGCOV, I think their successful hacking of Iran's government is indeed notable. Maybe the article should be refocused on the cybersecurity angle instead of the ORG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz It looks like a one-event type thing to me, not that significant, there's not much to add for an article, it's more like a news story. I searched it on fawiki to see if there's more, I mean if it's really that significant I thought they would have a page but it's only mentioned on a list-like page among many similar events/groups, most of which are not notable enough to merit a separate article. Only some of them have enough to warrant their own article. Maybe this can be merged to a similar page (I don't know if there is one that fits) or to that People's Mojahedin Organization page mentioned in the article as affiliate. Tehonk (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmatollah Ghadimi Chermahini

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

Can't see what makes him notable. Tehonk (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Spaceflight, Iran, Sweden, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a very convincing nomination, but unable to find much on the subject. The Persian sources (and two others I found) don't appear to be very reliable or are just passing mentions. No strong evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - notable for his ongoing multi-national career and for his work on the Shuttle mishap investigation. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. The article has nothing about the Shuttle mishap, so I do not understand that rationale. (If there is something then please edit the article.) Ldm1954 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not convinced by the keep vote as well. I would like to see some sources meeting WP:SIRS. Tehonk (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Shuttle assertion is in the article infobox. I too would like to see the article better sourced. Chermahini was certainly affiliated with the Aeronautical Research Inst. of Sweden and Old Dominion University. Agree: the claims he was a NASA engineer and that his expertise on fatigue crack propagation led to involvement in the Shuttle mishap investigation are not reliably sourced. Consider me neutral. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources provided do not meet the notability guideline for this article. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 05:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. primarily because I see no convincing arguments to Keep this article except from an sockpuppet whose contributions were struck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of flyovers in Pakistan

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

I nominated this article for WP:PROD, which was contested by editor Codenamewolf. This is a curious unreferenced list, whose individual entries are likely to fail the relevant notability guideline at WP:GEOFEAT. Only a handful of the list's entries have standalone articles, and I am not sure that reader interest really justifies a list article (though a category and See also mentions in the other flyover articles may be appropriate). I note that WP:NLIST says:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. 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.

If editors can find sources that have discussed Pakistan's flyovers as a set, and save this article from deletion, that will be a very welcome outcome of this AfD.

For disclosure, there are four other List of flyovers in [X] or List of flyovers and under-passes in [X] articles (for cities or regions in Pakistan or India) that currently have a PROD tag; if it emerges that there is reasonable doubt that this article should not be deleted, I will remove those tags – or of course, any editor may do so, without waiting to see the consensus that forms here. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability. Many don't even have trivial coverage of them, and a simple flyover isn't terrible notable. Zero sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a navigational list and meets Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, list articles (including item lists, as well as topical glossary, index, outline, and timeline articles." There is no need to cite references when notable articles are listed for navigational purposes. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, and most importantly, thank you for cleaning the article and merging the content from the regional lists, which hopefully will allow the related regional list PRODs to go through without contest.

Secondly, I'm unconvinced by the navigational argument. With your cleaning, in the current revision, the number of bluelinks directing to flyovers per se is five (Sher Shah Bridge, Muslim Town Flyover, Yousuf Raza Gillani Flyover, Chowk Kumharanwala Level II Flyover, Nishtar Chowk Flyover), of which four are in Multan. The other entries are either interchanges, redlinks, or redirects either to the roads the flyovers carry or the neighbourhoods where they are sited. (The linked interchanges already have a navigational page: Category:Road interchanges in Pakistan.) The five remaining flyovers are small enough in number to justify inclusion in each other's See also sections, and they could be integrated into the navigational page at Category:Road bridges in Pakistan. In my view, the principal advantage of a category over a link is that it dissuades the kind of WP:OR that the nominated article suffers, from editors unfamiliar with the notability guidelines. Nor am I altogether convinced that anyone reasonably will care enough about "Flyovers in [X] country" as a category for a list article to carry encyclopaedic value; indeed, no other country has this kind of article to my knowledge. We also have Template:Bridges in Pakistan and List of bridges in Pakistan. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of notable flyovers in Pakistan so a stand alone list is justified. We have to find a compromise. This list meets WP:NLIST as well. See this reference. There are many references if you do a search in Pakistani newspapers. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source you've shared isn't about the flyovers as engineered constructs per se, but a set of interviews with people who live under flyovers in Karachi. That might merit a mention in Karachi#Social issues, not an indiscriminate list of flyovers in Karachi. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highway infrastructure like this is pretty generic, no indication that these are notable either individually or as a group. Reywas92^Talk 17:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent to which this list does or does not have a reasonable navigational purpose in light of our list inclusion criteria would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above. Codenamewolf (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Frontier

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Couldn't find any reviews on isfdb, newspapers.com or proquest. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOOK and GNG. Unable to find any independent third party sources that cover this topic in detail. Mostly what I am seeing is affiliated texts on the web, and, in any case, these would not be reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. I'm also struggling to find any reliable sources - only fansites. It is mentioned under Bernice Summerfield#Books and David A. McIntee#Bibliography which is all that's needed as far as I'm concerned. Irltoad (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona, Washington

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

The article claims the community formed in 1885, and was renamed in 1908. Consistently there are no newspaper articles about Pomona the community in the 1890s. During the 1900's when the Yakima county grange movement is getting going there is one mention of Pomona station, and couple in regard to Pomona grange district. Most mentions through 1910 are of Pomona Heights, and Pomona pumps. More than a few for Pomona Kansas, and Pomona, CA.

After 1910, references to a local place referred to simply as Pomona begin to appear, but are non specific as to it's nature. In 1912 and article appears that shows it to be a farming district. (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald/52082371/) Same as it was in 1909 (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-as-a-district-and-gran/141165563/). Going forward the mentions become all about Pomona grange district. If this was ever a community there is no evidence of it. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Washington Historical Quarterly specifically describes it as a station, not a town: [44]. All other mentions found were passing. There is currently a Pomona Road and a Pomona View trailer park in the area, but no "community" evident. I lived in the area for a while and never heard anyone refer to Pomona as a place, FWIW. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @James.folsom:, your original prod indicated East Selah and Pamona are same place so I deprodded and suggested this should be connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Selah, Washington that was already in progress. Do we no longer believe this is the case? ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Wikipedia articles said Selah and Pamona was the same. The newspaper article said East Seleh and Pomona were the same. That is the only evidence of them being the same thing. Mostly I don't know how to combine them, and I didn't see why it mattered. So I didn't bother to figure it out. If somebody wants to do it's fine with me, but I just don't understand why it matters. James.folsom (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because if they are the same and the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Selah, Washington is keep, we should merge or redirect Pomona, Washington to East Selah, Washington. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we get them merged? James.folsom (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mostly manual process. See WP:MERGE. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the census records to run down the validity of SportingFlyers sources for East Selah. The Census maps have Pomona separate from East Selah. The Wikipedia article claims Pomona grew up around the train station that was named Selah, and later renamed Pomona, while the newspaper said Pomona station used to be known as East Selah station. I think that the east Selah train station was renamed Pomona, and that the rural areas around the station were referred to through the association with the station. I've found no evidence that a town existed. The 19th century areas of East Selah and Pomona are however clearly different from the 20th century areas that share these names. So are they the same, probably yes and no depending on if your talking about today or the 19th century. In the the 19th century they were train stations, in the 20th they are rural areas that echo the names of old stations. So I don't think it matters whether they were AFD together or not. James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there a proposal to Merge or Redirect this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safest would be keep due to lack of consensus. Merge to East Selah, Washington is also acceptable since that looks like it will survive its AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The East Selah in that article is unrelated to the East Selah Train that was renamed to Pomona. James.folsom (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State (1944) on p. 465 notes the railroad station, the population of 37, and that it was named after the Roman goddess of fruit. This is not the same community as East Selah - it obviously pre-dates the freeway but appears to be the other side. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is not readily available, if you know of a digital source for it let us know. What I know about that source is that it was published by the WPA from information collected in the 1930s. Therefore, I have checked every US census from before Washington was a state until 1950. The US Census never recorded anyone living in a place called Pomona. Without being able to examine your source, I put forward that the US Census is a more reliable source about where people live. James.folsom (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is on Google Books. You're dismissing a source because you haven't seen it, which is ridiculous - it was written by the US Government. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No because I hadn't seen it, and because it contradicts a much more reliable source. James.folsom (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahh, got a good link to the book "Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State" its the 1941 printing -->https://www.google.com/books/edition/Washington/I-okAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Pomona This is the only good source I've seen that talks about Pomona the place. The section of the book that mentions Pomona is a collection of driving tours. The author was basically driving along Washington State roads and describing what he saw along the way. This stretch with Pomona begins on pg 263, and Pomona is 50 miles into the tour on pg 465. I read a little of the book, and its clear the author is just assuming that every train station that he sees is a town. No explanation of how the author comes up with the population numbers. Probably just by chatting with people he met there. Regardless the US census is a more reliable source for what places existed, and this place is not on any of those.James.folsom (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied by presented secondary sources this was once a small populated place and so meets GNG and GEOLAND. There's a fair amount of presentism in the nomination and comments; for example, the nominator's admitted original synthesis of contemporary US Census information (a primary source) demonstrates a misunderstanding of how rural (often migrant) communities clustered during that era. For the record, offline sources may certainly be utilized, and in this case might be required. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't been any secondary sources presented yet. That book is a primary because it's written as the author experienced it, and the mention of Pomona is in passing so it's not even significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brzozowy Borek}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avtovokzal}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Church Youth Organization of America}}