Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:38, 9 May 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 08	May 10 >

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 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. There is consensus for a redirect here as an ATD, and per WP:BARTENDER, I'm going with the World Cup squad. I've discounted both keep !votes because they are based on the standard in WP:NFOOTY, which has been removed from WP:NSPORTS (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer)). (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Chol-jin

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Can only find passing mentions in match reports. Redirect to 2010 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has 36 caps for a senior national team and played in a World Cup. Anwegmann (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both irrelevant facts. There are no sources which prove notability in sport and as such the article should be redirect to 2010 World Cup squad or deleted. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Simione001: I just like to point out that he is listed at both 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads and 2010 FIFA World Cup squads, so redirecting to one or the other would effect the search feature if anyone looks the name up. If deleted with no redirect, people will be able to find his name in both the articles and not be directed to just one. Govvy (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Odd one because WP:NFOOTBALL has been removed from WP:NSPORT but according to the discussion at WP:NFOOTBALLNEW, Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA was once the guideline for notability which this article meets. Orange sticker (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker: - You are basing your keep vote on a failed proposal. WP:NFOOTBALLNEW was rejected. You mustn't make up your own keep/delete criteria. WP:GNG is very clear. Simione001 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not quite, the proposal was to change what was referred to as the current guideline (part I quoted) however all guidelines relating to football seem to have been scrapped for reasons I don't know. Might be a good idea to draftify this and similar stubs until the guidelines are clearer? Orange sticker (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is the only criteria that applies. Its very clear. Simione001 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simione001: You've nominated over 100 articles in the past few months and they seem to near-exclusively target those from just North Korea - a much underrepresented country whose sources are very difficult to find / use / etc. This systematic destruction of a nation's football history is rather annoying. Why? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are terrible quality articles with next to zero information about the individual. If you actually looked into it, there a quite a few North Korean players which pass WP:GNG so to say this is some kind of systematic destruction of North Korean football is laughable. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea for his last-known appearance if anyone can't find any significant coverage. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is another reason why the changes in notability rules were a bad idea. Getting rid of sport-specific guidelines did a lot of damage. If English Wikipedia wants adequate coverage of football in North Korea and other small countries, the sport-specific guidelines need to be restored. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I only discovered the changes looking into this AfD I have to agree. Seems it will lead to a coverage bias towards countries with more widely understood languages in English speaking countries. I can see plenty of Andorran footballer BLPs, for instance. Orange sticker (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS has always said that all the subjects must have WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG but that those who passed the sport-specific guidelines were likely to have those significant sources written about them. However, the participation based guidelines NSPORTS were an extremely poor indicator of notability. NFOOTY for instance basically said that if an individual played a single minute in a football match where everybody got paid then said individual was likely notable despite no evidence that it was the case. The blatant misuse of the guidelines to keep articles of modern day players who didn't have a single significant coverage to their name in this golden era of online coverage is probably one of the bigger reasons why the Wikipedia community got fed up and scrapped most of the sport-specific guidelines. If you can't find a source on a modern day individual outside of a database source then the individual likely just isn't notable. Alvaldi (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's so much that people in English-speaking countries may have an understanding of Andorra's language (everyone has access to Google Translate) but that North Korea is an exceptionally secretive nation. I doubt it has specialised sports media in any language, and if it does, it's going to be grossly partisan and inaccurate. There is no private media in Cuba so that would be a similar problem even if millions of US-Americans can read Cuba's language. North Korea is a specific problem when it comes to getting accurate information about anything. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Korea national football team (2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea as a secondary choice) or delete if no consensus is reached in redirecting. I found plenty of trivial mentions of him in match reports but was unable to find WP:SIGCOV to establish a pass of WP:GNG. Best I could find in Korean sources is this but it is not nearly enough. Alvaldi (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Beason

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he's a county commissioner, which is not a level of office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists -- county commissioners would have to pass NPOL #2, where the notability test hinges on having a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage and analysis about their work to mark them out as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of office.
But two of the five footnotes here are primary sources (his own LinkedIn, his own "staff" profile on the self-published website of the county government) that are not support for notability at all, and two (actually the same source, reduplicated as two separate footnotes for no obvious reason) are just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a news blurb about his predecessor -- and the only source that's both third-party and about him is also a short blurb, and thus isn't enough to get him over the "notable because media coverage" bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find routine news reporting or PR items. Black History Month proclamations and the like. I agree that the position held by this person is not enough for POL notability and we don't have sourcing to meet notability guidelines otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serving as a county commissioner isn't enough for inherent notability and I don't see any evidence he meets GNG otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Senegal Flight 301

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

Minor aviation incident, no fatalaties. WP:NOTNEWS. TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are critical mechanical failures, we can't confirm this was a mechanical failure until we get the final report, this will most likely be up in the air as a dispute for a while. 75.174.157.86 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not proven anything whatsoever. You have not cited any guidelines to state why this article should be kept. Stating that an article should be kept because other ones exist is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. Nor is Google. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There was 10 injuries and making aviation news, coverage all over the internet. What a silly nomination. Artecta (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been previously discussed in 2024 In Aviation's talk page, overrun incidents such as the Myanmar Airforce crash at the beginning of the year are non notable. Check the talk page for 2024 in Aviation please. I also believe that through time this will not be a lasting incident and will fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, unless one of the 4 seriously injured die this incident is non notable. Lolzer3000 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is a debate not an arguement please keep it civil. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Senegal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: run-of-the-mill runway excursion, newsworthy but not notable. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING effects highly unlikely. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to add onto this, there is light coverage spilling over into 5/10/24, but i do not think this will last into monday, we'll see though. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I second this. Delete. same with the JSX and FexEx. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete this why you don't delete other articles like United express 4933 that have only 3 injuries and a lot less damage to the aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Express 4933 missed the runway entirely, this did not. Lolzer3000 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that was for multiple factors such as fatigued crew, broken ils and poor visibility causing it to land off the runway. this is just a 737 rippin it off the end of the runway. this is less of a important topic than the united accident. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

someone's angy. but in all seriousness, if someone ends up dying due to this accident, then it will probably be re-added, so just wait and see. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator is typing their responses in bold and is attacking everyone who is voting to delete and is already bludgeoning the nomination. I'd advise to take a break as further continuation of this can lead to a ANI discussion which is the last everyone needs. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current ANI discussion. Possible sockpuppet of GeekyAviation/Tyhaliburtn with similar behavior pattern. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'm the creator of this article and not the guy who is typing in bold. If my article doesn't meet the Wikipedia notabilty criteria you have the right to delete it, but i think that 10 injuries and an half burned plane are notabile enough so take the decision to delete it carefully SignorPignolini (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I just assumed that it was that person since they kind of took it personal with their comments. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'ed to stop the disruption and allow for consensus to emerge. If this is relisted, feel free to adjust protection length. Star Mississippi 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage has already died down failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Although if in the end, this accident does end up having lasting effects, I would agree with an undeletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blaise Diagne International Airport#Accidents and incidents, where a two sentence summary is present. That's really all that needs to be said about this accident, it does not meet our notability guidelines for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per to WP:AIRCRASH, a minor incident like this shouldn't be incorporated into the airport article, let alone warrant its own standalone article. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Mesa mayoral election

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

Non-notable. toweli (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Arizona. toweli (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there was no opposition in this election. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 18:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goražde Incident

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

Disputed draftification, so we are at AfD. WP:NOTNEWS applies even though this is historical news. No real context. There may be a valid target to redirect and merge to. In the absence of that I suggest draftify pending further work. Not ready for mainspace 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pending further improvements. Not yet ready for mainspace, no notability demonstrated. Happy to reconsider if the article improves in the next 7 days, please {{ping}} me. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Gwinnett County, Georgia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinnett County Department of Parks and Recreation

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

Non-notable local government department, not worth changing to a redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was nominated for deletion 8 minutes after creation. Let'srun (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And?TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Struck per below) - The article's subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Disclosure, I live in Gwinnett County and have written a few articles about Gwinnett-related topics. I assume the reason for pointing out that there were eight minutes between creation and AfD nomination is that it's difficult to perform an adequate WP:BEFORE in such a short time period, and as the largest park system in the State of Georgia it's possible that sources exist. While WP:AUD points out that local media is not necessarily a indiciation of notability, it does say that Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability and the two largest newspapers in the State of Georgia are The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Gwinnett Daily Post, both of which are reliable sources with significant coverage of the article's topic (Atlanta Journal-Constitution: [1][2], Gwinnett Daily Post: [3][4]) This article's subject has also received significant coverage in non-local sources including the Associated Press (not directly about this article's subject but there is significant coverage) and Aquatics International. - Aoidh (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the links provide no convincing reason to change my opinion.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources show notability through significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, meeting the relevant notability guidelines. An AfD started eight minutes after article creation with no evidence of WP:BEFORE having been completed is not a compelling reason to delete an article for lack of notability in the face of evidence to the contrary. - Aoidh (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gwinnett County, Georgia, under the local government section, with the lengthy list in columns, lest we invite the creation of tens of thousands of bare-bones articles on county-level departments across the United States. BD2412 T 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this point since even if notability is arguably met, the coverage doesn't lend itself to much more than the ~500 characters of prose currently in this article. I've struck my bolded keep above I think a merge to Gwinnett County, Georgia is reasonable. - Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gwinnett County, Georgia: Per above discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I hate this with the 4th discussion, but there's no indication that further input is forthcoming and there is none at the moment Star Mississippi 02:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the 9 sources in the article only 4 could have the potential to count towards NCORP, and out of the 4, I am not entirely satisfied with their independence. ([5][6][7][8]). This article appeared for me while doing WP:NPP and I wasn't comfortable accepting it and with the last AfD being no consensus, I thought I'd opt for the AfD route. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep weakly. Would prefer a redirect to some kind of article on music distributors but I couldn't find anything appropriate. In arriving at a view to keep, I have taken into account the sources found at the third AfD, but note that no one has accessed any of these paywalled reports and one of them has gone away. However, Highking's view there is worth careful consideration. Add to that the sources in the article. The 4 mentioned by the nom. do indeed have issues, although they are debatable/marginal. Additionally RouteNote gets mentioned in a number of books. E.g.^[1]^[2]^[3] And if this were some (still) unreleased video game[9] or something then that would be way more sourcing than anyone could dream of! But this is an NCORP AfD, and the problem with the sources lies in WP:CORPDEPTH. By that measure we need Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. The books provide coverage of the service (i.e. product) but not of the company. Even then, whether we have deep coverage is very debatable. Except for the analyst reports. They may well have exactly what is needed to write the article... but no one knows! On a strict reading of NCORP, we are not there. By any other measure, this is notable. I don't think deletion is a net positive for the encyclopaedia, so unless someone knows of where it could be redirected/merged, I think this one should be (reluctantly) kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.
^ Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.
^ Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 14:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant Dubey

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the previous AfD, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. The two users who wanted this article kept was a sockpuppet and the page creator themselves. John Yunshire (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. John Yunshire (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject seemed notable when I had created the article but now I am not sure thus I am going to abstain from this AfD. Centralknights (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Orientls (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meff

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

Falls under WP:NOTDICT - already an entry in Wiktionary. Orphaned page. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yep, not a dictionary, and not enough coverage for WP:WORDISSUBJECT. One or two reliable sources (eg. New Statesman) give a definition alongside coverage of the Paul Nuttall thing, but nothing like "the social or historical significance of the term" as per the policy. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Mapúa Malayan Colleges Laguna. Star Mississippi 18:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MCL College of Arts and Science

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

Subject could be redirected to Mapúa Malayan Colleges Laguna. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mapúa Malayan Colleges Laguna per nom. Parent article could use expansion as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad

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

After the cruft was removed, it seems there's nothing that supports WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the discussion above and given his citation numbers, I'm not sure we're at notability. I don't find critical reviews of his books, so there wouldn't bee AUTHOR notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Mangal Uprising

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

First fails notability. Secondly seems like the user moved the article from Draft to Main space without proper review. Third Not ready for Main space yet. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well, I think it should not be deleted, instead it should be moved into draft space and then more sources should be added. And o think it pases the notability test as it was the first Pakistan backed rebellion in Afghanistan (I know it isn't addressed in the article but several sources state this) Waleed (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it does pass notability than could be moved back to draft space. It does need a lot of work. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it needs a lot of work to do, so I think it should first be moved to draft, then I'll sort it out although it isn't my article but I will try to establish notability by citing more sources Waleed (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to College Football on NBC Sports#On-air talent. Star Mississippi 18:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBC College Football personalities

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College Football on NBC Sports#On-air talent. This list is already covered there as it is WP:TRIVIA more so than an entire article dedicated to it. Conyo14 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College Football on NBC Sports#On-air talent: Coverage does not exist for WP:LISTN to be met as a standalone article. Let'srun (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Army–Navy Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is mostly unsourced per WP:RS, barring a dead and a Wiki page. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conference USA Football Championship Game announcers

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, all but one, a WP:PRIMARY is sourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mountain West Conference Football Championship Game announcers

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SendPulse

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

Non-notable per WP:CORP. When I began to shovel out the marketing, I noticed that the references were all press releases and passing mentions. In a WP:BEFORE search, the only significant independent coverage I could find was a product review in The Motley Fool: [10], and the jury seems to be out at WP:RSN on whether they're a reliable source. Wikishovel (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, Software, Advertising and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad masquerading as an article. For the Motley Fool article, I would say being unable to exclude that it's a paid article (Many or all of the products here are from our partners that compensate us.) would weigh against it, though does remind me I should probably bring up affiliate links at RSN at some point in the near future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. Creator blocked as such. MER-C 15:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP. Nothing on the page or what I can find in a search show anything close to ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Lucia Degruttola

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

Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR and GNG - Her role in Grantchester is only recurring and unfortunately I've not found anything substantial online (all are one-bit mentions), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably still WP:TOOSOON by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2000 in Kosovo

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

The article is talking about a country that did not exist yet. Not only does the leadership section list the president as the President of Serbia and Montenegro, but Kosovo only declared independence in 2008, so any [year] in Kosovo pages from before this time shouldn't exist either. At least it's not standard procedure, as for example there's not a 1775 in the United States article: since the United States, like Kosovo, had not declared independence as a nation yet, and was only fighting for it. These protests should instead be placed on the page 2000 in Serbia and Montenegro where they were officially taking place. Cheers! Johnson524 12:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subnational entities have their own year pages (see 2024 in California). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information in this article is very sparse. If not entirely deleted, I still see no reason it shouldn't be merged into the parent countries article. Johnson524 02:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom Johnson524 02:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnson524: I encourage you to strike this vote, as the discussion being created is considered a vote towards deletion by the nominator themselves, making this a duplicate vote. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Oops, thanks for letting me know, I haven't really done many AFDs before 😅 Johnson524 20:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the unrest and redirect to 2000 in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Geschichte (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the article 2000 unrest in Kosovo discusses events in more detail, that might be a better target than 2000 in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But a redirect to either is better than this stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 12:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Ali

AfDs for this article:

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

Last year, CNMall41 (talk · contribs) nominated this BLP for deletion but it was kept due to lack of consensus. The closing admin mentioned there's no prejudice to an immediate re-nomination. I tagged it last month for being promotional but now I've realized it also has issues with meeting WP:N. It clearly fails WP:GNG and I don't see how we can pass it based on WP:SNG. Also the creator Aanuarif (talk · contribs) should disclose if there's UPE involved because if you look at their contributions, it seems very dubious. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep!

Th Aanuarif (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and I don't think that an article about some random businessman should be part of an encyclopedia. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a promotional business article.182.182.29.217 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG created solely to promote the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My source assessment is in the previous AfD discussion. The main point of argument from !Keep votes there was the application of NEWSORGINDIA. Still do not see anything that would show how the subject is notable. The personal attack from creator was also unnecessary. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly non-notable or promotional to make it notable in disguise. Haruka Amaranth 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Past Doctor Adventures#List of Past Doctor Adventures. Star Mississippi 18:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divided Loyalties (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK No WP:SIGCOV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Past_Doctor_Adventures#List_of_Past_Doctor_Adventures as an alternative to deletion. I found a lot of fan reviews online, including some fun old 1999 listservs, which makes me want someone to write an article about it as one of the worst Doctor Who novels of all time... but I found no RS at all for NBOOK. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to Past_Doctor_Adventures#List of Past Doctor Adventures as WP:Alternative to deletion to preserve the content as history, until someone can show sources to establish notability. The target could benefit by preserving a condensed plot summary. This web article, while only a briefly mentioning the topic, could be used as a secondary source for the appearances of the Fifth Doctor and the Toymaker in the novel. Daranios (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a merge if Daranios can find a place for content from the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sandstein 12:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMVERT S.r.l.

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA WP:COI article about a company. Such coverage as can be found about the firm concerns the redesign that it commissioned from Studiometrico for its headquarters ([11], [12]), which work does not I think confer notability on the client. No current article on it.wiki: previous instances were deleted there. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of God Church

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

Not only does this article currently serve as little more than free advertising for HOG, but also the sourcing is really threadbare (90% self-published/promotional sources) and I could find nothing to show that this organisation meets GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King of Lettuce, I hear your considerations. Most parts of this article was written some years back by multiple editors, reading it now I do agree that it could be edited to sound more impartial. Perhaps an edit instead of a deletion. As for the sources, it would be difficult to conclude that the sourcing is threadbare. A majority of the citations in the article are from reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as Singapore’s longest running and most widely circulated daily newspaper. Jchang457 (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately most (all) of these citations do not establish notability. If, for instance, there was an ST piece which had HOG as the main subject, that would be a different story. Numerous trivial mentions do not "stack up" to establish significant coverage. No doubt this "church" is famous enough but we shouldn't conflate fame with notability either. While I'm also trying my best to assume good faith, your only edits have been to this page (the same can be said for the article's creator)--if you have any undisclosed affiliations with HOG, you should probably disclose them and refrain from further editing the page. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 08:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has a lot of promotional cruft in it that needs cleanup, but I think its notability can be reliably established. Here are three sources that pass the bar for independent, reliable, secondary, significant coverage under WP:NORG: Straits Times, Christianity Today, and Channel News Asia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above, particularly the Christianity Today piece, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is what we mean when we say "clean up is not deletion." Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Both sides bring up valid arguments. This type of discussion is probably better suited for an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography or similar project page, with broader participation. Owen× ☎ 12:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Social science, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on the talk page, this list relies on a single WP:PRIMARY source and has multiple WP:SYNTH issues. It is a poor summary of the primary source [UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) release] because it lacks the extensive contextualisation included in that source. In the absence of any secondary sources, it adds nothing to the original source. In terms of encyclopedic value, it is of dubious merit because the nomenclature chosen by the ONS conflicts with common usage and thus requires qualification by a complete list of included and excluded wards/parishes – which it doesn't have as that would require even more SYNTH violations.

The only alternative to outright deletion that I can see is to park it in draft space until the ONS produces its statistics by agglomeration (conurbation). There is a reason why no secondary sources have bothered to respond to this release of statistics: it is not useful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to point out List of urban areas in the United Kingdom,

ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom and multiple county by population articles should fall in the same category if the decision is to delete the article. If the ONS are releasing agglomerations (which is highly unlikely) these are would go on to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom unless both are (understandably to to me) merged if they do. JMF maybe you should have put the second paragraph in a separate reply with delete in bold as the first one paragraph sets the discussion and the second is your opinion and it would make it easier to skim down the bold to know which action or inaction is taken. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there consensus on which list the the 'definitive' one? Would it be possible to merge all the different place types into one page or even one table? The way population in the UK is broken down seems really inconsistent which know this has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I added a comment on Talk:Birkenhead built-up area last week when I came across it because I feel the article's very existence does the opposite of adding to the sum of human knowledge. To stay on topic: the reason I ask is I would agree with the deletion of this page (and others) depending on page would remain. Orange sticker (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem in a nutshell. Political boundaries (civil parishes, UAs etc.) are well defined but subject to sudden changes. Settlement boundaries are not well defined and are subject to 'creep' and merge. Political boundaries don't catch up, so you get nonsense like large parts of Reading that are excluded because they were built across the local authority line. Ditto Cambridge and Luton/Dunstable. Birkenhead (indeed the Wirral in total) is nothing like what it was 100 years ago, yet some people try very hard to insist that places that have merged are still distinct because they can't cope with the concept of a polycentric settlement, or can't accept that their "village" has become a suburb. So without a single undisputed definition of a settlement, we will never have a single undisputed list of settlements and (IMO at least) it is counterproductive and misleading to pretend otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) revised 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We often keep lists of populated places as published by reliable government sources. I don't see the SYNTH issue, any contextualisation can be edited into the article, and not useful is an argument to avoid as it's in the eye of the beholder. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider it sensible to have a list that includes no part of Greater London whatever, doesn't recognise Greater Manchester, includes Solihull in "Birmingham", omits Caversham, Reading from "Reading" and Bletchley from "Milton Keynes"? In fact a list that has to qualify many name places to explain what they include and (prospectively) what they don't include. How is that useful? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The London region is a approximately a 5th of the UKs population and rough the same population as all the other nations combined so yes the ONS don’t record the areas BUAs like Scotland and Northern Ireland (it did for Wales).

Greater Manchester is a combined authority and county not a 2021BUA. Solihull is separate (number 63) to Birmingham. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is based on ONS data, excluding the Greater London and Manchester. It is not aligned to either geographical or political areas (example:Castle Point is split on this list is split into Canvey, Thundersley and South Benfleet but no mention of Hadleigh). It does even meet postal or phone code areas. So how useful is this to readers? Zero.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is what it is, a reproduction of ONS data, which is what it says it is, it's not our job to second guess or judge whether the ONS have got things right or not, merely to report it, which is what the article does. G-13114 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails the general notability guideline - not presumed a notable subject by significant coverage in reliable sources, and has a sole significant source, being a primary source only and not independent of the subject - the ONS itself. Not justified under the notability criteria for a stand-alone list, with no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lacks encyclopedic value, being an abstruse segmentation of census data with such startling omissions and variable relationship to settlements as to be misleading. As to our job, it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce, mirror or regurgitate ONS datasets as standalone lists. NebY (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while the definition ONS uses is arguably primary its a secondary source for the places themselves and although there are many sources for places in England they will often have different definitions for different places/sources while this one is consistent for England even if the definition recently changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's one of the few ONS geographic measures that captures unparished areas, which many towns are. Furthermore, the larger urban areas are subdivided into recognised cartographic areas by the UK's national mapping organisation, just because it doesn't match an administrative boundary (which is invisible on the ground anyway) doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's to give a snapshot of areas for very high level purposes, population stats of course don't remain static but it presents a reasonable idea of areas to readers. The Equalizer (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinct issues here.

On the one hand, we have the original ONS data release, which is a 100% WP:RS for the purposes you describe. It is not perfect in some details (what is?) but by looking closely at the mapping, the individual data lines and the covering narrative, a sensible list can be drawn up. Which is exactly what a secondary source, CityPopulation.de, has done here. They have managed to produce a sensible, credible list.
On the other hand, we have this article, which amplifies the errors in the ONS report. (It is not for nothing that the ONS have declared that henceforth they will leave physical geography to the experts at the Ordnance Survey).

Your objective is entirely satisfied by the original data source: you haven't explained what value this article has added. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure as to why citypopulation.de would be more reliable than actual census numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has all the same problems as the deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population. Its pretty much just a copy of it with updated data given a different name. Eopsid (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The objective of this article is, I assume, to present a meaningful, ordered table of population figures for named towns and cities in England (as in this article's original title) — something not provided by the data source, an ONS Excel spreadsheet; hence, there could be added value. However, the omission of Greater London sorely compromises this, because to the average reader it's likely seen as nonsensical. If there's a possibility we can fathom out a way round this shortcoming, I'd be looking to revise and keep, if we cannot, delete. The article can also serve as a navigational list to settlement articles and readers may want to use population as a means for selection; this does not necessarily require the notability of a standalone list. Rupples (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2nd attempt at reply after losing last one due to a computer error creating human error grrrr)

What about using inner and outer London statistics from the "Population and household estimates, England and Wales: Census 2021" dataset[13] as they don’t fit in the district, county or regional list articles and don’t seem to have much municipal function. This could be in a section of its own above major and maybe also the key table with a little explainer. Both inner and outer London have populations above Birmingham so come in nicely above it.

Could add a second column with citypopulation.de statistics[14] if more than one source/viewpoint (since the site cites the ONS) is what some would like to have. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume most of the ONS BUA definitions do conform to what we regard as towns and cities, else there's a problem retaining the population figures in England settlement article infoboxes. Don't see why London Region can't be used [15] and London included — its the combined population of the London boroughs, which I suggest is the definition most people, at least in the UK, would associate as being London. The only other notes within the article where explanation seems to be required are Milton Keynes and Manchester. Are there others? "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind. No one seems to be challenging List of built-up areas in Wales by population. Readers will rightly wonder why we don't have an equivalent for England, should this be deleted. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could easily explain why London is excluded from the data set, and include it maybe as a sub-heading, but I can't quickly find why it's excluded in a search, and in any case it's an editing problem, not a notability problem. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but all those suggestions sound like WP:SYNTH to me. In regards to the List of built-up areas in Wales by population it has a lot of problems it uses two different definitions of built-up area because the ONS confusingly decided to use the same name for a different concept in the 2021 census. Eopsid (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Manchester note wasn’t really needed, It was only added it to prove a point with the Milton Keynes one as two users had problems with Bletchley being separate from Milton Keynes which it had also been separate for the 2011 census.

The explanation given by the ONS is:

"For the remainder of our analysis, we have removed London's 33 BUAs. This is because in Greater London, the method to identify BUAs does not recognise individual settlements in the same way. It instead provides data by London borough boundaries."

Which the ONS did pretty much do in 2011 and it went against analysis that the other areas had, they could have done some analysis though and I guess they might at a later date in a separate report. Chocolateediter (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not a criticism of the ONS. It is a proposal to delete a list that is a poor summary of the ONS list, reinforcing its errors and failing to reproduce its many caveats. (At least the ONS has some awareness of its weaknesses and inconsistencies.) It adds no value to the ONS list, it subtracts from it. We are not helping readers; if we can't do better than this then we must back away and refer readers to the source.

The best secondary source available is CityPopulation.de but that option has been rejected. They at least treat Luton/Dunstable, Bournemouth/Poole and Brighton/Hove as physically contiguous units: the ONS claims to ignore administrative boundaries but has not consistently done so. CityPopulation also ignores the ONS's sloppy toponymy (carving chunks out of places like Reading and Milton Keynes, then applying to the remainder the name of the whole) to give a sensible population report for the English cities. CityPopulation digests and makes sense of the raw ONS report; this article merely reinforces its confusions.

The only way out of this mess that I can see is to prefer the CityPopulation data. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perception to state the ONS have made errors, not a fact. Neither the ONS data or CityPopulation figures will likely see agreement between interested editors for every one of their definitions, because neither set is produced to fit Wikipedia articles. The only set of population figures where there's probably no disagreement is for council area's with defined boundaries. Take Milton Keynes, which started the 'dispute' about this article, the 'best fit' figure for the population of Milton Keynes could have been the Milton Keynes BUA or the total of the Milton Keynes and Bletchley BUAs, but the editors of that article saw fit to define Milton Keynes as its larger urban area, so it's valid to include the agglomerated population. Luton has not been defined as 'Luton urban area including Dunstable and Houghton Regis' so it is not appropriate to link an agglomerated population figure to that article. Rupples (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the ONS uses the name of the whole as the name of a part, as it has done in the case of (at least) Milton Keynes and Reading, then that is an error. But that is why we don't use primary sources as it usually needs a secondary source to take the long view, as CityPopulation has done.

Again, it is not the purpose of this nomination to denounce the ONS. They remain a highly reliable source of primary data and its analysis. The question is only whether it is valid for Wikipedia to copy their spreadsheet, taking it out of its contextual analysis. Why? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use primary sources for statistics all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have any population information anywhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY. We cite statistical sources and rightly so. The issue here (and in the other lists that have already been deleted for the same reason) is that it is not legitimate to create an article that is a selective copy of the source. As WP:PRIMARY says 1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- I believe that editors found the 2011 ONS built-up areas were useful, but that their sub-divisions were arbitrary and hard to understand.
- Many of the 2021 "built-up areas" are similar to the 2011 sub-divisions, and are equally hard to understand.
- For example, the Dunstable built-up area in this list has a population of 34,500, while the Dunstable article gives the population of the parish as 40,699. Readers might think there are 6,199 people living in the rural hinterland of Dunstable. They would be wrong; almost all the area covered by Dunstable Town Council is built-up. A comparison of the maps [16] and [17] shows that the ONS has allocated a large part of eastern Dunstable to the Luton built-up area.
- The list article says "built-up area boundaries are defined and named by the ONS". The ONS documentation is hard to follow. However, it seems that the Ordnance Survey are actually responsible, and their site [18] includes a 2022 "Technical specification" (with a methodology that considers land-use and "the Settlement Named Area dataset" to decide which 25-metre cells to merge together) and a "Release Note" (which says "Using customer feedback, improvements have been made in the [April] 2024 release, by refining the definition of a Built Up Area") but no updated "Technical specification".
- If the list article is retained, it must have a better explanation that mentions ways in which a "built-up area" might differ from what you expect. Ideally this explanation should be based on secondary sources, but I would be content if a mole inside the ONS were to edit the article and explain what is happening.
- The article should also explain about the "Related places" (are they included within or excluded from the area) and tell readers where they can find a map of each area. Perhaps they can be referred to citypoulation.de. The ONS interactive map does not seem to know about built-up areas. JonH (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The places named in the second column of the table in the article were recently dewikilinked to our articles on the related settlements thus nullifying the argument for the article being a navigational aid to finding those articles. AFAIK most England settlement articles use built up area as best available fit for population, so why dewiklink and place a hidden instruction not to wikilink? Granted, there are a few exceptions where BUA is not the best fit, but those instances can and were being noted. It should not have resulted in a 'carte blanche' dewikilinking. Rupples (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the ONS BUA is the same as the settlement described in the article (which it often is not), then to wikilink it is a navigational aid over a precipice. We must not deliberately mislead our readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with this article as such but with the choice of Infobox used in our settlement articles. Liverpool uses Template:Infobox settlement which allows more than one definition of population — two population figures are shown in that article's infobox. Milton Keynes on the other hand uses Template:Infobox UK place which limits population to a single field. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strong consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is to prefer and seek to transition to Infobox UK Place when possible. Apart from being more customised to UK political geography, it avoids the clutter and trivia invited by Infobox settlement. If a detail is that significant, it should be in the body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ArenaBowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources here are there to report on the event, not helping the list's notabilities. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of College World Series broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources consists of Google searches, dead links and not supporting this lists also, none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Baseball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All trivial and can be summed up as a blurb in each article's appropriate media section. Conyo14 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't a WP:NOTTVGUIDE but WP:LISTN is not met due to the subjects lack of coverage as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [19], [20] and [21].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources provided are about the ratings which can be a blurb in each Final Four article. However, media sections regarding which station, play-by-play, and color commentator is not necessarily notable to collegiate basketball (men's or women's). Conyo14 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All 14 sources are WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found these from 2023's: [22] and [23]. Conyo14 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Awards broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NLIST, nothing found showing this has been discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 03:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pro Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. One of the source are causal mentions. Some are YouTube, if not dead links. Many others are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zee Bangla#Drama series. Sandstein 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtami (TV series)

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

Non-notable series per WP:GNG and the essay WP:NTV. Can't find significant coverage in English or Bengali (অষ্টমী). Editors hunting for coverage will need to filter out results for the notable festivals with this name: I used "Zee Bangla" as a search term (জি বাংলা). There was a short burst of WP:NEWSORGINDIA publicity for the upcoming show, but it's been running for a month now and seems to have received very little coverage. Article appears to have been copied piecemeal from the UPE article moved to draft. Wikishovel (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bangladesh, India, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee_Bangla#Drama_series: if coverage is judged insufficient for a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee_Bangla#Drama_series per ATD. X (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. The nominator is now arguing to Keep this article so I'm assuming the nomination is withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idolatrada

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

An article about a film that doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Brazil. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. Much more exists (see gBooks) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite satisfied especially with the foreign language stuff. Can you place the pages and if possible the links to the pages. Some looks like trivial mentions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Past Doctor Adventures#List of Past Doctor Adventures. Star Mississippi 18:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. One of the sources is WP:USERGEN and the other no longer exists. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to Past Doctor Adventures#List of Past Doctor Adventures as WP:Alternative to deletion to preserve the content as history, until someone can show sources to establish notability. The target could benefit by preserving a condensed plot summary. Daranios (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. Desertarun (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sandstein 12:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okhotnykovo Solar Park

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

This solar power plant is so tiny that it is not notable and not worth anyone wasting time cleaning up the article Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems this plant was quite large at the time it was opened so I've looked for somewhere to merge the article to. But it seems it was never quite big enough or important enough to belong on any pages about solar globally or domestically. Looking for further sources, I found information about the consequences of the Russian occupation of Crimea on Australian-built solar parks like this. But none of the references I found named this plant and I feel forced to conclude that it is not really notable. Mgp28 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sandstein 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Henry Mason Smith

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

Not notable. Delete or Redirect to Edwin Smith (rower). TheSwamphen (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TheSwamphen (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Fashion, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its an obituary, likely written by a close family member. This person isn't notable enough for inclusion. Desertarun (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sandstein 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Acampa

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

all mentions in the sources included in the article are in passing. Nothing available in the article or online about his life to help establishing notability (WP:SIGCOV) FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor commentator without established notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cotton Bowl Classic broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an important college football bowl game, with sourcing from [24], [25], [26]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LISTN is not met due to a lack of RS. Let'srun (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 06:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Citrus Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redbox Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Idaho Potato Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Orleans Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS, with one now redirecting you to the front page and another being a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sun Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has a storied history on CBS, see [27], [28], [29]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of sources from RS. Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poinsettia Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS, with one being a dead and another a blog post. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pay attention to that? Of course not.
Please keep it civil. Zanahary (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there are at least 70 different references, and almost 60 just recently added in regards to not only CBS' earliest television coverage of the Orange Bowl, but their coverage in the 1990s. There also are now references/sources that have been added for NBC's television coverage from the 1960s on through the early 1990s and Fox's coverage during the late 2000s. Sources for ABC's during the late '90s and first portion of the 2000s and ESPN's coverage from the 2010s on through the present day just need to added as well as sources for the radio coverage. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I had a check: some focuses heavily on the games with the coverage being a side piece, some are WP:PRIMARY, some are announcments or talk about the announcers, some are 404. Like Wikipedia, you know that IMDB does not count as a reliable source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list was almost entirely unsourced when it was nominated at AfD. In just a couple days of effort, some 70 sources (of varying quality) have been added. Combine the ongoing sourcing effort with the fact that this was for nearly a century one of the big three college football games (Rose, Orange, Sugar), I lean to keeping. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that added sources can be further reviewed. Also, please no personal comments about contributors and accusations about motivations that are obviously unsupported. Focus on policy, sources and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expect the article to improve though. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the sources and I'll chalk it up to this, IMDb is not a reliable source, press releases are WP:ROUTINE mentions, WP:NYPOST, and finally, there are some sources that are reliable, but do not provide the significant coverage that are necessary to sustain such a grouping. Therefore, it is within the topic of WP:LISTN, that my !vote remains. Conyo14 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Mexico Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with the only one being a dead source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Military Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with both being blog posts per WP:PRIMARY. (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Miller

AfDs for this article:

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

Half the sources don't even make references to Miller, however there is this sources which does count towards WP:GNG (and was the only one I was able to find). GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Oklahoma. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miller's biggest claim to notability is his appointment to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, a five member appointed state agency that is required to approve pardons. I'm not convinced either way whether that position meets WP:NPOL, but in a state that is doing more executions than most others the people in charge of determining whether to pardon those to be executed have some degree of notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see the argument here or why it’s open for debate. He clearly does not meet WP:Notable guidelines and does not merit his own article. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what is behind this article creator's interest in the parole board, but I see nothing here beyond regular government agency work. I haven't dug into it but I would not be surprised if other related articles also fail GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Las Vegas Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with both being primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aloha Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with one being a Tripod page. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yussuf Aleem

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

Recently prodded, deprodded with a note about "inherited notability" that I did not understand. I did not find the kind of citation record that suggests WP:NPROF, nor reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and GNG looks unlikely here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally prodded the article as the references did not, in my eyes, meet the level to establish sufficient notability, nor did anything I could find about him. I have already enquired on their talk page, but will ping @Tanhasahu here in case they want to explain why they believe the article to be notable. Golem08 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. The de-PRODding editor's edit summary was "Somehow notability is inherited", which is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED, which stands for the exact opposite proposition: that notability is not inherited. TJRC (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability, under WP:PROF or any of the other notability guidelines. As others have noted, notability is never "inherited" and the de-prodder clearly applied completely incorrect reasoning here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet NPROF, low citation count on GScholar, no countervailing factors to suggest this is a keep. Oblivy (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with deletion; article lacks evidence of notability per WP:PROF and other guidelines, and citations are insufficient. Waqar💬 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pop-Tarts Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, lacking a reliable source per WP:RS with one dead and another a forum. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pinstripe Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peach Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No sources, unclear significance. Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks reliable sources, supporting deletion. Waqar💬 19:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music City Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Birmingham Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and lack of any sourcing to establish notability. I so vote despite the nom's annoying use of an anticipatory third-person plural future tense advisory. Cbl62 (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator removed the language I found problematic. See diff]. Probably should have been ~~stricken~~ rather that vanished, but I appreciate the response nevertheless. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as part of the feedback because I thought it won't wash well with future nominators. I had added it in, being fed up of the WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT votes I was getting from this selection of voters (they come to keep vote on my AfD, even for the most trivial reasons). SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 12:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenia Sergeevna Didula

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

Russian pop, ethno-pop and folk singer. The person does not meet the criteria for WP:MUSIC.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emaan Singh Mann

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

Fails WP:NPOL, subject was never elected in any of the contested elections, and fails WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Asia, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being the father of a notable person doesn't confer notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG criteria and hasn't been elected as an MP or MLA which fails WP:NPOL. As previously stated regarding Indian politicians, these articles are premature and should be deleted. Referencing past instances like Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi underscores the need for deletion. Grabup (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of schools in Jordan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Reyada School

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

WP:UNSOURCED school with no good place to redirect. A quick search reveals nothing more. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination is incorrect in that the school has a reference. When the article was crerated I believe this scraped through as a "Highschool" because it was judged at the time that such a school was inherently notable. Today I have my doubts. A diligent WP:BEFORE finds that some sources have potential, but do not meet WP:NSCHOOL. I choose to remain neutral in this discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Jordan where it is listed. It is not notable for a page, which is the bottom line. If there were a more focussed redirect target I would suggest that but it gets no mention on the Amman page, for instance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I think this discussion has gone on long enough. It's not a straight Keep to acknowledge that problems still exist with this article despite the work that has gone on with it over the past three weeks. Also, the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination which also prevents me from a Keep closure. But I don't think a 3rd relisting would help at all here, this article just needs more work done on it. Editors with a COI, please suggest changes on the article talk page rather than editing the article directly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lifechanyuan International Family Society

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

This article has had zero independent sources cited since it was created six years ago. I am unable to find any significant discussion of the organization in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Canada. ... discospinster _talk 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete'~~ There's a little bit out there on this company, but not from reliable sources. I can't see the full text of the Martin Boewe doctoral thesis; if it has RS citations perhaps that could save this article, but where those citations would come from is anyone's guess. As it is, it's possibly eligible for CSD G11 (blatant promotion).
keep per WP:HEY rewriting of article based on sources from @Cunard Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lifechanyuan started from Zimbabwe when Xuefeng lived there and the 1st Second Home was built in Yunnan China so most of the theory(Lifechanyuan values) and introduction articles are in Chinese, with only a small portion of its theory and introductory articles translated into English, that's why the sources of the information is difficult to find.

Dr. Martin Boewe and his wife visited the 4th branch of the Second Home in 2012, during which they had an interview with founder Xuefeng, here are the links for his interview （1-3）:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg4JWQwCzw&t=151s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQ3e1_wjgs&t=17s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaiwPsSqt3k&t=360s

It is imperative to accurately convey what Lifechanyuan truly represents to the world, without misunderstanding or misleading the public. As a member of Lifechanyuan for nearly 18 years, I aim to share the truth based on the past 16 years of practice of the Second Home, spanning from China to Canada. Tongxincao (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are Chinese language secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, then you should offer them up here. A YouTube interview with the founder is not going to do it. Oblivy (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, the more I think there should be an article. But not this article. I found a single WP:RS article from the New York Times in 2014[35] but it's paywalled. Somewhere there's an interesting follow-up story to be told. Probably not one for Wikipedia until that story gets published but someone feel free to surprise me.
The article creator @Snewman8771 is a SPA which did just three things: create the article, wikilink to an article on intentional communities, and then two years later try to create an article about East Turkistan Republican Party which was declined.[36].
@Tongxincao your account was created on the same day in 2015 as @Snewman8771. He started editing in 2018 and then stopped, and you didn't start until 2023. [37][38]. Can you explain? Oblivy (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was in China from 2015 to 2022, during which I have very limited access to WIKIPEDIA, and our communities in Chins were always under monitor, so I was quite careful to get access to google and facebook etc. Besides I am not familiar with the rules and how do people add new items on Wikipedia, I think put a brief introduction for Lifechanyuan will not be a big problem for Snewman8771. So we didn't pay much attention on it as we are focused on the community establishment and safe existence in China at that time.

In Nov 2022, I came to Canada and after settlement, we plan to develop the society with our founder and members together. We are looking for some volunteers to come and help our work in Canada，so the introduction of society here in WIKIPEDIA is important and must be true and clear. Tongxincao (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to introduce societies and organizations to the rest of the world, it is to document things that are already written about in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, some of the previous content in the article was highly promotional in tone, which makes it seem like you are trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to recruit new members. ... discospinster _talk 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply @User:Tongxincao. You should read the conflct of interest rules as you have a close relationship with this organization.
~~Can you clarify whether you were involved in the edits by @Snewman8771? How did it come that both accounts were registered on the same day?~~ Oblivy (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain about the detailed requirements of Wikipedia, and how reliable second sources are defined, but information displayed on it should be based on facts, avoiding conveying misinformation. I believe that is a fundamental rule. There are very few reliable second sources of Lifechanyuan in English, as it is a small group rooted in China, and only a few members are proficient in English. I can gather some sources in Chinese to verify the information, including English sources from Ecovillage network newsletters or reports from our sister communities, although some of their links may have expired or changed (though I have the PDF or JPG files). As you may know, the media in China is controlled by the government, and reports related to religion, belief, etc., including Lifechanyuan, are forbidden from being published. This has been ongoing for many years.

Lifechanyuan is based on all articles written by founder Xuefeng since 2001, totaling over 3000 articles. Only a small part of it has been translated into English, and it is not well-known to the public.

Here are some Chinese and English websites:

www.lifelvzhou.org

www.lifecosmos.org

https://www.facebook.com/chanyuancelestials

https://www.lifechanyuan.org

https://www.smcyinternationalfamily.org

The source of the article I used to edit the introduction of the Second Home life mode is: (you might need to register to see) http://lifelvzhou.org/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2937&highlight=%C8%CB%C0%E0%D0%C2%C9%FA%BB%EE

Snewman8771 joined Lifechanyuan and became a member in 2018, his member name is Kasi Celestial. In China, access to some internet platforms is restricted, making it difficult for us to reach out to Wikipedia or Facebook, besides the rule for editing WIKIPEDIA looks quite complicated for us. Snewman8771 offered to help edit, but as a new member, he was only familiar with a brief history and didn't fully understand our values and information. Due to communication challenges, we were unable to clarify, so we left it as it was. Now, I would like to revise and present it accurately to the public. Tongxincao (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why not just ask them ?? https://www.facebook.com/lifechanyuaninternationalfamily/ or https://www.smcyinternationalfamily.org 2405:9800:B910:819F:8F75:E8E3:1E34:197D (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Levin, Dan (2014-03-12). "Communism Is the Goal at a Commune, but Chinese Officials Are Not Impressed". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "Members of this idyllic utopian commune tucked away in the mountains of southwest China share an agrarian life that would probably have delighted Chairman Mao: Every day they volunteer six hours to work the fields, feed their jointly owned chickens and prepare enough food to fill every belly in the community. The bounty of their harvest is divided equally and apparently without strife, part of a philosophy that emphasizes selflessness and egalitarian living over money and materialism. “What we’re doing here is basically communism,” said Xue Feng, 57, the soft-spoken founder of Shengmin Chanyuan, or New Oasis for Life, whose 150 members include illiterate peasants and big-city corporate refugees. “People do what they can and get what they need.”"
2. Sigley, Gary (2016). "The Mountain Changers: Lifestyle Migration in Southwest China". Asian Highlands Perspectives. 40: 240–241. ISSN 1835-7741. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.
  The journal notes: "In Lincang Prefecture, a rural subtropical area in southwest Yunnan near the borders of Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam, a group of 150 people from different walks of life came together to create the Shengming chanyuan 'New Oasis for Life Commune' (Levin 2014). This Buddhist inspired community sought to create a self-sustaining and spiritual alternative to what they regard as an alienating and materialistic society found in the sprawling cities of modern China. As is discussed further below, these people are drawing upon a long Chinese tradition of escape to the mountains for the purposes of solitude, meditation, and respite. What is interesting about the New Oasis instance is the choice of location. To have created such a community in Lincang before 1978, or even before 1949, would have been extremely difficult. Lincang is a border region that for most of its history has been inhabited by various non-Han minorities. It was a remote and often dangerous place for the unwary visitor, a place that James C Scott (2010) regards as part of a larger highland zone he calls "Zomia" that for much of history was beyond the immediate reach of centralized states. But times have changed and the once "remote" and "dangerous" places have now been made "accessible" and "tame." Unfortunately for the members of this community, the local authorities looked upon this religiously inspired endeavor with great skepticism and used various measures to make them disband."
3. Introvigne, Massimo (2022-01-01). "Religión, "sectas" y control social en la China de Xi Jinping" [Religion, "sects" and social control in Xi Jinping's China]. Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos [International Journal of Asian Studies] (in Spanish). 1 (1). University of Costa Rica. doi:10.15517/riea.v1i1.49606. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "En la última parte del artículo, presento un estudio de caso del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). Se trata de un movimiento idiosincrásico tanto por su insistencia en ser a la vez comunista y religio como por sus experimentos sobre el amor libre. También es un buen ejemplo de los efectos de los cambios legislativos y administrativos de Xi, ya que pasó de lo rojo a lo gris y, finalmente, en 2021, a lo negro."
  From Google Translate: "In the last part of the article, I present a case study of the Life Zen Temple (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple). It is an idiosyncratic movement both for its insistence on being both communist and religious and for its experiments in free love. It is also a good example of the effects of Xi's legislative and administrative changes, as he moved from red to gray and finally, in 2021, to black."
  The article notes on page 57: "El 28 de abril de 2021, a partir de la 1:00 de la madrugada, la Seguridad Pública y agentes de la unidad especializada en la lucha contra el xie jiao empezaron a hacer redadas en los dos asentamientos comunales del Templo Zen de la Vida (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), situados en zonas remotas del condado de Tongzi y del condado de Anlong, en la provincia de Guizhou. A las 6:30 de la mañana, ya habían tomado el control de los dos locales, donde vivían unos 100 devotos de 13 provincias diferentes. Fue una redada clásica contra una “secta”, aclamada por la policía como un éxito total (he reconstruido el incidente basándome en los comunicados de prensa de la Seguridad Pública de Guizhou)."
  From Google Translate: "On April 28, 2021, starting at 1:00 in the morning, Public Security and agents from the unit specialized in the fight against xie jiao began to raid the two communal settlements of the Zen Temple of the Life (生命禅院, Life Zen Temple), located in remote areas of Tongzi County and Anlong County, Guizhou Province. At 6:30 in the morning, they had already taken control of the two premises, where about 100 devotees from 13 different provinces lived. It was a classic “cult” raid, hailed by the police as a complete success (I have reconstructed the incident based on press releases from Guizhou Public Security)."
4. Wei, Jing 魏婧, ed. (2021-07-27). "自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由……"生命禅院"非法组织被依法取缔！" [Claiming to be a messenger of God and advocating freedom of sex... the illegal organization "Shengmin Chanyuan" was banned according to law!] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "中国网7月27日讯据中国反邪教网消息，自称上帝使者，鼓吹性爱自由，裹挟成员聚居，“生命禅院”非法组织被依法取缔！"
  From Google Translate: "China Net reported on July 27 that according to the China Anti-Cult Network, the illegal organization "Lifechanyuan" was banned according to law because he claimed to be a messenger of God, advocated freedom of sex, and coerced members to live in gatherings!"
  The article notes: "从2002年起，张自繁借用佛教、基督教、伊斯兰教、道教等宗教理论，并歪曲现实社会提倡的种种价值观，再糅杂一些心灵鸡汤，编造出一套唬人的“生命禅院”理念。之后，他又以“雪峰”为笔名，将这些所谓的理念集结成册，先后印制了《雪峰文集》《禅院文集》《新时代人类八百理念》等书籍。后来，这些书籍也成为张自繁对信徒实施精神控制的重要工具。"
  From Google Translate: "Since 2002, Zhang Zifan has borrowed religious theories such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism, distorted various values promoted by the real society, and mixed in some chicken soup for the soul to concoct a set of bluffing "Life Chanyuan" concepts. After that, he used the pen name "Xue Feng" to collect these so-called ideas into books, and successively printed books such as "Xue Feng Collected Works", "Zen Yuan Collected Works", and "Eight Hundred Ideas of Humanity in the New Era". Later, these books also became an important tool for Zhang Zifan to exercise mental control over his believers."
5. "現實版1Q84：婚姻是痛苦根源" [Reality version 1Q84: Marriage is the source of pain]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.
  The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，生命禪院的「理論基礎」是雪峰數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。唯一聽懂的其中一項核心理念：婚姻家庭是痛苦根源。 ... 「我們的情愛性愛是比較自由的！」從紐西蘭回國、年約30歲的雙胞胎姊妹顏渝和顏瑾，是生命禪院裡擁有高學歷的成員，她們在海外原本過著很好的生活、擁有良好的職業，但受這兒純樸的集體生活吸引，去年6月加入。"
  From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is Xuefeng's hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which makes people confused. One of the core concepts I only understand: marriage and family are the source of suffering. ... "Our love and sex are relatively free!" Twin sisters Yan Yu and Yan Jin, about 30 years old, who returned from New Zealand, are highly educated members of Lifechanyuan. They used to live a very happy life overseas. I have a good life and a good career, but I was attracted by the simple collective life here and joined in June last year."
6. "「共妻淫亂」生命禪院被斷水電雲南「第二家園」性愛自由、人人皆「情人」成員改名換姓務農自足 3分院面臨解散" ["Shared Wife and Fornication" Lifechanyuan was cut off from water and electricity. Yunnan's "Second Home" offers free sex and everyone is a "lover". Members changed their names to work in farming and are self-sufficient. Branch 3 is facing dissolution.]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. p. B3.
  The article notes: "中國唯一自稱真正實施共產主義的社區─雲南省「生命禪院第二家園」，近日遭當局以「共產共妻聚眾淫亂」等理由取締，三個分院面臨解散危機。港媒近日深入該社區，發現區內雖推崇性愛自由、以女性為尊，卻沒有想像中的肉慾橫流，而是由失婚婦女與逃避社會壓力的年輕人等，以各自獨立又相互合作的方式共同生活。"
  From Google Translate: "The only community in China that claims to truly implement communism, the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan Province, was recently banned by the authorities on the grounds of "communist wives gathering together for lewdness", and the three branches are in danger of being disbanded. Hong Kong media recently went deep into the community and discovered that although sexual freedom and respect for women are respected in the community, it is not as sensual as imagined. Instead, divorced women and young people escaping from social pressure work independently and cooperatively. live together."
  The article notes: "香港蘋果日報報導，位於雲南的「生命禪院第二家園」成立至今四年多，園內約150名成員皆不得擁有私人財產，且放棄原本姓名，改用被稱為「精神導遊」的56歲創建者「雪峰」賜名，彼此則互稱「禪院草」。"
  From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Apple Daily reported that it has been more than four years since the establishment of the "Lifechanyuan Second Home" in Yunnan. About 150 members of the park are not allowed to own private property, and have given up their original names and replaced them with the 56-year-old "spiritual tour guide." The founder "Xue Feng" gave the name to each other, and they called each other "Zen Yuan Cao"."
7. "「婚姻是痛苦根源」" ["Marriage is a source of suffering"]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-18. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.
  The article notes: "雪峰告訴記者生命禪院的「理論基礎」是他數十萬字關於人生的意義、36維空間、20個平行時間等論述，聽得人一頭霧水。"
  From Google Translate: "Xuefeng told reporters that the "theoretical basis" of Lifechanyuan is his hundreds of thousands of words on the meaning of life, 36-dimensional space, 20 parallel times, etc., which made people confused."
8. "云南社区共产共妻性爱自由回归自然" [Yunnan community communism and wife sharing, sexual freedom returns to nature]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. A23.
  The article notes: "中国云南一个自称是真正实施共产主义的社区，近日被官方以“聚众淫乱”为由，即将面临取缔。香港《苹果日报》记者近日采访这个推崇性爱自由、回归自然的“生命禅院第二家园”。记者发现，社区没有想像中的肉欲横流。官方指控的所谓“聚众淫乱”，其实他们是不鼓励一对一的爱情或性关系。生命社区第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有3所分院。社区常驻人口150人，投入集体生活前要经半年考察，加入社区后可随时退出。"
  From Google Translate: "A community in Yunnan, China, which claims to be the real implementation of communism, has been officially banned recently on the grounds of "gathering people for lewdness". A reporter from Hong Kong's "Apple Daily" recently interviewed this "Lifechanyuan Second Home", which advocates freedom of sex and returning to nature. The reporter found that the community was not as sensual as imagined. The so-called "gathering of people for lewdness" that the authorities accuse is actually discouraging one-to-one love or sexual relationships. Life Community Second Home was founded in 2009 and has 3 branches in Yunnan Province. The permanent population of the community is 150. Before joining the collective life, a six-month inspection is required. After joining the community, you can withdraw at any time."
9. "三所分院常驻人口051人" [The three branches have a permanent population of 051.]. China Press (in Chinese). 2014-01-19. p. B5.
  The article notes: "生命禅院第二家园创于2009年，在云南省共有三所分院，常驻人口150人，年纪最大的87岁，最小的5岁。投入集体生活前要经半年考察，在网上交流，可随时退出。"
  From Google Translate: "Lifechanyuan Second Home was founded in 2009. It has three branches in Yunnan Province with a permanent population of 150. The oldest is 87 years old and the youngest is 5 years old. Before joining the collective life, you need to undergo an inspection for half a year, communicate online, and you can withdraw at any time."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shengmin Chanyuan (simplified Chinese: 生命禅院; traditional Chinese: 生命禪院) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard well done as always bringing the sources. The difficulty I have with this article is the disconnect between what's in the page and what can be documented. Let's assume someone wants to do the significant revision required to eliminate proselytizing and otherwise unencyclopedic content. What would then be left would be three propositions:

there was a commune in Yunnnan in the late 1990's and early 2000s - well established, can almost get to notability with the NYT article but Apple Daily seems to be based on information the founder has provided to them, not independent journalism. I couldn't find the world journal articles but if they are just regurgitating A.D.... Nanyang Siang Pau maybe?
there was a crackdown - well established through Chinese media, can describe them based on Chinese media reports plus the Introvigne article. There's a bunch of unreliable media out there as well on this.
the founder moved to Canada and his organization continues to recruit members while he refines his philosophy and issues volume after volume of deep thoughts - notability not well established except through self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability

Oblivy (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good outline of the topics that could be covered in article. The article could also cover what Shengmin Chanyuan's followers believe since pages 60–62 of Introvigne 2022 discuss that. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done my part revising the article so it is based on reliable sources. I had to put in some primary sources just to bring the article up to date as AFAIK no reliable secondary source has mentioned them since they came to Canada. I'll change my vote to keep provided that the article remains objective.
One final comment - the article was created as Lifechanyuan International Family Society apparently following the rejection of Lifechanyuan at AfC. LIFS is the Canada reboot of the Chinese commune. The rebuilt article is about Lifechanyuan as a movement rather than the Canadian commune, suggest a rename to Lifechanyuan once this is finished. Oblivy (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Apple newspaper was in Hongkong and they are one of the medias resisting Communist Party, so they came and interviewed some members, but they were not reporting our community in an objective angle, they are using it to attack the Central government. And the official source claiming we were illegal in 2021 is the media from Chinese government.

The New York Times reported us in around the end of 2013 when we were facing the 1st disbandment from authority.

For the times and facts, there are some mistakes as well.

I appreciate your effort of investigating the sources and try to introduce in your way, but what it is is what it is, and what is fact is fact, this is not an academic content, cannot be edited by the way of only based on limited sources. On behalf of our society, we require to delete it, let people search and investigate, read and experience by themselves, but not by the limit information and reports from non-independant medias. Thank you. Tongxincao (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neutrally written and sourced to reliable sources (except for two sentences appropriately sourced to the company's website and a press release that explains what the group's beliefs and its current practice). Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself says:
Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – usually unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it.
Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your excellent work cleaning up the article, Oblivy (talk · contribs)! I really appreciate it! Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We hope this can be deleted because the information is not correct, objective, and complete, for example it says "couples sleep separately", this is so wierd in expression and will scare and mislead people. The truth is that everyone in the community is independent so there is no "couples" or "marriages" in the community. This will mislead people so much, therefore it will mislead the public seriously on what real Lifechanyuan is. Tongxincao (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise further content concerns about the article on Talk:Lifechanyuan International Family Society as those concerns belong on the talk page rather than at AfD. The New York Times article says, "Certainly, some aspects of the group’s structure and practices are rather unorthodox. Members are known as celestials, all property is shared, and couples sleep apart." The wording in the Wikipedia article is an accurate paraphrase of The New York Times article. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Couples sleep apart" is not a correct and complete description, because there is no marriage and family in the new life mode of the Second Home, and couples are well prepared for this before they decided to join the community and live a collective community life. Therefore, each part of the original couple has their own bedroom, but they can sleep together when they feel like to do so. As an adult, everyone has their own bedroom as the space of his/her own. The reporter from New York Times visited us when we are encountering disbandment in the end of 2013, so they just stayed for several hours and did really quick interview with limited information being understand and collected.

I have mentioned several times all the sources being quoted here is limited and there is not a deep and complete report introducing what Lifechanyuan and the Second Home really is. Plus there are mistakes on time, date, and place, number of members around the world etc. So please delete this item as it is spreading wrong and one-sided information when using the world "fled to Canada", whatever the reason is, "fled" already shows the judgement of the editor here and this is not subjective description, but very objective description. We are from lifechanyuan and you raised the conflict of interest rule, so we cannot prove ourseles, but the edtion here definitely cannot represent what Lifechanyuan international family society is either. Please delete this edition to avoid the misunderstanding and mislead the public. Let them know, analysis, and judge by themselves, but not by you. Tongxincao (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment during the first listing there were two explicit votes, both keep, plus the nom. No other participation since then except for two SPA accounts affiliated with the article subject (one is on the AfD talk page). Reading the comments liberally, the SPA's initially voted for keep, then flipped to delete once the article was revised to reflect policy on secondary sources. SPA's aren't happy with the revised article as it doesn't tell the story as they want it told, but @Cunard and I have been trying to channel this to the talk page where I've accepted some of their proposed fact edits while holding the line on independent sourcing.

@Discospinster are you still thinking the revised article is !delete? Are the comments by COI/SPA editors blocking consensus? What other shoe needs to drop? I feel like I'm being a WP:Bludgeon but the stream of complaints about how we're "misleading" the public by insisting on WP:RS is getting tiring. Oblivy (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely better in terms of sourcing, but if we're going to end up with content warring issue due to involved editors, I don't know if it should be "live" until some sort of consensus emerges on the talk page. If that makes any sense. ... discospinster _talk 14:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It does make sense, sort of. I just don't know what we're supposed to reach consensus over - the argument seems to be that secondary/independent sources mislead compared to primary/promo, and that just isn't going to reach a policy-based consensus.(Introvigne is actually quite sympathetic to the group but they still quibble). We don't usually delete articles over WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

At this point it's been relisted, and the admins are doing their level best to keep things from piling up ATM so I don't want to make an issue over the relisting (although perhaps one more closed AfD could ease that burden!). I'm just hoping to distill down what the issues are so maybe we don't get to a 3rd relisting. Oblivy (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oblivy and other Editors of the article, thank you very much for your effort of making the article subjective and neutral，I apologize for the part that might offend you during the period, as I don't know about the rules here so it's very hard for us to understand the discussion. I can only share the facts and the truth as we have the record of our history, please kindly understand. We appreciate the openness that you showed and consider what we raise up here.

The article looks much neutral now, while there are some details still need to be corrected:

"They later moved to Hetan in Gansu."

-- In April 2009 Xuefeng came back from Zimbabwe, meet with near 2000 members in Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, then in May with around 30 members they moved to Kunming, Yunnan to establish the first Second Home community. There is not a "Henan" in Gansu, "Henan" and "Gansu" are both provinces of China.

"He took the name Xuefeng and started Lifechanyuan in 2005".

-- It was started in 2001, as he started writting the Chanyuan Corpus and Xuefeng Corpus in 2001 in Zimbabwe, when he posted his articles on the website of ”中国魂“ (Chinese Souls) and other Chinese website platforms. In 2004, with the help of one member who knows IT visited him in Zimbabwe, Lifechanyuan established its own website, and later moved to anther server in 2005.

"According to Chinese sources, the organization had about 2,000 members in 2021, of which about 100 were active."

-- The number of members temporarily reached to a peak of near 2000 in 2009, but after that many of them left( most of which joined because of family relations and did not understand well about the core of Lifechanyuan), so the latest number is around 400, of which around 200 is active.

And the last, "the office of society" is not in Vancouver, it is in Lac La Hache BC before we bought the new resort, and now it is in Anahim Lake, BC with an update on BC society website.

Thank you and I promise with my faith, I'm only telling the facts, did not exaggerate or reduce the facts.

Thank you again for your time, work and patience on this. Tongxincao (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise edit requests at the talk page of the article, and for each please provide the reliable source that supports the edit. One specific note: Hetan (河滩) is in Dongxiang County, Gansu and I believe that sentence is fully supported by the cited source. Oblivy (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oblivy, I agree that among non-COI editors there is a consensus that the subject meets the notability guideline since the sources have not been contested. These two relists have given the AfD's participants and the rest of the community more time to discuss evaluate the sources presented in the AfD. If no concerns are raised about the sources' independence, depth, and reliability after the additional time given by these relists, it strengthens the case for a "keep" close (though the closer could go with "no consensus" owing to the limited participation).
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
Oblivy (talk · contribs) has done admirable work in rewriting the article to be neutral and incorporating the feedback from a COI editor when the changes can be verified by independent reliable sources. Thank you again for your excellent work here.
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Dealing with edit requests from COI or paid editors contains good advice for both COI editors and editors responding to COI editors. The guideline says:
Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.
Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them.
Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.
To Oblivy, if reviewing feedback from COI editors becomes tedious or a burden, I recommend asking them to submit an edit request on the talk page so that another editor can review. That way, it doesn't become a time sink for you. See for example my response to Special:Contributions/Winmark update after I reverted their promotional edits. They started an edit request, which was declined by another editor for not being supported by reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 without prejudice against early recreation once sources materialize, as is often the case when approaching elections. The Keep !voters did not raise a valid argument, and appear canvassed. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Western Australian local elections

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted in November 2023. My rationale last time was "There have been no reforms to local government since then which might merit mentioning in this article. It is far too early for people to announce their candidacies." This is still the case. This article was created far too soon. Steelkamp (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - it was mentioned last deletion discussion that there was no confirmed date, that has now been fixed and reliable sources added

I see no good reason why an upcoming election should not have a page once the previous election (in this case 2023) is finished

Next Australian federal election was created a couple weeks after the 2022 election, 2025 Western Australian state election was created in very early 2023, 2026 Victorian state election was created in 2023, etc

There's only about a year-and-a-half left until these elections

See also WP:FUTUREEVENT Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal elections and state elections are vastly more important than local government elections. Besides, federal elections and state elections usually have something tangible to write about soon after the previous election. That is not the case with this article, where its basically saying what the date is, and repeating a bunch of stuff from the 2023 local government election article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But at what point would you want the page created? As I said we are only about a year-and-a-half out, we know the date and coverage will eventually pop up as well

This page existing as it is with a bit of background info harms no-one Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: this isn't ready for mainspace. All sources in the article bar one are primary sources and the one source that isn't primary (The Mandarin) doesn't mention when the election is and is about changes being made ahead of elections which occurred in October 2023. None of the other material is covered in an article which I would expect of the name "2025 Western Australian local elections". In short this is lacking in coverage in secondary sources. However this will happen in over a year, so best to push to draft for the time being where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election is less than two years away and as arandomalt mentioned, coverage will come soon AmNowEurovision (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is standard practice for the next election to have a page created after the prior one is completed, even if there haven't been many significant developments. Additional coverage will follow soon enough. Goodebening (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: the sparseness of the article ia good indicator that it is much to early to have this in mainspace. Similar discussion of premature election coverage have appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that these articles (including the 2023 article) meet the WP:GNG. Local council elections in WA remain largely discrete events and there is very little coverage of them as a "set of elections" – which is to be expected when councils are almost uniformly nonpartisan and the majority of them have residents numbering in the hundreds. Only a handful of candidates would be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. The article on the 2023 elections relies on primary sources for election results and then a scattering of "controversy" articles on individual candidates; I can't see the 2025 article progressing beyond this because there just isn't the coverage to expand it. ITBF (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Local elections, including Western Australian local elections, are notable enough for a statewide page and given the close proximity of the 2025 elections this page should stay Nottashaa432 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't help but notice that most editors arguing to Keep are low edit or new accounts. Not sure how to factor that into a closure but I'd like to see more participation from regular AFD participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this would assist in closing this discussion but for the record if the vote opposing deletion doesn't get up I would prefer draftify as suggested by @Teraplane and @TarnishedPath Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) rather than total deletion 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be a keep regardless the number of keep votes because the keep rational is extremely weak. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 and no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lipi Singh

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

nothing notable, regular SP level rank officer, regular coverage that all SPs have Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Bihar. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is highly notable and covered by large number of news sources for various reasons. This is not the case of WP:1E and many articles about bureaucrats exist on Wikipedia with less number of sources than this. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like this and this fulfills WP: THREE. Many such sources are there on web.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those with the knowledge of India will know that such coverage is widely available for almost of the SPs/DMs. MILL. 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue and whats the meaning of notability then.? Admantine123 (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Admantine123, also subject clearly passes WP:THREE, Thanks! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is very notable who is also known as Lady Singham by major media sources. Simple search on her brings up many major media news sites with enough coverage on her and her significant achievements as IPS officer. Page has many reliable sources with enough coverage. Passes WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hum Awards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Honorary Phenomenal Serial Award

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE and the few references are basically just verification that they exist. CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Awards, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum Awards. Good nomination. 116.204.148.65 (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hum Awards per nom. Subject fails WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Nominators withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Moon (film)

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

I came across this film to review at NPP. A general overview of it showed it requires cleaning up, I tried to do that but was caught up with off wiki life. I decided to take a research on the film and later to consider if there is any source or coverage. At the end of the day, we have an article that doesn't meet WP:NFP. The sources cited were also not WP:NFSOURCES as they weren't reliable or saying/reviewing anything about the movie.

~~I also tried WP:ATD, and I must say here, thst there is nothing here per WP:NFOE. Additional problem of lacking coverage.~~Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You have one independent review on the page by Richard Propes.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand@Mushy Yank, but they doesn't mean they're notable. Can you find a redirect if any? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, you're perfectly right. There's some coverage in Christian media about the production so that List of Christian films could be a target for a redirect. Maybe.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support List of Christian films#2020s. I will say you do add it as a vote for the closer. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of the sources presented by Cunard, below. Thanks, Cunard. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Sun Moon. Dove Review". The Dove Foundation. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The review notes: "But when we finally witness Kelsey face her fears, and learn new ways to manage her grief, we understand her growth and subsequent purpose is enabled by these circumstances. This sweet movie encourages discussion in a subtle way around the faithfulness of God in the face of grief and loss. Sun Moon is a quiet film that reminds us in a powerful way that throughout the circumstances of our lives, God is ever-present and can create purpose from our pain."
2. VanDriel, Marty (2023-05-04). "Sun Moon. Pure Flix's enjoyable drama shows the beauty of Taiwan, but its message falls short". World. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The review notes: "The film also doesn’t explain why the Lord would lead someone to leave her family in tough circumstances. Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem, but when a studio promotes a movie with the promise of “family, faith and transformation,” it does leave one seeking a little more. The characters also lack some dimension, and Sun Moon doesn’t quite pull off the illusion of reality, leaving viewers with an enjoyable experience, but nothing as transformational as promised."
3. Jackson, Joe (2022-04-11). "Taiwan-US feature Sun Moon wraps up filming in Nantou". The Location Guide. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The article notes: "Sun Moon has finished shooting in and around Taiwan’s Nantou region. The project is jointly produced by AFFIRM Films (a subsidiary of Sony Pictures) and the Taiwanese-Canadian Stone Soup Production Company. Steve Taylor and Luke Cameron were on producer duties in the USA and Taiwan respectively, and the film was directed by Sydney Tooley."
4. Smith, Shona (2021-07-22). "Sony Pictures' Sun Moon in pre-production in Taiwan". The Location Guide. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The article notes: "Set in Taiwan's Sun Moon Lake region the drama-romance couldn’t fake Taiwan’s stunning scenery. Despite Covid-19 disruption pre-production is underway for a three-week shoot in August. Writer/director Sydney Tooley’s screenplay for Sun Moon (co-written with Susan Issacs) was inspired by her experiences living in Taiwan, where her parents still reside. The film is a drama-romance about a young woman named Kelsey who is running from failure in America and takes an ESL position at a school in Taiwan to escape it all. She battles bugs, deciphers Mandarin and ultimately comes to the understanding that she can run but she can’t hide from the life she tried to leave behind."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sun Moon to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Location Guide a reliable source? I think I can go with one and two. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position. Location Guide has editorial oversight. This page lists a Locations Editor. The About page notes, "We publish up-to-date information and contacts in print, online, via social media and through our events and awards ceremonies that are used by productions for filming on location around the world. No matter the type, size or production budget we help production professionals make the smartest decisions to maximise production values and the bottom line."

I am not familiar with this website but in my review of it I have found nothing to indicate it does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:per sources presented per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Mushy Yank. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Andorra helicopter crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Accident has some coverage (all in French with some of them in Catalan) but fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Event doesn't demonstrate lasting effects and fails the event criteria. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the nominated article fall under criterion G5 of speedy deletion since the page creator, 78NewX, is a suspected sockpuppet? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not suspected as he is already confirmed one but there is nothing wrong with the page (silly edits), just needs more information and fixed grammar GeekyAviation (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether the page has anything wrong with it, the article hasn't been substantially edited which means that this article probably falls under criterion G5 of speedy deletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the user page:

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Ryan kirkpatrick (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.

Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - so with your logic, most flights with articles ex. Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 should be deleted because it doesn't have any continued coverage? I would've said delete if there was less deaths but since this accident was relatively old, i say just leave but help clean up the article (grammar, punctuation, date, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Flight 708 should be included is another discussion.
From the inclusion criteria:
1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Barely meets the criterion
2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
3. ~~Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.~~
4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
Already fails nearly all four of the criteria.

Recommendations REC 48/13 and 49/13 were all issued to the operator, so whilst these may have improved the operator's safety, nationwide or internationally, the accident did not have major lasting effects. Final Report

Since 2011, there hasn't been any news surrounding the event failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Andorra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee

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

I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, Martial arts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story and I'm amazed he hasn't been featured in NPR or something... I don't see anything we'd use, no news coverage, nothing, for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than mentions of his degrees and being a professor, I cannot find anything to convince GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent sigcov appears in the Fayetteville Observer (more, book review) and Miami Herald (cont., later). His Google Scholar may suggest an NPROF pass too but I don't know the field well enough. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the multiple sources with SIGCOV provided by Hameltion are enough for a GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per GNG and per WP:NPROF#1 based on his GS profile, he seems to be highly cited for his field in ethics/philosophy. Also there is enough evidence for a GNG pass.--hroest 07:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [39] [40] [41] [42]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable. The subject overwhelmingly cites himself, never seen this before. See my comment below. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Easily searchable on google and has a myriad of academic articles. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that this article was previously AFD'd under another name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee BlackAmerican (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am considering this article strongly in favour of deletion. In 2022, the article was deleted (AFD#1 Robert W. McGee) and recreated under Robert McGee. The AFD#1 Robert W. McGee is a very interesting read where the subject joined in, seemingly WP:BLUDGEONING in order to justify his article. In terms of martial arts, he has accomplishments to be proud of but nothing to show WP notability, his martial arts championships are in senior age (limited participant divisions). Unverified claims such as "1020 medals" looks like Self promotion/vanity page. I also have a huge problem almost all the citations in the article. Citations such as "AT 72, ROBERT W. MCGEE IS JUST GETTING STARTED" published by Union Institute & University where the subject earned his PHD is absolutely non-independent and unreliable. As another user mentioned, (and I verified) if you look up the work of the subject called “The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice” the majority of the citations in this work are self-citations from the subject other work. Another of his work “Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews”, we noticed self-citation rate of around 80%. Most of the sources are from his own works/self-published. It’s quite concerning. Heavy self-citation technically makes citations WP:PROF#C1 unusable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that reduces the case for #C1 notability, but your rant about how all of the other stuff he did is uninteresting does nothing to address the case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the multiple published reviews by other people of his books. Let me spell that out: we have multiple in-depth sources about his work, independent of that work and reliably published. That also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe article would need an entire rewrite if we base the notability off this criteria (WP:AUTHOR), as barely one sentence mentions his authorship. As for the reviews you mentioned, as you said, I find them borderline and not very compelling. I may be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced of the subject's notability as an author based on WP:AUTHOR, but I would be happy to change my vote if more info is brought forward to strengthen the case for WP:AUTHOR. Edit: I noticed your "Delete" vote on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. McGee. I still see evident self promotion as you mentioned and I still don't see great coverage to meet GNG. I am wondering what made you change your mind? Lekkha Moun (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I didn't find the books and their reviews during the previous AfD. So now I have new evidence for notability that I didn't have earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article poorly describes his notability under WP:AUTHOR at present, and does need a significant rewrite to the Career section. But David Eppstein has convinced me that he does indeed meet that criterion. Qflib (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 04:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (2014 TV series)

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

Non-notable USA Network TV show that fails WP:GNG. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 00:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, and United States of America.
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is another nuisance AfD nomination, just like the others from this OP. The series is clearly notable, the article has plenty of sources. Toughpigs (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed PROD. Has plenty of critic reviews on RT. Other reviews are also available. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo, listings, nothing that meets the indepth independent requirement of SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 07:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
¿Why do you should delete a page of an American show that aired on a network owned by a bigger multinational group? Agusmagni (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to sources in the article, we have: Dennis Leary brings 'Sirens' to USA review (I think from the Washington Post originally but clearly syndicated also). The sound of Sirens: Denis Leary's new comedy series from goes topless, sort of feature story/semi-review from Sun Media. 'Sirens', 'Suits' are silly and serious, story about its upcoming release. 'Sirens' an enjoyable trip to the emergency room a full page(!) positive review in the Boston Globe. Skynxnex (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skynxnex. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USA Network, not all of USA Network's shows are notable Agusmagni (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skynxnex, in addition to the article already looking fine in its current state. A quick check of AFDStats shows nothing but controversial nominations from this user. AviCapt (talk to me!) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obvious fulfillment of WP:NTV. There are more than thirty sources currently in the article, all of which are strong and reliable sources. In addition, there are reviews from Variety[43] and Time Out [44], and coverage from Deadline[45] and The Hollywood Reporter[46] on the renewal and cancellation. There is even an interview with the series' creators from Collider, which emphasizes that the series is USA Network's first original comedy series.[47] Quite ridiculous to be even filed for deletion, in my opinion.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very clearly meets GNG. Besides the reviews already listed above, there are also reviews in Collider, Common Sense Media, The Chicago Tribune, Paste, The Orlando Sentinel, AV Club, The Boston Globe, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Deseret News, the Baltimore Sun, People Magazine, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the New York Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Newsday, the San Francisco Chronicle, The New York Times, the Philadelphia Daily News, DVD Talk, TV Guide, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Orange County Register. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

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

Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football: Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS, per previous consensus we don't keep articles for teams which didn't play any games. Let'srun (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alabama is one of the most important college football programs. Not sure where else this info would go.~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History of Alabama Crimson Tide football already says the team cancelled the season due to World War 1. There aren't (to my knowledge) articles for any other teams that didn't play any games. Gazingo (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that [[48]] and [[49]] were deleted for the same rationale as is being presented here. Let'srun (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Patriarca12: @Jweiss11: The two of you are the biggest contributors to this article. Thoughts on its notability? Cbl62 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football and/or 1919 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. There's certainly detail here should should be kept on Wikipeda. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What details in particular do you think need to be merged? History of Alabama Crimson Tide football already mentions that the team suspended play during the war. Let'srun (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the details in article, like Noojin being appointed head coach, Moore as captain, the schedule that was never played. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can be covered in History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Changing my vote to merge there. Let'srun (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Jweiss11. Cbl62 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football per the above as an WP:ATD. This standalone article only serves to mislead readers into thinking a season existed for this school, when it didn't. --MuZemike 11:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Breen (human rights activist)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Strong Delete: The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization. Only edits theyve made. And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right? Appears to be undisclosed COI. Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First? Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[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!} 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My strong delete wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC

Delete: It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar. It reads like a business card for his services. I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L. Coleman

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Pennsylvania. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can’t build an article on album credits and I don’t see in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His website and the various music streaming sites, are all I can find. I'd agree with the PROD decision, this is not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 based on strength of policy/guideline-based arguments to delete. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Khan (actor)

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. Also, the ad hominem comment in the nominator's rationale is quite inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Could you provide evidence from WP:RS to demonstrate how the subject meets WP:N? My comment is relevant because there are concerns about problematic user behavior. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're directing me to WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Just read it, please. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, My previous comment may not have been clear. You mentioned the actor did various significant roles in notable productions but I haven't been able to confirm tha via RSt. So far, I've failed to find evidence in RS that this actor had various significant roles in notable productions as being claimed. The actor only had a lead role in Resham Gali Ki Husna but even that is not considered a significant work, given that the article was created by a UPE account. A Google search hasn't yielded any solid evidence to prove that Resham Gali Ki Husna was a significant work. The same issues apply to the other shows in which this actor played a part—they are not all significant work, and the actor doesn't have lead roles in them, only minor ones. If you can provide evidence to the contrary from RS, I would appreciate it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He mention how did he got into acting [50]. He said that dramas Dil Lagi and Muthi Bhar Mohabbat made him well known [51].(BeauSuzanne (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As a creator of this BLP, you're supposed to provide good sourcing which also meet WP:RS - Unfortunately, goodtimes.com.pk does not meet this criteria. Whereas the Express Tribune piece alone may not adequately demonstrate that subject's WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another vague WP:AfD when the nominator possess lack of knowledge of subject matter. The actor is notable as per WP:NACTOR, have acted in multiple blockbuster serials as lead as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.29.217 (talk • contribs)

WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Care to provide some sources? --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[52] and Daily Times ones, also Bol News provides reference about his personal life as well. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodtimes.com.pk is not a RS. Where's link to coverage in Daily Times? Bol News is not a RS either to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bol News is an independent journalism TV channel for which your WP:AfD subject Waqar Zaka have worked, how it's not WP:RS? And Daily Times reference is listed in the article. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT referring to the TV channel, but specifically the website of BOL News. The website publishes PROMO, paid content and CHURNALISM-styled stories without proper fact-checking, making it unreliable for BLPs, especially. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still I feel Daily Times source is WP:RS. Similarly sources from news channels media are WP:RS, there are already other paid media websites in Pakistan for CHURNALISM.182.182.29.217 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP has finally admitted that they have no awareness about WP:RS, which I interpret as having no experience with what WP:RS entails. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, I was unaware but after discussion at Draft talk:Gumn, I got the understanding. Don't fit in discussion from other context here. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

182.182.29.217, Just admit you're not familiar with WP:RS because at-least three of your recent drafts (Draft:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft:Gumn and Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) have been turned down by other reviewers for using non-RS to create articles on unwarranted subjects. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why you're disregarding comprehensive discussion Draft talk:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft talk:Gumn, Draft talk: Wonderland (Pakistani TV series)? They gave me an understanding of it that's why I have assessed article should be kept. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've understood WP:RS, why do you insist on keeping this BLP when it's still citing unreliable sources? Why haven't you provided coverage from RS to verify your claims? You're just vaguely named sources without providing specific links to coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling them unreliable sources, as per my assessment they're WP:RS. Since you've reviewed the article, can't you identify the sources by their websites? I find it quite rankling to provide sources again and again. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment is incorrect because, like I mentioned above, you seem to misunderstand WP:RS. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS before defending them. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per my opinion, your assesyis incorrect. You should give a benefit of doubt while reviewing articles with such WP:RS. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
IP blocked. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLPs require strong sourcing. Fails GNG and NBIO, NACTOR. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found, promo, interviews, listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources pretty marginal per WP:DEPTH per above delete arg, not to mention the sockish editing in support of keeping. Next time, bring this through AfC. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XPANCEO

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

Spammy article on company that, as far as I can tell, struggles to meet WP:BASIC, let alone the more stringent WP:CORP. None of the sources in the article contribute to notability:

Ref 1: A Forbes Contributors article.
Ref 2: An advert on the website of what looks to me to be a dodgy award.
Ref 3: An obvious PR/paid-for piece.
Ref 4: A Forbes profile of the company founder that, if nothing else, is obviously not significant coverage of the company.
Ref 5: The source contains a few lines about the founder, again; nothing about the company.
Ref 6: More or less the same as Ref 5, and therefore the same issues.
Ref 7: Most of this TechRadar article reports what the company has to say about itself, or peripheral information about the field - not independent reporting on the company's work.
Ref 8: This looks like a version of a press release subject to churnalism by multiple other outlets as well. Searching on Google for the headline of this article unearths other articles such as this press release.
Ref 9: not significant coverage of the company.

Searching the company on Google doesn't yield anything better, as far as I could tell. I mostly found interviews, blog posts, passing mentions, PR pieces or churnalism. Java Hurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Companies. Java Hurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, I do not think that it is appropriate to say the article is Spam while in the reality that it represents something true. Over google there could be plenty of PRs. But, here I used references from reliable sites and non PR ones I have also included some more references and will continue to add more if I am getting time. And for your information this article was created and was live on Wikipedia's main-space for a long time but, for unknown reason the main contributor of the article made it blank and that is why it was removed and I tried to make it happen again. Joidfybvc (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that works too, but it's a bit moot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Rauscher

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

Fails WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Michigan. Longhornsg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable citations in GS for philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. His book Naturalism and Realism in Kant's Ethics is the subject of multiple in-depth reviews in reliable sources.[53][54][55] I already noted this three years ago when declining a PROD so it really should have been checked before nominating. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Joe is right that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. Qflib (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 03:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Junior School

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

PROD countered. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about primary schools are only kept if they can be shown to meet WP:NORG. That is not the case here. Indeed, this is an article about a kindergarten. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Kenya, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is also a story about a UK-based charity. I added a few references. Hopefully just enough to save this story.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruud Buitelaar.Tamsier (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although happy to consider a suitable redirect. I'm sorry but there is just not enough information about this school, as is the case of the vast majority of junior schools. Yes, this one is a charitable venture. Lots of them are. There are now four sources on the page. I analyse these below (with the first SHOFCO source being the only one that was there prior to AfD). On my analysis we do not have anything that meets WP:SIRS. There is almost nothing we can actually say about this school in an article. Source analysis:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
SHOFCO [56]	SHOFCO is Shining Hope for Communities, US based, I think it is a charity, and with a focus on Kibera.	SHOFCO appears legitimate. I have not investigated too hard on that score because this source fails on SIGCOV	The link is dead, but it is dated April 2009, and archive.org has a copy of the article [57]. There is no mention of this school at all in the article.	As there is no mention of the school, this is moot.
Charity Commission [58]			An overview of the charity, Maisha Tust. Nothing about th school. The charity is small too.	This is a primary source.
Optima [59]		Fitzwilliam College Newsletter with news of an alumna, the school's founder.	There is a single paragraph telling us that Sarah Shucksmith, a former Geography student, founded this school in her gap year, and they are building a new school building. It's creditable, but it's not notable.	– It is reporting and this is primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. However, as I know people will want to claim otherwise, and SIGCOV is not met anyway, I'll leave that as undetermined. It does not change anything.
Rus Newton [60]	This is a WP:SPS - a blog is a self published source	– I have no reason to say the writer is unreliable, but this is still self published.	To be honest, this would be well short of CORPDEPTH, but I would give ground to this being a charitable work, not a corporation. There is a little information here from which a page could be written, but it really isn't much. A lot more is needed, but I'll give it a yes on this one.	y

Delete per above, and based on my own long-standing factors. This is a very small charity/school that serves 65 young people. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lump-sum tax. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed tax

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

I do not know much about taxes, but I believe this topic may already be covered by Lump-sum tax. I am not certain if they are actually redundant. What do you think? If so, I recommend a redirect to Lump-sum tax. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to lump-sum tax per nom. Look to be practically one and the same. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article is based on a certain essay or book from the wording, maybe we can ask the author to submit citations? I'm not familiar for topics that should be removed or not, the information on Australia present here is not mentioned in the lump-sum tax article. O.maximov (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan Aliyev

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

NO GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. The article is submitted for deletion as there are grounds for its deletion.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's (Correspondentman) right to edit on Azerbaijani Wikipedia has been indefinitely restricted by administrators. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Azerbaijan. Skynxnex (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 and G11. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dubious notability, written in the style of advertisment. F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firuza, who wrote the article, also needs his opinion. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. !Keep votes aren't based in policy, but no case made for why this doesn't work as an ATD Star Mississippi 18:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Rahme

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) I am changing my recommendation to a redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: World Cup quarter finalist, several references (though more needed), suggesting player has had/having a career in Australia's first and second tier. Article needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played at the RLWC, nine sources, every line sourced.Fleets (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any WP:SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 18:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Nobody argues for keeping the article (I do not interpret "Sigh" as "keep"). Sandstein 12:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Msumarini

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

This is basically a procedural/WP:TNT nomination. This was plainly mass-created from GNS or one of its mirrors, and it has the same kinds of issues that GNIS has (see WP:GNIS for info on the latter}. We said we weren't going to do this any more, and yet here we are. For the "save all the dots" crew, the situation is complicated by the fact that the coordinates are not precise enough to compare this with maps, and searching reveals that there is a second Msumarini which apparently has been for whatever reason the subject of several international aid efforts— I say "apparently" because it's not absolutely clear which of the two places they are talking about. So potentially this would be a disambiguation, or about the other place, but at present I cannot verify whether not this is a real place or not. Kenyan info is probably better than some other places, but for example in Somalia with better location data we deleted a lot of places because there was no good evidence for their existence. And in the end it makes sense to delete the lot of these and have them created from better, reliable sources when someone comes across them. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thought I'd blitzed all of these but evidently not... MIDI (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This is clearly a notable place, but it looks like there are up to three different villages called Msumarini and two in Kilifi county alone - one in Mtepeni ward and one in Adu ward, and then one in Hindi ward, Lamu. The vast majority are for the Mtepeni ward, though I have seen at least a couple for Adu ward (they say it is in a particular constituency.) These articles do not make a distinction between the two places and these places are both occasionally spelled Musumarini. So, yes, there should be an article here, but it should probably be a disambiguation - but there are plenty of reliable sources out there for at least the Mtepeni ward Msumarini, even though I can't confirm it necessarily passes WP:GEOLAND. Any further help would be appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillfields

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

No evidence of meeting any criterion under WP:NMUSIC or of meeting GNG. Available sources are mostly self-published or trivial mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:139.184.129.181 placed the following text incorrectly under my nomination: "Wikipedia states however that " Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." From me: This is not a nomination for speedy deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only coverage I can find is the single paragraph live review in Drowned In Sound (referenced in the article). No RS reviews of any of their releases that I can find. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bit of a shame you can't seem to read the Spanish articles included in the reference sections, where it states clearly the notability of the LP release in the context of the time it was released. It can't be all about charts and fame, this page is about rescuing music. If renowned DJ like Gideon Coe plays their music on BBC Radio 2 and BBC Radio 6, I'd assume it is a relevant artist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angandi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion. If it is closed as a Soft Deletion, it will just be restored the next day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability criteria of WP:BAND and almost all references just contain passing mentions or simply listings of the band. InDimensional (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Bathtub. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable bathtub

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

This is a procedural nomination for a contested WP:BLAR.

The listed sources in the article constitute passing mentions in promotional material, or are primary sources (a patent for a type of inflatable bathtub). A search does not suggest any WP:SIGCOV of the topic, or any notability independent of bathtub. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping Wracking who performed the redirect, and Pek who reverted followed by a malformed AfD nom. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect content is already at bathtub. No controversy detected. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree. doesn't need its own article. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 00:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumen Shankulov

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

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines set down in WP:SPORTCRIT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, submitted by accident this before I was finished writing the reasons. There are no sources outside of trivial stat listings, which are not considered a contribution to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going by the player's career, I could see some notability. They had a good season in the Bulgarian first tier with Cherno More Varna, two good seasons abroad with Israeli second-tier club Hapoel Rishon LeZion and three in Cyprus with second-tier side Omonia Aradippou. A web search, however, did find anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps we'd need to search using a different spelling of their name, for example in his native Cyrillic or in Hebrew (for his time in Israel)? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ; edited 21:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no significant coverage can be found. With no prejudice to recreation if someone is eventually able to find sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

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

Article is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now This article is also a magnet for spam. The Banner talk 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational and information list. Far more useful than a category, more information provided. If spam is a problem, then block IP addresses and new users from editing it. Dream Focus 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about spam, I'm concerned about notability. Perceived usefulness is not a valid notability rationale. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and the section at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Advantages_of_a_list. Dream Focus 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote doesn't actually provide a rationale for keeping the article other than merely asserting that the article is valid and useful. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dynluge's argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[61] [62] [63] and [64] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [65], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [66], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).

HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NLIST [67], [68], [69], [70]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article. // Timothy :: talk 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. There is a consensus that the topic passes the WP:NLIST criteria. "Merge" was suggested as an alternative to deletion by some editors, but that included a couple of editors whose primary choice was "Keep." — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

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

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: 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. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as evidenced in the notability of Translating The Lord of the Rings and the sources listed there, as well as further secondary sources like Translating and Transmediating Children’s Literature. So I see no policy-based reason for deletion. The effort of writing the list has already been done, so we don't have to worry about if such efforts would be better spent elsewhere. So I also do not see any benefit for the user of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. ~~Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR~~. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.

@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDB; Wikipedia is not a repository for bibliographical data. The issue of notability is beside the point. The topic of LOTR translation is notable, of course, but that's why we have a prose article about that, Translating The Lord of the Rings. Sandstein 19:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings: where such a list is relevant, and doesn't need to be independently notable. Owen× ☎ 23:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that "delete" was ambiguous in my comment. If this is merged, then I assume that this separate article would cease to exist, but that the content would live on in the original article. My objection to "delete" is deleting the content without a merge. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article. // Timothy :: talk 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont see anything wrong with it. It doesn't fail WP:LIST nor WP:SIGCOV. It certainly needs work, but it's not bomb-grade. I'm not opposed to a merge as a second choice, which f soften my first choice for lists/POV forks. FWIW, I've read it in English, but I'm not a fanboy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not keep it is not notable, so keep is inappropriate. I am indifferent to deleting vs merging. (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep, as a "short, complete list[] of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" of translations of The Lord of the Rings, meeting WP:CSC. Additionally, appropriate context and annotations can be added meeting WP:LISTPURP. Finally, while WP:MOS-BIBLIO doesn't outright say that bibliographies are notable, it implies that there is some consensus that bibliography pages are appropriate. I think a merge would just result in a WP:SPLIT discussion and there's no reason to delay the inevitable. Just realized I relisted this. Self-trout voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ROTFL, but it's ROTLOTRFL. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is clearly noteworthy per Translating The Lord of the Rings and meets WP:NLIST. The list is too big to be merged into the main article. – SD0001 (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. McKeon

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, top cited work appears to only have 20 citations in scholar, and no reviews on any published books. Psychastes (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NPROF. Appears that the article's original author created a number of articles for various philosophy professors at Michigan State University of questionable notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Connecticut, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My off-wiki experience evaluating philosophers is that it's kind of strange. They often don't have many journal citations, nor books with many reviews, but the other philosophers in the same subdiscipline still have a strong idea who the important ones are, and I don't know how to guess that from the public record. In the case of McKeon, we definitely have nothing in the citation record nor the article that would suggest notability. Searching for reviews of his book The Concept of Logical Consequence is confusing because of Etchemendy's very notable and well cited book with the same title. I found only one review, by Núñez Puertas in Apuntes Filosóficos [71], far from enough even to justify an article on the book instead of its author. He does appear to have another book, Arguments and Reason-Giving, for which I found no reviews at all. In the absence of access to whatever information the philosophers use to evaluate their own, I think we have to go on what we can see for ourselves, and that's not very much. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find anything that supports WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR, with no reviews found on JSTOR. I simply cannot find any strong arguments in support of notability. --hroest 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second inauguration of Nayib Bukele

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

In a WP:BEFORE search I could find no coverage in English or Spanish of the event claimed to be taking place in a few weeks' time. It's been draftified and redirected, but this always gets immediately reverted. Article creator was globally locked for LTA, and reversions are being done by new account and anonymously, and always without comment. Rather than continue a draftifying war, I'm bringing it here to AFD for discussion. It seems to be WP:TOOSOON at best. Wikishovel (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and El Salvador. Wikishovel (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G5. The sockmaster per es.wiki block log is User:Jocer Blandino, who's also been blocked here. The most significant edits to the article have pretty much just been tags. Assuming an administrator also agrees, speedy delete without salting in case someone not block evading can make a better version. jellyfish ✉ 00:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Changing my vote here to delete per Wikishovel to prevent the treadmill! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too have suspected User:Jocer Blandino sock. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of G5, but as the chief draft-reverter looks like another sock, they'd probably just recreate it following G5, rinse, repeat. Taking it to AFD avoids that treadmill, at least. I'm no expert on Salvadoran politics, but it sounds plausible that they have multiple inauguration ceremonies following consecutive reelections, as is done in the US, Philippines, etc. So I'm in favour of holding off on G5 for now, and would prefer that someone could definitively show that there will or won't be a second inauguration. Wikishovel (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jocer Blandino if you're at all familiar with the master here. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jellyfish, @Wikishovel, SPI has confirmed sock. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per nom. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CU Note The two main authors were indeed socks of the same globally banned user. It would have been eligible for G5 in my view, but happy for this discussion to continue to establish a consensus on notability. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My final (I promise) vote after CU confirmed it was a sock - delete without prejudice to it being remade as a draft. As Wikishovel said earlier, WP:TOOSOON applies and this event could be notable if the article had any sources. Holding out hope for the best - it'll turn into a notable article when sources appear and a good editor recreates it, or it'll serve as a nice honeypot for the socks. jellyfish ✉ 21:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Cook Islands national football team#Player records. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Miitamariki

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I created the article. Im fine with a redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Islands_national_football_team#Player_records. Simione001 (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Simione001. JTtheOG (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Eriksson, Maria; Fleischer, Rasmus; Johansson, Anna; Snickars, Pelle; Vonderau, Patrick (2019). Spotify teardown: inside the black box of streaming music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262038904.

[2] Chertkow, Randy; Feehan, Jason (4 September 2018). Making Money with Music: Generate Over 100 Revenue Streams, Grow Your Fan Base, and Thrive in Today's Music Environment. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-19209-7.

[3] Sadler, Nick (4 July 2021). The Label Machine: How to Start, Run and Grow Your Own Independent Music Label. Velocity Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pak Chol-jin}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Beason}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Senegal Flight 301}}