Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:20, 3 June 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 02	June 04 >

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 delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Hadoti

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar. The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe how the article fails NPOV. TarnishedPath^talk 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 11 June 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) 02:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MicrobiologyMarcus. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I know it is not a proper argument for deletion, I would note there's an SPI that relates to the major contributor of the article, such that I don't know if this article would reach a conservative reading of the threshold of WP:G5 but relates to my concerns above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This article fails WP:GNG [1]. It has 2-3 lines of coverage from the sources which makes it unsuitable for having a stand-alone article (as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information [2]) Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specify which article this material is already covered in, to support your argument that this is unsuitable for a stand-alone article. TarnishedPath^talk 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m saying that 2-3 lines of unclear information is not suitable for a standalone article like this one! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:31, 22 June 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 Angeline Malik#As a director. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ustani Jee

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is coverage with trivial mentions or some ROTM coverage like this and this..The page was previously nominated for deletion but was saved because socks associated with Pakistanpedia voted to keep it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Someone can recreate this if needed. It's been six years since the last AFD, you'd think there would have been some references found by now if this was notable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage shows some media attention. If judged insufficient, redirect to Angeline Malik#As a director. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect per Mushy Yank's recommendation seems like a reasonable compromise. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - redirect: Redirect per Mushy Yank's recommendation looks good. Cossde (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on the sources (and their very limited descriptions of this battle), I would like to vote to merge this; but where? There is nothing to be said beyond Under Ruknuddin Barbak Shah, Shah Ismail Ghazi sieged and conquered a fort near Gar Mandaran in 1464, everything else seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:38, 10 June 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 Habonim Dror. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tel Chai

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror. Fails WP:NORG, no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:GNG. Both cited sources are WP:SPS that do not establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and Illinois. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what's written above. Redirect is the best option given the circumstances. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:38, 6 June 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 Habonim Dror. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Amal

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror, merging what's encyclopedic. Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for an otherwise non-notable summer camp. Both sources provided are WP:SPS and do not support WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect - Agree here also MaskedSinger (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficiently covered in reliable sources Whizkin (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 24 June 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 Jewish summer camp. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp JCA Shalom

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

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV of otherwise non-notable summer camp. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and California. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Agree 100% with whats above MaskedSinger (talk) 08:23, 10 June 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 04:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Network Architecture

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon

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

Considering that the first bullet point refers to a page about legal punishment, not extrajudicial, and the second bullet point refers to a page which doesn't even mention Lebanon, I don't think this disambiguation serves any real purpose. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Lebanon. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's a disambiguation / redirect. I'm OK with it being deleted if it's not a page others think is useful? But I think this is the wrong deletion template to use. MWQs (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second page should mention Lebanon, possibly it needs updating or expanding. The more detailed page List of Israeli assassinations includes at least 3 examples in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a topic that probably should be covered somewhere, but there's currently not much here to actually link to. MWQs (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your feedback I changed it to be a redirect to the most relevant of the 5 pages on the revised list i made earlier today. I checked that the new target page includes several Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a poor redirect to me, equating the title to things done by Israel, while it seems that there may well have been such killing by e.g. Syria or internally during the civil war. I think it is better not to have a page (disambig or redirect) for this at all. Fram (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fram. Plus please do not singlehandedly decide for the WP community what the outcome of a debate should be. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, I undid the improper redirect. The disambig is POV, possibly an ATTACK page, and the redirect worked the same way. For good and bad, after an AfD was started, we need to debate this until a resolution is reached. gidonb (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb, I'm not sure what you are referring to? The notice I followed to get here said: "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed." So if you mean we are not supposed to edit it during the discussion, maybe it's got the wrong notice showing? MWQs (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are certainly OK, even encouraged, change into a redirect or rename not. These are AfD resolutions that we should leave for a community decision once an AfD has started. Hence I restored the version after your additional edits and before the redirect. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misinterpreted. MWQs (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't think any other options were on the table? It seems to be an inappropriate use of a disambiguate? And nobody seemed keen to turn it into an article? So a redirect was all that's left?

did my smaller edits help? are there other edits that could be made to turn it onto an acceptable disambiguate?

I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping it. Just it seemed I'd misused the disambiguate concept and I felt obliged to try and fix my error.

If nobody has any good ideas for something to turn it into we should probably just delete it?

MWQs (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note; the same editor has now made Extrajudicial killings in the West Bank. Fram (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some number of pages have {{World topic|prefix=Extrajudicial killings in|noredlinks=yes}} on them, which has resulted in the {{incoming links}} maintenance tag being added to the disambiguation page. Something about this situation feels incorrect. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a disambiguation page. But the real purpose of this page is unclear to me. The Banner talk 23:05, 11 June 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. Arguments to keep are weak, given that the sources are fairly routine in my view. That said, there is not consensus to delete the article, perhaps due to a lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird

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

I would argue that this fails the notability criteria: since the article is based on routine press coverage, and there's not much more mentions in reliable sources after the show did not move forward in September 2023. Maybe the specific guideline is WP:NOTNEWS, but I've seen most unaired television/film articles that do not have extensive coverage beyond cancellation be draftified, so maybe draftifying is the best option? I'm open to other options, though. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 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. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes — multiple instances of published, significant coverage about the subject in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's all routine press coverage, no sources show that the cancelled series is notable after its cancellation. Not all cancelled series/films with routine press coverage are notable, and if it is, might as well make pages for the 200+ series and films that have been cancelled. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage seems sufficient to have a page (with notable cast, production history, premise verified). If really there's no consensus about that being enough, then redirect to Starz and add a line there with a few of the sources from this article (but I think it's not necessary and personally find it would be a pity). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 11 June 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 04:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [3] [4] [5] Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:59, 20 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!} 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Again, two years off is too far in the future, judging from the information given. In any case it should be 2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election given that it has a date. "Next election" articles are either speculative or misnamed and need to be suppressed. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no good references discussing this future event. It currently has no value and WP:TOOSOON. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:31, 3 June 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 04:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh

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

TOO Soon; lacks reliable sources; BoraVoro (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although The Business Standard and The Register are generally reliable as news organizations, both their articles are based entirely on the third source, Group-IB. The notes about sources in WP:GNG say, "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." The article effectively has a single source. And it isn't clear that Group-IB has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 10 June 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 The Supremes discography#1960s. Owen× ☎ 23:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Darling

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

Couldn't find a reliable source verifying notability of or significantly covering the whole song by the Supremes. Sure, it charted in (West) Germany, but that's all I can find. If it fails GNG, then the song may also fail WP:NSONG. Even if notable, the article won't likely expand in the near or far future. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: should be redirected to The Supremes discography#1960s as alternative to deletion. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it charted nationally in Germany. But if for some reason then a re-direct is the next best alternative. Karl Twist (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is being charted in just (West) Germany enough to keep the page as a standalone article? George Ho (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well George Ho, I wonder if the page had been done in Wikipedia Deutschland, would it have been notable from their perspective?
Karl Twist (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know how notability in German Wikipedia works besides German language, but I don't see rules about notability of individual songs. Just passage about music albums. I still don't see an individual guideline there about notability of music topics compared to ours.

From what I see, there aren't that plenty of articles about individual songs, implying that Germans may not find those songs individually notable. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something I forgot to mention too. There were German pop magazines very popular during the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. I'd be surprised if they didn't cover the song. Being the Supremes, I'd be doubly surprised. People in Germany could find them a lot easier and quicker than we could. If the article is found to be non-notable by consensus, then your suggestion of a redirect makes good sense. The history can be preserved. And when down the track someone finds coverage in those magazines, newspapers etc., a discussion can be held, and the article put back into action / revived.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it only has the charting then I think the redirect would be the better option because the charting could be added to The Supremes discography#1960s. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to add the German music charts in just the "1960s" section. That way, the merger or redirect would be easier. George Ho (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Supremes discography#1960s: There is no coverage in reliable sources (only databases) to justify inclusion per WP:NSINGLE. No other NSINGLE requirements are met. Redirecting is a better alternative to deletion. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:22, 17 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumo Lulu-Briggs

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Contested for an election doesn't mean he won the election for a particular office. The sources were about him contending/campaigning for the election. No credible notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, ~~Lists of people~~, Politics, Business, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Candidates who are not elected to office fail WP:NPOL. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL for not being in either the federal or state cabinet, or any of its equivalents. Fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage in sources presented. A WP:BEFORE also doesn’t help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK4, nom is a sock, etc. Haven't actually read it so NPASR and all that. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shy (company)

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

It appears to be a non-notable fashion company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. All cited sources are either dead, spam websites. It fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Konhume (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquin Jansen

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

South African rugby BLP. I found a handful of sentences of coverage here, which I don't see as enough to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 10 June 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 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Polo & Equestrian Club

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

Non notable article about an organization/club that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't talk of WP:NCORP when there is no notability and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Asia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom. Doesn't satisfying {WP:GNG]]. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 10 June 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 06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenry Balobo

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything decent in WP:RS, just found a bunch of social media stuff Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 9 June 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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egungun of Lagos

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

This article don’t have reliable sourced references, the articles looks like an autobiography and subject is not notable to be included on Wikipedia as a BLP article. I think it should be deleted Madeforall1 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 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 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like a bad faith nomination. Meets WP:GNG and slightly WP:ENT. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is poorly reference and no significant of notability just social media articles and no reliable coverage about this person Madeforall1 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can't vote twice since you nominated this. Delete it or I should strike it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This nomination was made because I declined to help with an article (Diff). They think that their article was nominated for deletion wrongly. (Diff) Away from that, the sources in the article meet the GNG. A WP:BEFORE can confirm this but of course, the nominator did not do this. Best, Reading Beans 07:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying the truth, thank you Madeforall1 (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madeforall1, are you automatically withdrawing this nomination? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don’t want issues, I’m withdrawing. @Reading Beans said the truth, my article did meet the GNG, so I think he article also did. Madeforall1 (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: While the article and referencing are not perfect there is sufficient to retain and improve the article. Bad faith retaliatory nomination and purely disruptive. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:32, 3 June 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. While opinion was pretty evenly split, those editors arguing to Keep failed to provide reliable sources that could be used to establish notability, even when asked multiple times by other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SadaPay

AfDs for this article:

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

Every reference is PR and churnalism. Every reference is a PR announcement. Fails WP:NCORP and the key tenet of WP:V. This is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Pakistan, and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My delete !vote stands. I am still not satisfied with all the sources presented so far to establish WP:NORG for SadaPay. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I've nominated for deletion the BLP of the founder of Sadapay, but I believe this article about the company should be kept. Considering the sign./in-depth press coverage the company has garnered - such as Pakistan Today, Pakistan Today, Bloomberg. Express Tribune - the company may meet WP:GNG. Fwiw, it is Pakistan's most-funded fintech. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single reference is regurgitated PR. With this referencing it fails. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Well the coverage provided by Pakistan Today consists of investigative stories rather than press releases. And, Bloomberg typically doesn't cover Pakistani companies unless they are making some impacts. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Pakistan Today ref is a lightly-rephrased press release. Compare this and this. The second, of course, is an entirely-routine funding announcement failing WP:ORGTRIV. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic, Alright, you've sold me. Count me in! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Did you mean only to strike your !vote and not enter a different opinion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE it, I say! I'm also not very convinced it meets WP:NCORP. Saqib (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject meets the WP:ORGCRIT. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfarazbaig The references must show this. They do not. Your argument is WP:ILIKEIT which carries no weight in this discussion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements. Now we have a new article with mostly those same sources in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before. The few that postdate the deletion are no better: Ref 7 is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release; ref 8 is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and ref 9 is an unreliable piece by a "Forbes contributor". The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again. Delete. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a quick browse I found references articles that are not press release.--Cube b3 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then, tell us what they are and we can consider them. I'm willing to be convinced. I'm even, within reason, willing to help you convince me! But with neither evidence nor analysis, bare assertions like yours and Mfarazbaig's (the article creator) above are worth nada. —Cryptic 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cube b3 I'm in total agreement with @Cryptic on this. Convince us. Otherwise this is a worthless !vote, which I am sure is not what you intended. I did a search, quite a detailed one, and found none. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any editor may, during this discussion,especially when they declare that they have foiund good new references, improve the article and ask for it to be reconsidered under Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard once improved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Profit by Pakistan Today magazine is direct, in-depth, and balanced ([6], [7]). Then, there is additional coverage in DAWN ([8], [9]) and Bloomberg described it as the country's most-funded fintech in a routine funding round (such type of startups are almost always notable in the UK or US). WP:COMMONSENSE applies. 2A04:4A43:908F:F69C:81E4:3987:8686:1121 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:908F:F69C:81E4:3987:8686:1121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to see a review of sources brought to the discussion by the IP editor. Other Keep votes making assertions without providing citations are not worth much at all
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage provided by IP fails WP:SIRS. Saqib (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is exactly what WP:SIRS requires, quoted below:

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

This article in Profit was written by its staff and is a more-than-3000-word investigative journalism. This article is also by a staff member, is directly about SadaPay, and is more than 4k words long. I hope you're in good health (with all this hard work) because you're making a lot of wrong assessments and sloppy AfDs lately. Please consider slowlying down and not every comment need your reply (as multiple time requested on your talkpage recently). 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076, But it's not just me. Both @Timtrent and @Cryptic also turned down the same coverage, dismissing it as "PR," as you can see above. — Saqib (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP - I hadn't voted to delete before, but now I did, because you failed to convince me. Also please try to avoid WP:PA as they're not helpful. Best wishes! --Saqib (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have analysed all the sources. Each is blatant churnalism, all are WP:PRIMARY. Arguments to the contrary cannot stand 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's spam.Tehonk (talk) 20:14, 16 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Ejiofor

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBASKETBALL as they do not meet any of the criteria, or WP:GNG as the sources are insufficient to establish that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, Nigeria, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I contribute more on this? SusuGeo (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Any editor may work to improve articles, even those that have been nominated for deletion. If you can demonstrate that the person is notable for some reason (you can see my reasons for questioning this below), then you might be able to prevent the article from being deleted! Good luck! P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ [see comment of June 3] unless some reason can be keeping can be located. Normally I would point out that the nominator did not mention having searched for sources, as required by WP:BEFORE. However, this is a college basketball player, and the sources in which you would expect her to be mentioned are probably news sources. A quick search just using the "news" tool above appeared to show minimal coverage: university profiles focused on one of their student athletes, and a couple of basketball scores. Certainly nothing currently in the article demonstrates notability: there are thousands of college basketball players, some of whom are notable, but merely being one doesn't seem to indicate notability. I admit to some uncertainty: is it usual for all Vanderbilt Commodores players to have articles, even those who weren't part of the team for very long and who don't appear to have been primary contributors to their team? It's possible that there's some policy I don't know of here, or some other reason for notability I didn't think of, but it isn't indicated yet. P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius Usually the majority of college players don't have an article. The editor in question seems to have been creating articles of players from Africa rather than Vanderbilt players. There is no inherent notability from playing for Vanderbilt or any other basketball team, college teams or otherwise. All players must simply pass WP:GNG. There are some sources below that have been uncovered since your !vote if you are interested. Alvaldi (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing professionally would tend to make her more notable, but if the only thing to add is that she's done so, then it may not be enough. I don't discount local sources, but merely being interviewed by a student newspaper, however editorially independent it may be, doesn't confer notability. The question is whether she's done something to bring her to attention at some significant level. For instance, being a major contributor to a championship team, or mentioned (not just in passing, or noting the basketball scores) in news sources with a greater reach than college papers. Sporting figures profiled in national papers or similar sources may be notable. I'm not foreclosing the possibility of notability; just that so far it doesn't seem to be here. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This subject doesn't appear to have nearly enough to meet the WP:GNG. I found 1 paragraph of coverage at [[10]], and the subject was interviewed by 60 Minutes [[11]]. It is a close call though, so please ping me if more sources are found. This source provides depth but is quite local [[12]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also [[13]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that locality of sources has no bearing on whether they go towards GNG or not. Proposals to discount local sources have been repeatedly rejected in the past. Regarding other sources, This has a few paragraphs about her. There is also this feature in the The Daily Athenaeum. It is the student newspaper at West Virginia University, something we generally don't consider going towards GNG, but it states in its article that it is editorially independent from the university and does not have a faculty adviser. I'm not sure that changes anything. There is also this feature in relations to the 60 minutes interview. Alvaldi (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that since 2022, she has played professionally in Spain and France so there might be some sources there. She is also a member of the Nigerian national team which could indicate that there might be sources about her in the Nigerian media. Alvaldi (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi, we have a strong consensus against considering any student papers as contributory to notability, regardless of their editorial independence: However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay I've usually never consider student papers being contributory to notability but the part about it being editorial independent cast a few doubts in my mind with this particular paper. Thanks for the clearup. Alvaldi (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SI article is not independent and potentially not RS, as it was written by a WVU sophomore for the Mountaineers Now "FanNation" blog section of SI. JoelleJay (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are talking about the one Alvaldi posted? I posted a different one above that one. Let'srun (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in addition to the WP:NBASKETBALL criteria mentioned above, WP:NCOLLATH may be relevant here. However, while the article has some improvements since this discussion began, I still don't see any evidence of notability. The subject doesn't seem to have won any titles or participated in any championships or tournaments of note, and the only details provided in any of the sources describe nothing more than a brief biography focused on her playing basketball at various schools or being a member of various teams or playing in certain places. Nothing that would naturally bring her to national attention, or distinguish her from thousands of other college or minor professional athletes. P Aculeius (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on presented citations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Hkkingg (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't had a chance to look at the other sources, but the first one you posted is from Vanderbilt (the school she played for at the time the article was written), and as such isn't independent. Let'srun (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what Let’srun said. Also, I saw these sources you just mentioned before I made this nomination and they just can’t be used to establish GNG, subject already said WP:NBASKETBALL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still removing the primary source, we have 4 other sources. I stand by my Keep vote. Again you don't need to protect your nomination and argue every voter that opposes your nomination. this is not a good practice. Let the admins decide.Hkkingg (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg This is not a matter of protecting my nomination (that sounds weird) or whatever, this is a deletion discussion, and this is a matter of letting you know what the policies and guidelines involved really is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those sources is independent. The first is from Vanderbilt, the second from WVU recruitment affiliate WV Sports Now (written by WVU students/employees), the third from the Vanderbilt student newspaper, and the fourth from the WVU student newspaper. The remaining French source is routine transactional news. JoelleJay (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my above arguments. I don't see the sustained SIGCOV in multiple independent secondary sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is unusual in that there are several editors here who have put in time to locate sources but they haven't given their opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept, Deleted or maybe moved to Draft space if it looks like they have a promising professional career ahead of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject was covered extensively in this SI cover story from 2020 [[14]], and while somewhat local this story from the Patterson Times is dedicated to her [[15]]. Ejiofor was also featured on 60 Minutes in 2020. As such, we have multiple independent, reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SI story is a single event, so we would need sources showing sustained SIGCOV to meet N. The (highly local) Paterson Times source fails YOUNGATH and does not count towards GNG, and the fact she was interviewed on 60 Minutes is also irrelevant as it is not secondary independent coverage. If the only good material we have on her is from a flurry of minor pieces regarding one event in 2020, and nothing else substantial since then, we really don't have an NPOV basis for an article. JoelleJay (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the quality, significance, or relevance of the sources. My question is, what is the subject notable for? Her personal life doesn't establish notability, and being a member of college basketball teams or minor professional basketball teams doesn't establish notability. Being interviewed by sports magazines or similar sources doesn't make her notable. What is it that elevates her above the level of a good but not particularly outstanding young athlete? Has she done something unusual or important that would still be worth mentioning twenty, forty, sixty years down the road? Right now the only specifics about her basketball career, besides a list of teams that she's played for, are that she scored 28 points for the Vanderbilt Commodores over the course of twenty-two games in one season: an average of 1.27 points per game played. In any given year, there are literally thousands of college basketball players with comparable records. P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references above which establish notability. The SI cover story is one and the other pieces of independent and routine local coverage provided above can count toward the second as expected by GNG. WP:NBIO clearly states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 01:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what is she notable for? She's not notable for having been mentioned or even interviewed by multiple publications. These sources would help if they said anything about her that would be notable; do they? As a basketball player, she's got to be notable for doing something important in basketball, and other than a list of teams she's been on, all that we know about her basketball career is that she scored 28 points one year. That's not notable! Virtually every starting player on every college basketball team in the country scores more than that over the course of a season, and they're not all notable. What sets her apart from thousands of non-notable players? It can't all come down to the number of publications that have mentioned her. P Aculeius (talk) 05:17, 31 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!} 05:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete P Aculeius and Vanderwaalforces are right. I had to google about her and there was nothing notable to show off as per WP:GNG. A school university website cant be use as a source as well.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep: according to Nigeria women's national basketball team, Blessing Ejiofor is a member of the team that won the 2023 Women's Afrobasket tournament, an international tournament held every two years, and Nigeria has won the last four tournaments. The team also qualified for this summer's Olympic Games at the 2024 FIBA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournaments. Now, I don't have enough expertise with the subject to be sure I can identify and cite which sources are appropriate for these, but if Ejiofor is a member of a championship team and (probably) the 2024 Nigerian Olympic basketball team, that might seem to be enough to establish notability. That and what's already in the article would seem to be an even better bet. But someone with more expertise with these tournaments should add this to the article. P Aculeius (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about adding a biography without a reliable source. If she was a member of a championship team. Does that means all members should have a stand alone article without providing sources nor meeting WP:GNG. A Wikipedia page is not a reliable source to why a person should have a stand alone article which you are already diverting to. So pointing those blue link because you found her there still doesn't make her notable. She falls under the category of Too soon. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comment, nowhere did I say that Wikipedia was a source for her notability. I pointed at those articles because if the statements made or implied are correct, then she is probably at least minimally notable, and some of the sources cited in those articles could and should be added here. I deferred doing so to someone with more familiarity with the type of source being listed, as those sources are beyond my realm of expertise. I've said all along that the sources aren't what make someone notable or non-notable: it's the information those sources can be used to verify.

Whether being a member of a championship basketball team or a national Olympic basketball team is sufficient to demonstrate notability, alone or in combination with what's already in the article is a matter of opinion. But I suspect it is, if the sources can be cited by someone with more experience in this field. Since this wasn't previously discussed and isn't currently in the article, I think it potentially changes things. It provides a concrete basis for claiming notability that was lacking before, even though this material needs to be substantiated. However, deleting the article before this has been done would be premature. P Aculeius (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have the article but can't find significant coverage on google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:26, 4 June 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 all, without prejudice against recreation as a single, merged article. Normally, when a viable ATD is suggested, we take that route. But here, the Merge supporters were not only in the minority, but couldn't even agree between themselves on a target. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)

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

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is lurking around this now, Id suggest also checking out this. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, discussion to merge completed (please see said discussion)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 already merged, deleted earlier. However this set of wg grace articles have hardly one ga, so many stubs and other full of stuff not required. They arent notable enough for wikipedia.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties" [16]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [17]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [18]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [19]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, most of the info is already repeated verbatim in the main article. Would you support deletion? JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:
Grace turned 23 in July 1871
Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).
1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.
This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".
Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.
Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.
He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.
The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh btw, I also finnaly nominated that dusty bunch of the 1948 ashes articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doczilla. You know perfectly well that I have already said, in express and unambiguous words, on two separate occasions, with this edit and this edit that the three articles W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882), W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) and W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) should be merged together to form a single article at W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891. You have been clearly told what to merge and where to merge it to. Please do not pretend that you cannot read what I have said. James500 (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because Wikipedia isn't a mirror to hold minute by minute biographical details of a person. WP:NOTMIRROR Also I oppose a merge because that would create a massive wall of words that totally overstate the person's actual importance. We are supposed to be editors which implies distilling subjects down to the important points and not trying to write down every last fact we can find about a subject. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge W.G. Grace was the outstanding cricketer of his time, but we only should have one biographical article on his career. The existence of multiple articles looks like an attempt to use WP as if it were a book, not an encyclopaedia. Having a book length biography would of course be wholly legitimate, but not within WP.

Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these pages go into unnecessary excruciating detail over his career. I oppose a merge/redirect because (1) the relevant information needed the main W.G. Grace article, and (2) these titles are highly unlikely search terms. For example, someone looking for information about W. G. Grace's cricket career between 1879 and 1882 is far more likely to search for Grace himself and find the appropriate content on his article, rather than searching for the oddly specific "W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882)." Frank Anchor 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too much detail/too much cruft is an editing matter, not a notability matter, and this is not the article improvement workshop. At issue is whether this should be a Keep as a subsidiary page from the extremely long W. G. Grace or whether this should be chopped back and Merged to that piece. Delete is not a valid outcome — nor is Merge unless somebody is ready to spend a day on the project. I believe this serves its purpose of keeping the main biography of readable length while preserving the information for sports historians and fans who care. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isnt a place for "sports historians or fans". Its not an encyclopedia. No other cricketer has this many pages. This is a transclusion of his books. For cricketers, wikipedia only needs to have the main page - unless if its a little bit long one solitary career page. So there goes your "delete is not valid" out the window.
- No merge because no one will spend a day - @Carrite, Wikipedia will grind to a halt if people start having this mentaility :)
Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how WP:GNG works. If, for example, the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is the subject of large chapters in four books, it has certainly received significant coverage in independent reliable sources within the meaning of WP:GNG. That creates a presumption that the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 should have an article. To prevent that period of Grace's life having a standalone article, you need to rebut that presumption with another policy or guideline. And there is no policy or guideline that rebuts that presumption. The only policy you have offered are various parts of WP:NOT that clearly do not apply. In turn: these articles are not cruft (and we don't even have a policy or guideline against cruft); they include a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace, and a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace would not fit in the main article; they do not consist entirely of an excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and the coverage in the said books that is not excessive listings of unexplained statistics would not fit in the main article; they are not a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files; indeed they could not possibly be a "mirror" of the copyrighted books on Grace such as Midwinter (1981) and Rae (1998), because we cannot copy the entire verbatim text of a copyrighted source. The policy that actually is applicable is WP:ATD. The articles contain salvagable content, therefore that content should be merged if the articles are not notable. And the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is demonstably notable. We know that it is notable, because I have just demonstrated that it is notable. James500 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally have one article - Career of W.G. Grace - which will become the new convention for all athletes' pages if wikipedia wants to widen its scope by that much.

It will be a cricket centric article in such a case, with no duplicate infoboxes.

Non-cricket aspects of that period go into the main article.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 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 06:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaryEllen Miller

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All the sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Norway, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, I could not find any coverage in reliable sources to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nomination and reasons given. Like User:Cocobb8 I could not find supportive WP:RS. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 01:47, 6 June 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 Belgium–Russia relations. Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium, Moscow

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

Fails WP:ORG. Russian version of this article also only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belgium, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgium–Russia relations, where the embassy is mentioned, as an ATD. gidonb (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 10 June 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!} 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Yoshiwara

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

There is one source given, but amount of detail given could define the term "passing mention". I searched for some more sources and found several more passing mentions (e.g. "Barbara Dju is possibly best known for her role in Eine Nacht in Yoshiwara"). XabqEfdg (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emmerich Hanus: Not opposed (changing) to Keep (for example this brief notula ; Abel in the cast; a 2-paragraph review by ...Billy Wilder (In the Italian translation of the collection of his early work)) ; opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference does not seem to be significant coverage. As far as I can tell it indicates that Abel was in the cast (as an aside, I think WP:NOTINHERITED applies to your second point), but does not go into any detail. The review is interesting and, as you say, may indicate more sources at the time, but it is quite short.

I am unsure about redirecting, because the director is not necessarily what people will be looking for. I also note that almost all of the information in this article is quite adequately included in Hanus's article. XabqEfdg (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about redirecting, because the director is not necessarily what people will be looking for. All right, then let's Keep it. (The footnote mentions the film in relation with Metropolis and Thea von Harbou) (But there is no better target for a redirect from a film than the page about its director imv.) Maile has added sources: thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable director and actors. Likely to have been more significant coverage in RS at the time. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and the Billy Wilder review is an indication of that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:12, 28 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!} 04:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a Google Book source to this. The source is in the German language, but it's a legitimate source. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the review and reliable books coverage identified in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 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 United Airlines. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kion de Mexico

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

The seventeen years that the article on this company has existed as an unsourced stub exceeds the fifteen years for which the company itself actually existed. I would suggest merging somewhere, but only if sources could be found to support content to be merged. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mexico. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. I don't even find the sources that would allow a merge. Maybe a redirect to the parent company but I do not find a source to verify that. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: It fails WP:NCORP, but should be redirected to United Airlines per WP:ATD. In 2005 and 2009, it was listed as a wholly-owned subsidiary ([20][21]) and the 2010 John Menzies annual report confirms its assets were acquired by Menzies Aviation. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 16:30, 25 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) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory google + google books search gives nothing for "Kion de Mexico." If any sources can be found it's probably sufficient to put under United Airlines. If someone writes a huge piece on it it can always be re-split again. I'll vote Merge and Redirect. Hopefully someone finds a source for it eventually? Mrfoogles (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

honestly speedy delete. wp:promodelete could have worked as well User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menzies Aviation as per ADT as the new owners. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I don't know that we have a third-party source for that. We do have the John Menzies plc, Annual Report 2010, stating at page 99: "In 2009 Menzies Aviation acquired the trade and fixed assets of Kion, a ramp services business based at Mexico City Airport, for a consideration of £0.5m, including costs of £0.1m". BD2412 T 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 I think that source should be OK - but if not, happy to go along with the suggestion to merge with United Airlines. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to settle on a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 3 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malaal-e-Yaar

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

I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage except some ROTM coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's fairly easy to establish that this was a notable, high-profile production. There might not be any PhD thesis written about its impact on Pakistani literature in the long term, but that would be a bar to high. Most google hits are episodes or link to episodes, but see for example coverage such as [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, are unreliable sources and therefore not enough to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. It is different to judge potential sources for substantiating claims in the article mainspace, where unreliable sources may be called into question, as opposed to show media coverage to establish notability. Coverage in tabloids or low-quality sources can very well be used to imply notability. I'd counter-ask, what process of WP:BEFORE did you do perform before nomination for deletion? This was nominated, with a nearly copy-paste deletion rationale from a lot of Pakistan-related AfDs in the past days, within 5 minutes from another AfD. --Soman (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage on google. Significant coverage on google news about "Malaal-e-Yaar" & "Malaal e Yaar". Libraa2019 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Drama_series: I wouldn't be fiercely opposed to Keep, because there is some coverage (like this https://www.masala.com/tv-reviews/malaal-e-yaar-a-summary-of-the-show-to-date-292294, bylined review) but if all in all it seems insufficient, redirecting it seems a reasonable ATD. A line can be added in the target article. Or more. (It may go without saying but I am opposed to deletion of this) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:31, 22 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) 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 3 June 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. Due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 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!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article does not establish notability, it is an opinion piece by Hansford and a WP:PRIMARY source. LibStar (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:24, 10 June 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak keep There's coverage of his World Cup appearances, and his post playing career in law. I think there's enough here for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22 The coverage I see are stats pages and mentions. I do not see any in-depth coverage on the individual which is needed to show notability. If you see such coverage, please post the links. Shinadamina (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as his rugby playing career, which included playing in all four of Tonga's matches at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he became a prominent lawyer in Tonga, serving as president of the Tongan Law Society and as a member of the 2009 Tongan Constitutional and Electoral Commission. He was a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa (Sustainable Nation-Building Party), and was a candidate in Tongan general elections in 2008, 2010 and 2014. Paora (talk) 11:46, 1 June 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!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be a alot easier if the people who wanted to keep the article shared the sources, or even better, added them to and expanded the article. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Expanding on my earlier Keep remarks: Radio New Zealand has a number of stories about Fonua's political activities and role in Tongan Law Society, including: [29], [30], [31], [32]. There would undoubtedly be more extensive and in-depth coverage in Tongan language sources. His role as a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa and a member of the Constitutional and Electoral Commission are also referred to in Campbell, I. C. (2012), "The Nettle Grasped: Tonga’s New Democracy", The Journal of Pacific History, 47(2), 211–225. Paora (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the sources offered by User:Paora above are routine political news ("...lawyer-hoping-third-time-lucky...," "...tonga-law-society-says...," "...grassroots-focus-for-tonga-election-candidate...," "...tonga-political-party-believes-king...") and not directly detailing this subject. BusterD (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perfectly reasonable delete rationale: the only applied sources (blogs and fan sites) do not meet RS. On the merits, there's nothing applied to the page, presented in this process, or found in my reasonable BEFORE which brings this past WP:SPORTSPERSON, which requires at least one reliable source which directly details the subject. Nothing like that in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Databases and fan blogs don't cut it for notability. Let'srun (talk) 16:52, 9 June 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. No new comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [33] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 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!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 10 June 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. Good points made by all participants, but no consensus whether to keep or merge. Since outright deletion is off the table, this discussion is better suited for a proposed merger on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
English literature refers to literature in the English language

Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.

Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?

Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...

You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.

The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Raper

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 3 of the 4 sources are primary from her employer. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out, three sources are from employer. The remaining source is an interview. With due consideration to the subtleties of WP:IV I am of the view that the Asia Society interview does not qualify as a WP:RS in the context of determining whether the subject is notable. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too have come up empty-handed after searching for sources. I would like to emphasize the nom's point that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Toadspike [Talk] 08:58, 7 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walton School of Auctioneering

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

This is just a bare ad for a non-notable school listing its curriculum that's been inserted into Auction school as a form of advertising. lizthegrey (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Ohio. lizthegrey (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing but an advertorial. Fails NCORP. BTW, I believe the other article referenced in the nomination also fails GNG. And possibly NOT. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:10, 6 June 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 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Giganto

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this short piece. JTtheOG (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:53, 4 June 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. Consensus materialized after nom withdrew their Delete view. Owen× ☎ 23:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School

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

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed malformed Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability wɔːr (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc ♫^talk 00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School. Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG, per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N, which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still no significant coverage at ProQust. Perhaps the stabbing is notable though? Try the google search — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: This is about all I can find [34] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~

Lacks notability in its entirety. Maybe, because the article is Wikipedia:Too soon. I don't know but I wonder why it's not yet covered in reliable sources from 2006 till date. So, delete until it's ready for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wår (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject. For directions on accessing ProQuest sources via the Wikipedia Library see the top of the page at Talk:Westview Secondary School. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Malinaccier

Please, do well to remove the Afd tag now. Issues resolved. Wår (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
War Term, are you requesting your AfD nomination to be withdrawn? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Wår (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to withdraw your nomination but this discussion can't be closed as there are several Delete arguments that have been made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users Iadmc and Oaktree b, given the changes in this article since its AfD nomination, and War Term's request to withdraw his nomination, would you be willing to take another look and reconsider your !vote? Thanks. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It still is just about ordinary school things. Even the stabbing isn't mentioned — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They put in a flower garden and a totem pole, but I suppose these are enough for at least GNG... Still not super duper sources, but good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 24 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows

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

This article is nominated for deletion as it doesn't meet WP:V, WP:N and not WP:S talk more of WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed malformedQueen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the nominator here. If there exist notable schools and sources, it is therefore a populated district, and meets WP:GEO and WP:PLACES. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe

Does it not amaze you that there are no references to support claims? wɔːr (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, there are plenty Google pop news of this place. It even has a notable newspaper of it's own meaning it's notable

Maybe we can look closely at this.

e. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School districts are nearly always notable due to the large amount of coverage provided by local and regional news. Jumpytoo Talk 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for the reasons many others have already mentioned.ArchidamusIII (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Telefilms: (Page for director is a Redirect) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Plenty of good refs which indicates notability [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, But there's no mention whatsoever of the subject in sources # 1, 2 and 4, Source # 3, though OK for WP:V, but insufficient for GNG because its WP:ROTM coverage. As for source # 5, SomethingHaute is a WordPress blog per this, which isn't deemed a RS. Source # 6 is only a WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 3 June 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 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS

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

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:

The book Embedded Computing Systems Applications, p. 451, at Google Books describes LogFS (for about 200 words) and compares it with other FFSs. This seems borderline WP:SIGCOV.
There's the news article LogFS: A new way of thinking about flash filesystems, at Linux.com; but as discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22 § Linux.com, this may or may not be a WP:RS. (Note that the article was published in 2007, before Linux.com changed ownership in 2009. This means later discussion of the site is less applicable, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52 § Softpedia Linux software reviews).
The paper CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System uses LogFS as a benchmark for evaluating CosaFS's performance.

Honorable mentions:

The papers LOFFS: A Low-Overhead File System for Large Flash Memory on Embedded Devices, A Survey of Address Translation Technologies for Flash Memories, Transparent Online Storage Compression at the Block-Level, DFS: A File System for Virtualized Flash Storage, TrueErase: Leveraging an Auxiliary Data Path for Per-File Secure Deletion, and Introducing the Advanced XIP File System (presented at the 2008 Linux Symposium) mention LogFS, but only in passing.
The paper A Novel over Writable and Restoring Solution of Filesystem for NAND Flash supposedly mentions LogFS, according to search previews, and it does cite http://elinux.org/LogFS, but I can't access the paper itself to determine whether it's more than an offhand mention.

Dishonorable mentions:

The paper Transparent Log-Based Data Storage in MPI-IO Applications is about a LogFS, but it doesn't seem to be the same LogFS.
A search for "LogFS" will also turn up some mentions of "LinLogFS", e.g. LinLogFS: a log-structured filesystem for Linux, but these seem to be unrelated.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 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!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g 🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 3 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy–Montenegro relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing here that cannot be covered under Foreign relations of Italy or Foreign relations of Montenegro. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article contains 2 primary sources. Lacking third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no criteria that articles (apart from BLPs) have to have third party sources to meet GNG. The notability is not to be judged by the sources in the article at present, but the potential available scope of sources. It's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article on the relations between these 2 neigbouring countries. --Soman (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, please read WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject". It is a basic requirement of GNG to provide third party sources. For an editor who has edited since 2004 you should know this. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and they're not really neighbouring, yes across the sea but no land border. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article " Please list these or it's WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd counter-question is any WP:BEFORE was performed here? In this case it's pretty easy to assume that sources would be available. How about [41], [42], [43], "Italia e il Montenegro , firmato a Cettigne il 28 marzo 1883. È desso il primo accordo che l'Italia stipula con quel principato , ed è il secondo che il Montenegro conchiude con nazioni estere , il primo essendo stato concluso colla ." ([44]), "Nel novembre 1879 , Giuseppe Ottolenghi , delegato italiano nella commissione per la delimitazione nel Montenegro , nella sua relazione al capo dello Stato Maggiore riassume ." ([45]), "[Albania]... Italy, Montenegro and, traditionally, those of Austria, was not a minor problem. This issue, therefore, was destined to alter the relations between Montenegro and Italy, and between Italy and Serbia. Projects of Italian occupation..." ([46]), etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding third party sources which is a requirement of GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar @Soman With the exception of link 1 above (and link 2, which is a dead link), the sources provided refer to historical episodes already covered in detail in other articles. See Italian governorate of Montenegro, Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Again, with the exception of link 1, the sources are not about the relationship between Italy and the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. My BEFORE search did not turn up enough significant coverage of post-2006 relations, which means that WP:NOPAGE should apply to avoid creating a content fork with Italian governorate of Montenegro or Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dclemens, from your analysis of sources, I stand by my delete !vote. I agree that coverage should be about the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an approach consistent with how other bilateral relations articles are delimited. Look at Russia–United Kingdom relations, China–India relations, Germany–Italy relations, and so forth. At no point does this article have to relate to post 2006 material only. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Germany/Italy article starts only with the establishment of modern unified Italy. It's not a history of how Prussia interacted with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Likewise, the Italy/Montenegro article starts with the first establishment of a sovereign Montenegrin state that can engage in foreign relations... in 2006. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's not limit AfD discussions to the current contents of an article. The discussion should relate to the potential scope of how an article can evolve. There are difficult cases and grey areas, but taking the timeline back to 1800s (unification of Italy and Prinicipality/Kingdom of Montenegro) makes perfect sense to start in this case. It is in line with how articles on Russian bilateral relations link back to more or less same period. --Soman (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As there was a Montenegro before the current state became independent in 2006, we don't need to limit this article to post-2006 events. Note, for example, that Italy occupied Montenegro from 1941 to 1943; see Italian governorate of Montenegro. That said, I hope that additional content and sources are added to this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's not much to it now, but this is a stub that has a reasonable chance to grow. I tend to think that two countries this close to each other are going to have active relations which in turn will receive WP:SIGCOV. A cursory google search confirms this. Yilloslime (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per Authorities in Exile Claiming to be ‘Governments’: Profiles', Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (2001; online edn, Oxford Academic), Italy continued diplomatic relations with the Montenegrin government-in-exile up to September 1921, seemingly the last country to withdraw diplomatic links with the Montenegro govt in exile. --Soman (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Otherwise liable to be closed "no consensus."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of sources about the relationship between the two countries: 1 2 3 4 5 Cortador (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cortador. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 7 June 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 12:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate

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

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.

The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :

etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.

A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.

So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.

So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 June 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 12:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Taiko

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

While previously deleted for G11, this time the page has been written in a more encyclopedic tone. Unfortunately, there is just not any coverage that I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, Japan, and California. BrigadierG (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References to published academic work demonstrating the significance of this organization to the art of taiko in North America have been added, as well as national recognition from the NEA for the original managing director and artistic director of the organization. 31N2024 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is in primary or non-RS. I don't find anything beyond them performing at various venues. This also appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the nominator accessed the book coverage now referenced in the article which boasts of two books having 23 page coverage of this band? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources added as well as User:Atlantic306's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:25, 3 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecko Miles

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

I do not see enough evidence to establish WP:NMUSICIAN. Some sources are unreliably having a close connection to the subject, some are WP:ROUTINE coverages announcing founding of Daed Empire, most are PRs, announcing collabo or music release, etc. Fails WP:GNG in a nutshell. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the subject meets some of the criterias of WP:NMUSICIAN for example the song he had with popular Nigerian rapper and musician charted major charts in the country as was cited in the article , also I would say it meets WP:GNG the sources used in the subject article are in line with WP:NGRS too, after thorough investigations I will say this the subject was not as notable as he was before the collaboration he had with Zlatan and odumodu blvck but that collaboration was what increased his notability and brought him further into the limelight.ProWikignome (talk) 21:23, 20 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!} 22:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO due to chart position of his song. Hkkingg (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:24, 3 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 June 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. ✗plicit 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Monastyryshche

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

A poorly written article, devoid of reliable sources. In addition, the language is very engaged and one-sided. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep going on and on about the poor article, but you won't even point out examples, and on what grounds are the sources unreliable? Querty1231 (talk) 19:07, 20 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!} 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a Stub - these are actual events so what is the point of deleting it? If someone has reliable information to the battle then they can expand it at any time.Olek Novy (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. References are very poor and I am having trouble finding RS on this, there are some snippet mentions in few academic sources but nothing substantial (well, I am also doing a quick search too, no time for in-depth one - but nom should do it - I see little evidence of WP:BEFORE here). The nom also writes thatthe article is "devoid of reliable sources", but one ref is "Wielcy hetmani Rzeczypospolitej" from 1983 by Jerzy Besala - why is it unreliable? Now, given the crappy writing found in the article, I would not be surprised if that source does not mention this battle - but this needs to be verified first. There are also more reliable positions in bibliography that should be checked. Lastly, why did the nom not nominate this for deletion at pl wiki (where I see a page range is given for Besala, making it more likely this event is mentioned there, and another RS, Leszek Podhorodecki, is cited)? Sorry, Marcelus, but I think you need a WP:TROUT here. Such messes should be tagged and improved, but not deleted. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is going to stay, basically 90% of it needs to be removed as unsourced OR. Marcelus (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the amount of available reliable source material available about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 3 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLHU-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:45, 19 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!} 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why articles are deleted, but I found this article in “Edge” search and it provided the information I was looking for. If it had been deleted I would still be looking! The reason I use “Wikipedia” is I almost always find something about what I’m searching for and why I on an annual basis contribute to its support, Thank DWE! 172.56.84.213 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 3 June 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 00:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Leon McClanahan

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

Nearly every single source cited on this page is about the Missouri GOP's effort to disqualify his 2024 gubernatorial campaign. Per WP:1E, this doesn't make McClanahan notable, and this information could simply be transferred to the 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election page, with McClanahan's page being made into a redirect. I don't see the argument for McClanahan being notable on his own. The only two sources not about the disqualification controversy are WP:ROTM coverage of his 2022 Senate campaign. The ADL lawsuit is somewhat interesting, but given that it didn't seem to receive news coverage, that doesn't seem notable either (and the paragraph about the lawsuit on this page could easily be transferred to the ADL's page). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and blatant BLP violations. Non notable politician, who failed in his 2022 election attempts. The rest of this is speculation of a future run, and criticism of his personal life, and his alleged associations with the Ku Klux Klan. — Maile (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable politician, who has not been elected to office, therefore does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Cossde (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all above '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:56, 6 June 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, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Buffington

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

Played one season in the American third division and otherwise played in amateur leagues. Now coaches at a private high school in Jackson, Mississippi. Several searches brought up a single local mention for the amateur Mississippi Brilla and several local pieces on the success of the team he coaches. He exists and is clearly a decent coach of high schoolers, but this falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Mississippi, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a more substantial article than that on college basketball player Blessing Ejiofor, which seems to stand a decent chance of surviving AfD despite a lack of similar information about tournaments and awards, based solely on the existence of interviews and mentions in notable sources. So I expected that there would be at least local news coverage (i.e. independent of school newspapers and athletic sites) of Buffington.

He was not mentioned, as far as I can tell, in the Herald-Dispatch, although it's possible that the online search did not reach back as far as 2005 (it's also possible that the paper's coverage of Marshall soccer was not very extensive back them; it's much more extensive now that Marshall's program has achieved national prominence). I tried to search the Clarion-Ledger for mentions during Buffington's Mississippi College years, but was unable to get the site to finish loading on my ancient computer. A Google News search mainly turned up articles in "Mississippi Scoreboard" about the girls' soccer team that Buffington coaches. There may still be news coverage that I wasn't able to find, but I have my doubts at the moment. P Aculeius (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found some passing mentions in match reports but not much else here. This subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for a sports bio we need "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" beyond stats, and I can't find one that's not WP:ROUTINE match coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquest of Hadoti}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ustani Jee (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquest of Mandaran}}