Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moscow United Methodist Church}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interesting Engineering}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interesting Engineering}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari}}

Revision as of 17:03, 7 June 2024

< June 06 June 08 >

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. Malinaccier (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow United Methodist Church

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

This appears to be a small church with no particular claim to be notable - either because of history or current activity. Suggest delete unless someone can evidence notability Newhaven lad (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found various books discussing the rise of Methodism in Russia but not this church in particular. Don't support redirect as specific location doesn't reflect the movement. BrigadierG (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrigadierG the church is in Pennsylvania! Look again — Iadmc♫talk  18:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, how'd I miss that? It's like Category:Kiritimati all over again BrigadierG (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does your !vote stay though? — Iadmc♫talk  19:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does - I can't find any coverage of the church. BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 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 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! 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Engineering

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

Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete good web presence, but the only mentions of it I can find are on places like Reddit. The article trying to WP:INHERIT notability from other news outlets that have cited it is telling. BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and the existenc of List of heaviest people article is evidence that there is notability to those people demonstrating this condition which is documented by reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari

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

Not notable, see WP:BLP1E 48JCL TALK 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be kept as articles for other record setting individuals still exist and arent being deleted
I refer you to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heaviest_people Most of those people still have articles that arent being deleted 192.0.146.27 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the fact khalid weighed as much as he did and lost all of that weight makes him notible since he did the impossible 192.0.146.27 (talk) 01:42, 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 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! 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Lyons

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third-party coverage and analysis about them and the impact of their work in reliable sources other than their own employers -- but the sole reference cited here is from her own employer at the time, and thus isn't independent of her for the purposes of building notability, and the article has been tagged for needing more sourcing since 2010 without improvement.
In addition, the whole thing is written very much like somebody did a thinly veiled rewrite of her own staff profile from an employer rather than a proper encyclopedia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more than just her own former employer for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. The article is completely unsourced apart from one statement about her getting an award; that is sourced to a page on the website of the business she was working for at the time, and merely briefly mentions her. It is neither an independent source nor substantial coverage of her. I have searched for better sources but found none; I picked up LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Facebook, X, websites of several newspapers she has worked for, etc, but nothing that came near to being substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. JBW (talk) 20:56, 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 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. Malinaccier (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyalur Subhan Ali

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown local politician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local politicians. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the inclusion test for a local politician hinges on showing a significant depth and volume of reliable source coverage about their work -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth -- but this is basically just "he is a politician who exists", referenced mainly to primary sources that are not support for notability, while the closest thing to reliable source coverage about him is covering him in the context of undergoing surgery rather than in the context of anything related to making him notable as a politician.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the redirect's undeletion. Star Mississippi 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolia Genetics

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

Very poorly written, and too much overlap in the article with Genetic studies on Turkish people (which parts of were apparently copy-pasted here) to warrant a separate article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:09, 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 keep‎. given article improvements and consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shapiro (journalist)

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

Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. - I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep. ResonantDistortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDistortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDistortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b - in the article are cited 14 secondary refs covering the books written by the subject of this article. This includes seven full page reviews of one of his works, multiple other reviews of his other works and further WP:RS stating the importance and recommending these other works. I personally do not see how WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and there's easily enough coverage to, at minimum, build a start class article based upon the works this individual has created (it took me about 5 minutes to expand the article by ~400%). ResonantDistortion 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 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. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber K

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

Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Timknit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, I can't find book reviews. I don't see anything other than books for sale on the usual platforms. Nothing for biographical notability as I can't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep: The page is in need of expansion and updating, not deletion. Amber K has writing books since the 1980s, the selection listed on the page is incomplete, as a cursory search for "Almber K bibliography" will indicate. Reviews of her books are likewise easily found on reviews sites, such as Goodreads, and her publisher's official sites as well. Ardantane, her "some company", is an independent, registered 501c3 non-profit corporation established in 1996 in the state of New Mexico and is one of the few Nationally recognized Pagan Schools in the United States. She is also a former First Officer (President) of Covenant of the Goddess (COG), an international organization of Wicca and Witchraft covens and practitioners, whih was founded in 1975. Amber K is also the originator of COG's Youth Service Award "The Hart and Crescent", which was originally designed for those in Scouting, may be earned by youth who are not Scouts as well.
When I have time, I will work on improving the article, provided that it is kept.
(POV: As an aside, I find it questionable that a new Wikipedian's earliest activities on the platform are to suggest articles for deletion.) Ashareem (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the Goodreads reviews but I don't belive user generated content counts towards notability any more than the period of time over which books were written or the particular tax registration of a given organisation. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User-generated content can't be used for notability; that's part of the issue, can't seem to find any critical reviews in sites that aren't blogs or user-generated sites Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 22 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! 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep somewhat reluctantly, I think there's a case similar to the reasoning behind WP:NARTIST and WP:NMUSICIAN. There's precedent for keeping articles on figures who have been influential within a notable subculture, even if they are not known beyond that subculture. It seems to me that on grounds of WP:SUSTAINED, the volume of work published, and reliable sources describing her as something resembling an authority figure on new age Modern paganism in the United States, she probably edges over into notability. The existing article that's written should probably be tagged for FANPOV. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Balita

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

Doesn't appear to be notable independently of his senate run, for which Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates would apply, with the sources given being candidate databases and interviews. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:33, 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrat Saeed Qureshi

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. There's nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidacy misses WP:NPOL BrigadierG (talk) 16:26, 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. Consensus is sourcing presented is of insufficient depth. Star Mississippi 00:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh James (law firm)

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

Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [3]. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [4] and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up. In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times, as you requested. The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm. Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage. I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage. Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them. I do not know the answer to that question yet. The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: [10] [11]. The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: [12]. There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients. For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere. James500 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online[13], for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt at looking for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a basic misunderstanding of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, which is based on the existence of coverage, not necessarily used in the Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: I'm not saying the sources have to be in the article; I am simply asking which 'new sources' Eastmain and Iwaqarhashmi are referring to. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that James500 above misses half the point of "Independent" sources - not only must we show that the publication is independent but that the content is also independent. The profiles pointed to in The Times above are part of the Top Law Firms series but the profile is a regurgitation of what the company says about itself and then it simple lists activity and cases in which they had clients to represent. There is no in-depth information *about* the *company* in these profiles. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The next two articles also comment on *cases* in which the company had clients to represent, they do not provide in-depth information about the company. The next article is an interview with their HR Director - no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND.
We require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company* (not their principals, not cases they've been involved in, not their clients, etc). None of the other Keep !voters have identified any sources nor put forward an argument that is supported by guidelines or sources. None of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing++ 14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With one exception, all I see are the humdrum company activities that are carried in trade papers and journals - company moves; company expands; company does X. I don't see any in depth analysis that would stand out. The only exception is one I cannot access, but it is a very recent report that the firm is being sued Law360. Should that suit get wide coverage there may be (ironically) enough to source an article. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 3 July 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) 17:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Suchánek

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, respectively because his roles are limited to supporting/minor characters and article lacks sufficient sources. He was last known for starring in The Andromeda Strain before disappearing from the entertainment industry in 2008. My Google searches exclusively showed coverage about the Czech actor but nothing about the younger Michal Suchánek. No news have been reported on him for more than 15 years either. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 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 16:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Tiongco

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 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) 14:26, 14 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! 21:49, 21 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 Golmaal (film series). Discussion about redirecting to another target can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golmaal Jr.

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Golmaal Jr has enough sources for it to be an article, the series seems popular in general. TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:56, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Jumamoy

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

The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:40, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Cajes

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

The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources I can find are related to her slapping someone and COVID lockdowns, which aren't good enough for WP:GNG. Mayor doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Generally a very minor politician with no major record to speak of. Possible redirect to Roberto Cajes, her husband — Iadmc♫talk  13:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the redirect is possible, the redirect does not contain even a sentence of Judith Cajes. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point further showing how minor she is— Iadmc♫talk  14:48, 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6789

NGC 6789 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the article needs to be expanded. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌) 11:51, 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 Speedy/procedural keep - this relates to longstanding conflict/disruption related to the history/legacy of the famous Romanian football team 'Steaua București', with two clubs (FCSB and CSA Steaua București) both claiming the heritage. AFD is totally the wrong venue to deal with any perceived issues related to this, FSCB is clearly notable.‎. GiantSnowman 12:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FCSB

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

The information presented here is mostly false. The date the club was founded is wrong, the records are wrong, the history is wrong, former players are wrong, about 80% of the entire article is wrong.

If you go to the club's own website, you find nothing about the information presented here. It says here that Fcsb has 27 domestic titles. When its chairman of the board was asked if this is true, he denied it. https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-1/mihai-stoica-explicatie-total-neasteptata-motivul-pentru-care-numarul-27-va-fi-trecut-pe-tricourile-campioanei-fcsb-398416.html So why keep this article? It makes no sense. Just because there is some wrong information posted on some website? That is the same as fake news. Does Wikipedia support fake news now? TPTB (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not for debating the content. It is to establish WP:notabilty and appropriate WP inclusion/exclusion. Please feel free to correct the info with WP:reliable sources or reframe the AfD proposal. If the sources are geniune and reliable, btw we might need a conversation about how to use them.

Comment: this is an invalid and arguably malicious nomination. As can be seen on the talk pages of this article and various others on related entities, there is a long-running legal dispute. The nom is likely to be proved correct that FCSB will be disassociated from most if not all of the historic achievements of the Steaua Bucharest club in due course, but AFAIK this is not definitive at present in terms of reliable sources stating exactly what can be allocated to whom. Regardless, the FCSB entity is an extant sports club (and won the Romanian championship this season just gone) so is unequivocally a valid topic for an article, and would be still valid as a topic as a means of clarification on the events of the past years even if it were dissolved altogether tomorrow. The nom has seemingly lost their patience in this matter and now simply wants to have all the information deleted rather than have contentious information removed by the proper means and processes. Crowsus (talk) 16:04, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FirstVIEW

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

Non-notable database or website. Doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. I can't find any RS online nor on article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:03, 7 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! 06:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Other than its own web site I found nothing. It seems to still be active, and its main product appears to be licensing photos of fashion shows. That's all I can glean. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Iraq

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY BrigadierG (talk) 12:34, 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 keep‎. Consensus is that sources have been found to establish notability. Other questions about whether to merge similar topics have not been resolved but may be addressed outside of this AfD. Malinaccier (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptovirology

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

This seems to be something coined by A. Young, and was not adopted in the wider world. Other sources such as Scientific American and the NIST do not mention the word. Also, COI editing is involved here: Special:Contributions/Adamlucasyoung. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stand corrected, Gscholar has many papers using the term and it's been in use since the 1990's [15], [16] and [17]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] is a paper by the person who coined the term originally, and so is [4]. Leaves [3], which is not enough. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Oaktree b got one that passed the nominator's litmus test but there plenty are more. For example:
There are 684 855 hits on Google Scholar for this term, only a few of which are by Young. Yes, many are not RS but these would have been found on the most minimal WP:BEFORE search. If @PhotographyEdits still feels this term has not been "adopted in the wider world" then I think it would be incumbent on them to explain what efforts they made to exclude the possibility the google scholar results contain less than two reliable sources with significant coverage of the term. Oblivy (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of passing mentions does not mean it passes the WP:GNG.
Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. A whole lot are just returning a hit because they cite the original paper by A. Young but do not add anything about the term. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider the Bhardwaj & Das book chapter? It is literally about cryptivirology ("the study in this chapter deals with the dynamics of worm propagation in cryptovirol-
ogy"). Is that a passing mention?
I don't understand this: Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. Can you explain? Note that when "a whole lot" of papers cite a paper about a concept that can be evidence of notability.
Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar? Your nomination statement only talked about existing sources and I think disregarding hundreds of hits would generate some explanation. Oblivy (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar?
Yes, I did.
Please also see my comment below.
The ransomware article weirdly states it is part of a larger field called cryptovirology, while this does not seem to be the case. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Years later, the media relabeled the cryptoviral extortion attack as ransomware."
Therefore, this article should be a redirect to ransomware article. The term should only be mentioned in the early history of ransomware. Also, meeting WP:GNG does not mean the subject is required to have an article. We can merge an outdated term into the article with the common name.
PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems we are heading toward a consensus to keep the article, but could we evaluate the nominators thought that this should be merged with ransomware? It's not clear whether this is quite right as Cryptovirology looks like the study of ransomware and similar methods. Pinging @Oaktree b: @Artem.G: @Oblivy: any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like cryptovirology is essentially "the use of cryptography in viruses." It looks like it's mostly ransomeware encrypting data, but according to the article it's also about things like publishing user data in encrypted form to be found by virus makers, and also asymmetric backdoors. So if the article was to be merged it would have to be merged into multiple articles.
  • Ransomware seems to have pretty good coverage of encryption usage
  • Backdoor (computing) has a section on asymmetric backdoors that references essentially the same things as the cryptovirology article
  • Private information retrieval is something the article claims is a theoretical use of cryptography in viruses
  • The rest (the article mentions viruses communicating with cryptography, and "cryptographic counters") would have to go into Computer virus
So the real question is probably whether the use of cryptography in viruses is well-covered enough that it needs its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Kleptography, which may get its own AFD if this one succeeds but could be a merge target. One of the books mentioned above distinguishes cryptovirology into "active" and "passive", where active is essentially ransomware and passive is essentially the kleptography article, so by that definition we would have it covered. The one thing missing is cryptographical virus communication, but that's not discussed in the article other than a trivial mention, so there would be nothing to merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> So the real question is probably whether the use of cryptography in viruses is well-covered enough that it needs its own article.
My answer to this is a pretty clear 'no'. Also, all the articles you linked is pretty much industry standard terminlogy, while this really is not. My vote is either 'delete' or 'merge and redirect'. Ransomware seems like the best merge target. I might open an AfD to Kleptography as well soon. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:01, 19 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 List of Assam cricketers#B. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Bhagawati

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

No more information available on this topic, The article did not edit from much time. And no importance of this article.... Many regions to delete it. Manoj Bhagawati is/was not famous cricketer. Paigaonwasii. — Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 30 May 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 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 redirect‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#King Grayskull. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Grayskull

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) CMD (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Burchill

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

I first saw this article when I was looking at the cast of Stoned Bros.. I prefer the information of this article to be transferred in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Also, this article isn't notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:47, 14 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. A merge can be an alternative to deletion, but an AfD cannot pick it as an alternative to keeping the article. Without a single !vote to delete, including the nom, no action can be taken here. Proposed mergers should take place on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manx Aviation and Military Museum

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

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest Wikilover3509 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is notable. What's missing here is a lead paragraph to inform us how this got established, and what the museum's focus is. There's several categories of military museums around the world. Improve, don't delete. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 02:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments divided between Merge and Keep, no support for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A museum is an institution dedicated to preserving culturally significant objects, and I think almost all should be considered notable, even with few and little sources. Mr Vili talk 06:34, 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 merge‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cat

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 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! 06:25, 14 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 List of Gargoyles characters#Demona. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demona

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

The only sigcov source here[27] and a bit useful IGN source [28] still doesn't pass WP:GNG with the demonstrated sources. The best thing is to merge it into a list of characters. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Section Move. I find it strange that this character ends up having her own page in this website, so I agree that the majority of the information in Demona's separate article should be merged in the list of Gargoyle characters. Anonymy365248 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's a decades-old character who is still popular today and has appeared in different forms of media including games and comics. --DrBat (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSPOPULAR 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But without a single reliable source to verify its existence or accuracy, there is no way it can be included" doesn't apply here. DrBat (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm not sure what I'm gonna respond to you. Show me more sources like Mary Sue that really doscuss the character in detail for it to prove that she's really notable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's this article, this interview, and this video. --DrBat (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already brought up the IGN source. Demona is just a passing mention from the AV club source + that youtube source is unreliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The av club one has a whole section of the interview about the character, it's hardly a passing mention. --DrBat (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I missed this sorry, but we don't usually call this WP:SIGCOV as a source somehow since Demona wasn't discussed as a character but as an interview to voice her in a short detail. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pisces B

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

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies and also has similarities with the article about Pisces A, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌) 11:58, 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pisces A

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

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator seems to be proposing to merge each of these into the Local Void article. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌) 11:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Some users kept saying "keep" but none of them want to expand the page. So, why not just have it deleted, since it's pointless to keep an article that's a stub but not find any sources to expand it. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:08, 13 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. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7077

NGC 7077 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌) 11:54, 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6503

NGC 6503 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is notable. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌) 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I don't think so, because no one has even tried to expand the article. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:32, 13 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 New Democracy (Greece) as an ATD where it can be improved and, if needed, spun back out once independent notability has been established Star Mississippi 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge to New Democracy (Greece). On its own it fails WP:NORG, as the student wing of New Democracy it adds value to that article. Disputed draftification 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author note:
I will try to find some time to expand the article over the following days. For the time being, I would just like to mention that there has been a seperate article about it in the Greek wikipedia for years: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A0%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1_-_%CE%9D%CE%AD%CE%B1_%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A6%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%9A%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7 .
As a new wikipedia member, I am not very familiar with criteria and processes. However, since there is a seperate page for it in the Greek wikipedia (it has not been merged with the New Democracy party greek page), I think that there should also be a seperate equivalent page in the English wikipedia. In my opinion, expanding the article is the way to go, not merging it.
(So I would vote for KEEP, while expanding it at the same time.)
ArchidamusIII (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ArchidamusIII I would have moved it to Draft, but see WP:DRAFTIFY which says I cannot. I do not feel that drafification is appropriate, or would have suggested it. The Greek language Wikipedia has different standards. The English language version has the most stringent. Existence of an article in one is no guarantee that is suitable for the other or another, not is any precedent set between language versions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Thanks for the information!
I just added 15 cases-events that attracted media attention (in table form). By media I mean media that are reputable in Greece. In all honesty, I think that Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement should definitely meet the notability criteria. A quick google search with δαπ νδφκ as keywords (its Greek abbreviation) yields numerous results.
I will try to expand the article more over the following days. There is a lot of material available, so it is hard for me to cover everything. My original goal was to establish a short article and then let others slowly add details.
ArchidamusIII (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nominator.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - national student wing of one of main parties in Greece, had major role in national student body elections (which is a very important event in Greek politics). Whilst the article might need some editing, its not a candidate for Draftify. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 13 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) 16:33, 14 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! 21:48, 21 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! 04:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur)

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

I don't think the notability criteria has been met. The article was created and primarily written by an apparent pair of sockpuppet COI editors: Shoushanne and Santa monique. They were focused mainly on Carole Bienaimé, whose article identifies her as married to Besse. Santa monique also uploaded the photos of Bienaimé. Risedemise (talk) 11:17, 7 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! 06:24, 14 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! 22:53, 20 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! 23:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Bienaimé

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

I don't think the notability criteria has been met. The article was created and primarily written by an apparent pair of sockpuppet COI editors: Shoushanne and Santa monique. Santa monique also uploaded both photos of Bienaimé, claiming them as their own work. Risedemise (talk) 11:14, 7 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! 06:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough for an article and doesn't meet the notability guidelines for people. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 19:40, 14 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. Those arguing to keep the article have pointed out a number of reliable sources, while those arguing to delete have pointed out that many of these sources are passing mentions. It does not seem that we are coming to a clear consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elnur Aslanov

Elnur Aslanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 21 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. When I see a deletion rationale like "Likely fails GNG", that to me means that the nominator isn't sure and in that case deletion should not be sought for an article. If you are seeking deletion, you should be sure that you have good reasons to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treujenn-gaol

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

Likely fails wp:gng Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 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 11:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pull (philately)

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

Would be better suited for a definition on wikitionary, I think. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:36, 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. Note: There is no argument for deletion being made and this could have been procedurally closed. At this stage, that would be a super vote, so NC it is. Links being dead, an unproven allegation of it being "stolen from a draft" are arguments for history merge and clean up. Year-old AfC comments are not binding, and no argument has been made for why this can't be cleaned up in mainspace Star Mississippi 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schleicher

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

There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wrong. Turns out that the author of the draft is different than the user that created the page. The person who created the page has been not warned however has created NUMEROUS speedily deleted articles through copyright. Assuming that the user that created the page just wanted to seem like the one who created it, even though they very obviously copied from the draft- which still exists, by the way. 48JCL (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I copied from the draft. This guy already has articles in Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Galician (?!), so I don't understand why there are issues with the English version. This is an obviously notable Jewish painter; Wikipedia has used many of his paintings across a few articles, such as on the Talmud. Ethanbas (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethanbas Then just resubmit it, if you think it is "obviously notable" 48JCLTALK 11:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethanbas Your argument is a different version of WP:WAX. Look at Draft:Nahal Rafiah. Just because it has a Hebrew version does not immediately make it notable. 48JCLTALK 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally ignore Wikipedia essays and only follow the policies and guidelines, so I do not accept the premises behind WP:WAX. I agree with you that an article existing in just one other language does not make it notable; however, I get a feeling that this article about Carl Schleicher would exist without any issues in *every other language* except in English. Maybe the original creator of the draft had a poor first draft which attracted (now undue) attention? Ethanbas (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL, why do you think he is non-notable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am putting this for AfD is because it is completely stolen from a draft. Also, wouldn’t it still be in draftspace, as that draft was rejected twice and never touched again? 48JCLTALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons 48JCLTALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL, I'm not sure on the specific policy implications. However, I don't think we should delete an article about a notable person if it is avoidable. Do you happen to know what the policy on this sort of thing is? FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the comments left by the reviewer:
  • Comment: This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion. You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse. In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against. Where are his works on display? What has been written about him by art critics? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Where are his works on display? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page has been moved back from article space to draft space. Please read the comments by the draftifying reviewer and address them. Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, please ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting. You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.) If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement, it will probably be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
48JCLTALK 11:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That provides context, but unfortunately does not answer any of my questions? FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons It could be notable who knows? But all the real sources providing notability like BBC are dead links. The references are formatted very sloppily. Using ref tags to make Efns is definitely not something a normal person would do. 48JCLTALK 03:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article is less than great, agreed so far. However, being in significant need of improvement is not a deletion criteria.
The dead BBC links are a problem, and I couldn’t find an archived one, so this probably does not meet notability criteria now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Argument has been very messy thus far, would appreciate some clear comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unless we have better sourcing, I don't think the article is ready for mainspace... I mean, he exists, but finding any sort of critical mention of the fellow is difficult. [31] is but a brief mention in a caption, this won't open from my location [32], this talks about his daughter [33]. Sourcing now in the article is basic auction listings and links to images of his paintings, nothing about the individual himself. Having articles in other wiki versions does nothing for notability (and frankly they would likely be deleted as well for lack of sourcing). Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He does have a Getty ULAN listing, which is helpful. [34], he appears in one German-language volume and what appears to be a database. I'm still not sure these are enough for our notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The artist might not be ready for an article here, but the one painting showing the rabbis sitting and discussing at the table might have enough for an article; this from the Wikipedia Library [35], Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 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 merge‎ to Dynamical mean-field theory. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation

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

Page probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & Redirect per nom. Likely COI issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ldm1954: The TMDCA is a well established method that warrants a page of it's own. It introduces both spatial correlations and order parameter that is currently not available in any mean-field theory, including the dynamical mean field theory. It is just as saying that the page for the
    Coherent Potential Approximation and dynamical mean-field theory should be merged. Both these two approximations are exactly the same at the thermodynamical limit, but focused on different aspects of the physics. I respectfully disagree with the notion of merging them and do not support it. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Ldm1954: Both the DMFT and TMDCA are robust approximations that address some of the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics, and they truly merit recognition. Regarding the citations, they're not limited to just one group. In fact, there are seven additional citations from various other groups. As you might be aware, it's common for the initial citations of a method in physics and in science in general to have the imprint of the developer, much like what you see with the DMFT citation, for example, where 95% of the current citations on its page are from the original group. CEE (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: just to add every human being, including yourself has some level of COI. While I have never used the TMDCA before, I am a science enthusiast who appreciates the hard work and dedication of people to solving scientific problems. Please, let's move past this to focus on other things. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what COI means here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As both the nominator and one of the grey-haired solid-state academics who have reviewed this, let me add some context to try and explain a bit more about why I nominated this. My apologies in advance for jargonese and being a bit technical.
Hopefully nobody will try and claim comparable notability to any of the above for this approach. It merits mention, but merged into one of the existing large branches of ab-initio methods not as a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. This is way too niche for a standalone article, it merited a single sentence in the RMP review. The only reason there exists an extensive article about it here is COI, as indicated by the WP:SPA army. Tercer (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tercer (talk) I respectfully disagree with your perspective. It seems we may be encountering a situation of selective emphasis. As indicated by the title, the focus was intended to cover various approaches, not just one. There are numerous review articles on this topic, and the one you've referenced is only one among many. For instance, consider this dedicated article, which might offer a more comprehensive view on the approach: https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1027. gmp001 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mystified about how a review from 2005 could possibly be relevant for a technique invented in 2014. Tercer (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. After the discussion here and doing a literature search on my own, I agree with the comment just above. At present, the sourcing just doesn't support having a dedicated article. The state of the field would be better represented by a broader article that discusses the various techniques that have been developed, giving some time to each and making it easier to compare and contrast them, rather than delving into the details almost to the point of writing pseudocode. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 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. I do not know if Gmp007 is the article subject or a student or colleague but the consensus among experienced editors is that it is TOOSOON and this article right now should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinedu Ekuma

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

Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro forma, pinging @Whpq and @Liance who previously tagged/reviewed versions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 10:26, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vipul Shah (businessman)

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

Non-notable businessman, with no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, just passing mentions in The Hindu and Fortune. He's interviewed in The Week as cited, but that's a primary source. Passing mentions, routine coverage in trade blogs and softball interviews was all else I could find in a WP:BEFORE search. Promotional tone and editing history of article creator suggests UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 07:14, 7 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! 06:23, 14 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. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s

NASCAR on television in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:40, 22 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! 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with NASCAR on television and radio: per the nom. I'm just not finding the sources covering the broadcasts from this decade as a group, and as such, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Merge as a WP:ATD, along with the rest of the articles from this 'series'. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 13 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. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UHO MZF F.C.

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and sourcing is just They exist" and champions of two cups of some type. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That sounds like saying that it can't meet the actual GNG (and so IMO is not wp:notable) and so we need a different GNG to make sure that non-notable lower division football teams get in. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not happy at the way you've completely mis-represented my keep !vote. The article easily passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I posted in a way that highlighted what I felt to be issues with your argument. In hindsight, viewing it from another angle, such is a "spun negative" description of your post. I did not intend to do something like that. Please accept my apologies for that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. These are not match reports, but rather articles about how the team won the championship, failed in the round of 16, et cetera, and football club notability is not based on whether they're important regionally, internationally, et cetera. They are also covered on an ongoing basis by the newspaper in their local area including sources not currently linked in the article, such as [37]: this is about the competition but the club is clearly the subject of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a routine coverage. According to WP:SPORTCRIT; Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. None of reference in the article provide reports beyond routine coverage, such as information about the team itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:02, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit

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

WP:OR / WP:MADEUP coinage. I find no evidence of the term "Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit" existing prior to this article's creation in 2012; every source that has used it has come afterward. Even in post-2012 material I see no WP:SIGCOV in sources that clearly qualify as WP:RS. The "circuit" is not mentioned in any of the article's references except for RetroSeasons (which postdates the WP article by several years and on one of its pages copies almost verbatim from it). One might agree or disagree that the early independent teams of western PA loosely constituted a "circuit", but it's not for Wikipedia to make up a capitalized name for it and treat it as an established concept. This isn't a case like the Ohio League, which, while not a league in any strict or formal sense, is attested in its own time and by historians. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination appears to be flawed as the nominator is taking issue with the title of the page, rather than the content. This is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Article can be moved to a more appropriate title if desired. The content of the article satisfies GNG, so the article should be kept at this or another title. Frank Anchor 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the content, too, treats the "circuit" as a real (albeit loosely defined) thing that "operated from 1890 to approximately 1940", had its own championships, and lived on as the W. Pa. Senior Indep. Football Conference -- all apparently OR claims. The article could perhaps be rewritten as an article about a related but somewhat different subject -- the early history of professional football in Western Pennsylvania -- and be titled accordingly, but the content as it stands now relates to an OR concept. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:01, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swofford, Washington

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

Meany's (source 3)[38] definition of places is less stringent than Wikipedia's definition, which is legally recognized places. Meany wrote that Swofford (the man) set up a post office in the Swofford valley and later moved it to Mossy Rock. Places don't move, but post offices do (sometimes in shoe boxes). Washington State place names published in 1971 [39] Doesn't list swofford as a place. A rather unreliable source [40], but commonly referenced nonetheless lists this place, but all of the reliable sources used for their mention call it "Swofford Valley". Reading newspapers from the area reveals that the post office served the Swofford valley, and the people who lived in the valley used it's name to define where they lived. The Centralia Daily Chronicle in 1976 (July 1, 1976 Page 31[41]) explains that the valley had a rural farming community with a post office and a drug store. The reality is that these were probably not separate buildings, and it would not be all that unusual for this to actually be Swofford's residence as well. It is not a legally recognized place. Furthermore it's full name is "Swofford Valley". The confusion arises because post offices in the 1800's could only have one word names. If it is not deleted here I want want it moved to Swofford Valley, Washington. James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I must have missed this one when I was trying to clear Washington of non-existent place articles. Nom sums it up pretty well, a onetime rural post office named for the person who said "hey, my neighbors and I need a post office" isn't a community, and saying it "is" a community is plainly false as there is clearly nothing there: [42]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A couple books from 1922 and 1923 describe it as a town, and Swofford cemetery is nearby, though it's described as now being in Mossyrock. I've also seen conflicting contemporary reports that say it's just a post office from a smallpox outbreak around the turn of the century, and that people were listed as being from Swofford in cattle and education reports in 1920 and 1923. There's some conjecture in the nom, and I think we can say there was a small community there at one point, even if it's clearly not referred to as Swofford any more. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only place that was called swofford was the post office, in was in Swoffard Valley, but the postal service only used single words to name them at that time. The area was always known Swofford valley. Any newspapers that reported local news from "Swofford" did so because that was the post mark on the letter. The newspaper got that news by mail from who ever in the valley wrote in to report it. James.folsom (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to mention could you please source the claims in your argument. James.folsom (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and strongly so. I asked on the Talk:Swofford, Washington page to pause any slotting of the article into AfD as I have sources (and still collecting more) to rewrite and expand the article to provide proof of a community. However, the AfD went ahead 4 hours later... I ask any admin or editor with AfD closure rights to please pause any action for a few days so that I (or others) can work on the page; see per WP:RUSHDELETE. In case there is any doubt, please see my efforts at Ceres, Washington, Cora, Washington, and Forest, Washington. Would a Template:Under construction be necessary/appropriate? Also, I have viewed similar sources that back up SportingFlyer's mentions. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finally finished updating and expanding other articles under AfD via the GNIS cleanup process so I'll be able to devote time tomorrow to add sourcing and expansion on the Swofford article. I again ask admins and those involved for a couple extra days before any potential actions to delete the Swofford page. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No. 2 The article has been expanded, mentioning both Swofford and Swofford Valley synonymously as the community does and backed up by sourcing. Relied on local news articles, as one does for small, rural communities in the USA. Article is written and sourced well-enough now, IMO, to further warrant Keep status. A quick note - news articles ref'd on the page consistently refer to Swofford as a town or community. I decided to go ahead and do the work straight to the article rather than my previous AfD-saving attempts of listing sources first on the talk page. It's just doing double the work and is by no means trying to circumvent anything. Being WP:BOLD? I dunno, just don't have the time to do twice the effort. Feel free to add or subtract from what I wrote on the article page...or leave some notes on what could be improved. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:00, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 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! 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just about all of the names of the commentators and what respective events that they worked on for each of ABC's Olympic broadcasts that have been listed are for the most part, accounted for reference/sourcing wise. There are now over 200 sources spanning from 1964-1988. Also, the article touches in depth, arguably two of the most significant or well known moments in ABC's Olympic history, Jim McKay's reporting on the 1972 Munich massacre and Al Michaels' calling what would become known as the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980. So it isn't merely just a list of commentators, there's some context behind it. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:22, 3 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, CycloneYoris talk! 06:59, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Chicken

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

From this IP editor, here:

After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either. TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.

Zanahary (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the IP editor. I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent. Be done with it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I initially thought the article might have a bit of notability but on a deeper analysis it is true the article is very weak and should be deleted Wiiformii (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines. Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is clearly not notable per WP:NCORP or WP:N. OhHaiMark (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons already stated of lack of notability. The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (compare) and is unlikely to in future, short of a radical change of circumstances for the subject.  — Scott • talk 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the anonymous editor's unofficial-turned-official nomination statement. I did my best to correct the issues others raised only to find that once I'd cleared the article of junk, there was barely anything left. It's frustrating because while I understand others' notability concerns, I'm skeptical that a restaurant chain with dozens of locations has little to no potential to get there. City of Silver 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a UK fast food chain with 44 branches. Mostly in London, but as far north as Northampton, and as far south as the Isle of Wight. No one has done a proper WP:BEFORE search. There are plenty more sources out there. For example:
'I taste-tested KFC and Sam's and now I have a new fried chicken favourite'
WHAT THE CLUCK! FULL EXTENT OF SAM’S CHICKEN FOOD HYGIENE RATING REVEALED
Isle of Wight takeaway Sam's Chicken improves hygiene rating
CHICKEN LOVERS CLUCKING HAPPY AS SAM’S CHICKEN RE-OPENS
Bid to set up Essex's first Sam's Chicken in Southend
SAM’S CHICKEN BRINGS FRESH TASTE TO RYDE
Food in Herts: Five chicken shops in Hertfordshire that are 'better' than KFC
Does Harrow have too many chicken shops?
Kettering piri piri chicken shop plan gets green light despite nearby competitors' pleas

Hope that is enough. More available. Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the sources presented by Edwardx?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a rough consensus although the discussion is trending towards Delete until new sources were brought into the discussion. An assessment of them would be helpful. Looking at this article, it has been the subject of numerous edit wars for some reason.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 14 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 Robert Gordon University#Garthdee campus. No argument has been made for it being independently notable. With the information already being present, there's no need to merge but the history is retained if someone feels something worth adding. Star Mississippi 14:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon University – Garthdee campus

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

This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:52, 23 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! 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 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 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! 05:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Socialist League (2019)

International Socialist League (2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In its current state, I'm not sure how this article meets our policy for notability of organizations. All of the cited sources are from periodicals and organizations directly affiliated with this organization (1 from Socialist Middle East, 1 from Alternativa Socialista, 3 from Asian Marxist Review, 1 from Periodismo de Izquierda, 1 from MST, 2 from the Socialist Laborers Party and 5 from the International Socialist League itself). Looking through Google Scholar, almost all of the results I see are about the South African International Socialist League, I can't find any clear cases of significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources.

Despite linking to 25 websites and facebook pages affiliated with this organization, it doesn't appear that any of these affiliates are independently notable either, so I'm not sure what case can be made for this article needing to exist. Also, the only pages that appear to link to this one are just long lists of Trotskyist internationals. I don't think every non-notable Trotskyist international necessitates individual pages. Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light and Space Contemporary

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

Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 7 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! 04:27, 14 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! 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9wm

9wm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this fails WP: N. I found this which gives a review of 9wm in a few sentences and some mentions in a couple of books, but nothing more than that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:39, 24 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! 07:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 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 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! 05:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.P.J.M. Matriculation Higher Secondary School

A.P.J.M. Matriculation Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Can be mentioned as an educational institution in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakumari_district Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:28, 24 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! 07:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 12:03, 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. Why not? Merge discussions can occur outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Alcalde

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

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Better to merge either with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Exes Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:38, 24 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! 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Nobody wants it deleted, it seems like, so my proposition would be to close this discussion as no consensus and carry out the merger as a normal editorial action. Geschichte (talk) 18:10, 13 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagem myX-2

Sagem myX-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, made by non-notable company. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 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! 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a product, not a company. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck -- sock. jp×g🗯️ 01:52, 30 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! 07:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 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 keep‎. Thanks for improvements to the article over this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster Gardens

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

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you think it fails GNG? I see many sources for this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/A_guide_to_Plymouth_and_its_history/FfLLEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22&pg=PT33&printsec=frontcover https://www.plymouthindependent.org/steps-in-the-right-direction-brewster-gardens-project-finished/ Traumnovelle (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will vote Keep for now given the sources I've managed to find and no explanation on why it fails GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further sources: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Plymouth/IP4lKfB4StkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/old-colony-memorial/2020/11/12/plymouth-garden-club-parks-forestry-division-spruce-up-brewster-gardens/6271874002/ (doesn't help establish notability on it's own) https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Qr0wBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA244&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22&ots=Qm96qdgJEM&sig=ihOH6lAbusl7hLGYDBvLpfA6xDc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Brewster%20Gardens%22&f=false
This appears to be a park that is often used for public gatherings and protests alongside being frequently mentioned in information about local history. Still not seeing how this fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:54, 7 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! 06:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I prefer seeing the article about Brewster Gardens being merged into the article about Plymouth, Massachuetts. Anonymous (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But "delete" would ensure the article is not merged into Plymouth, Massachusetts. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added a sentence and sourcing by the North and Source Rivers Watershed Association. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the article. Part of the visual problem with article, was that all the tagging notices took up about three times more space than the actual article wording. But the source I added leaves no doubt that this is a pretty notable area park. — Maile (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just cleaned up and resourced this article. It should at least pass basic requirements for a Keep. It seemed to have originally been created by a good faith editor. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sacks and Co.

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

The subject of this article is a business with no proven notability. As written, it contains no references. A limited web search reveals no feature stories or in-depth articles that would indicate that this organization should be included in an encyclopedia. A single story in Daily Variety [[46]] from 2006 was all I could unearth

I had previously submitted it for PROD but the reviewer somehow felt this was worth keeping. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 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 redirect‎ to Apostolos Angelis (composer). There's a clear consensus that the content doesn't qualify for a standalone article, but no clear choice as to the best redirect or merge target. Discussion about a better redirect target can continue on the target's Talk page, and any editor is welcome to merge any encyclopedic content into other pages. Owen× ☎ 17:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apoapsis Records

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

article reads like an advertisement (fails WP:NOTADVERT), with an overreliance on primary sources, for a record label with only two artists signed (fails WP:INHERITORG). if any part of this article can be salvaged at all, it would work better as a part of either Vasileios Angelis or Apostolos Angelis (composer), or simply redirected to either of these two pages. Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need ONE redirect. target article, a closer shouldn't be flipping a coin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I noticed the article is nominated for deletion. While this article is one of my first contributions under this username, I've been a longtime Wikipedia editor committed to following notability guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). The flagged concern regarding promotional content seems like a misunderstanding. My intent is always to provide a well-sourced and informative article about a notable or "worthy of notice" subject. Suggestions for improvement and collaboration to bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards are always welcome. Thank you all for your time and consideration. OrangedJuice (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OrangedJuice Could you please clarify what you mean by "under this username"? Have you used other accounts before? Or were you previously an IP editor? In case you were not aware, there are fairly strict rules on when you can use multiple accounts. Toadspike [Talk] 11:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for participants to decide on one Merge/Redirect target article. One of those suggested is actually a Redirect, not an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ultimately, I think what needs to happen before merging is for a referendum on the notability of the target musicians. This AfD should be tabled until that's decided. Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is hard to AGF when the creator's contributions make them look exactly like a single-purpose promotional account. The comment implying (ab)use of multiple accounts also worries me. That aside, this article has been horribly refbombed, and even so it is clear that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the references are primary sources (links to the record label's website or songs on streaming platforms). The remaining sources are chart listings (no sigcov) and promotional press releases that clearly say "press release" at the top (not independent). This clearly fails the GNG, NCORP, and any other applicable notability guideline. Toadspike [Talk] 12:06, 21 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 ESPNews. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNews personalities

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 14 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Craven

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

This article is more about the companies he founded which already have their own articles. His life doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Duffbeerforme, I don't get your position at all. We always consider sources brought up in an AFD discussion, not just the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Agree that it meets notability standards. It is also of public interest and serves the public. I just found this article after seeking information on this individual. Knox490 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that Duffbeerforme's assertion (without evidence of any, let alone a pattern) seems at odds with WP:NEXIST (a long-standing part of our notability guideline). To wit, "The current state of the article does not determine notability...Multiple suitable sources that could be cited...Likely notable". But I cannot access most of GMH's links to decide how in-depth and independent of each other they are for this person himself. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 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 keep‎. Participants believe this article subject meets WP:JUDGE. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Anwarul Haque

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

Failed WP:GNG. Nothing significant except an obituary Ontor22 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NJUDGE BrigadierG (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Multiple sources used in the article, from reliable newspapers, identify him as a judge in the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. You nominating the article is a vote for deletion; you do not have to make a bold recommendation.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:16, 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 keep‎. Participants disagree with nominator and believe the subject meets WP:JUDGE Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khandoker Musa Khaled

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

No significant and independent coverage. Does not meet the conditions of WP:JUDGE Ontor22 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty clearly meets WP:JUDGE, sitting on a country's supreme court constitutes "national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office" BrigadierG (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Multiple sources used in the article, from reliable newspapers, identify him as a judge in the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. The third source is the article, Five additional judges of HC get job confirmation, which includes the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:18, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gray (rugby union)

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

No evidence of SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per others. Alexeyevitch(talk) 10:45, 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! 04:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy Ejimakor

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO because he is not the actual subject of significant in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. He is mentioned in sources covering other topics. That's not enough. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet WP:N? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per your points, let's add WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Thank you, War Term. JFHJr (㊟) 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I retract the WP:N comment. What about the other two? @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @JFHJr (Chat With Term)talk 06:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:N fails, they're not very relevant for this discussion. No WP:N, no article. Existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
War Term: If you're the creator and you're retracting N, why not change your vote to speedy delete? JFHJr (㊟) 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems at worst harmless, I added a mention of him at [52]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. Firon & Co.

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

I see no reason this is notable. It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had put a few references in the article when I removed the reference warning. There are plenty of sources out there by the golden NEXIST rule. Nom's It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage doesn't convey a solid BEFORE. We can belittle any company or topic by putting "it just seems to be" before, while claiming that there seems to be no SIGCOV. Seems to be is extremely uncommitted. Such nominations are better not made as we have too many nominations already. M. Firon & Co is definitely not just a law firm. It's steadily one of Israel's top 10 law firms (currently number 8) and has been around for 74 years. This was written in the article all along. gidonb (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking what was added. This from Globes is a company announcement about expanding to Haifa with a merger and contains no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. this in YNet is another company announcement, this time expanding to Casablanca in Morocco, also fails ORGIND. They're a big firm, as can be seen from the announcements, but that doesn't meet our criteria for notability, we need very specific types of references. HighKing++ 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Highking's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no one has provided sourcing establishing the firm meets NCORP. "Being the largest X in Y" is not a notability criterion, and WP should not serve as an advertisement (which is exactly what this article is doing when it's sourced to non-SIRS media). JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 15 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. I'd normally accept Redirect as a sensible ATD in such cases, but the fact that the copyright violating text existed from the very first version of the page, and the limited amount of editing done since, makes Redirect over a selective delrev a poor choice in this case. Any editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect, although I don't see much value in that. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America)

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just got this bon mot on civility on my talk page. --evrik (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would appreciate if you keep the discussion contained to contents. Given the lack of sources that would allow this article to meet NCORP for the program itself and such heavy reliance on primary source, I don't believe it merits a stand-alone and per WP:BRD, I re-directed it, boldly, which you reverted and I believe that AfD is the proper venue to discussion such. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Wikify Covers two major programs that 100,000's or millions have been through. A good "sub-article" of Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and these types commonly exist without the unusually strict (in that context) bar being promulgated by the duo. Whether we get that by just following the norm or by bringing in a bit of IAR, IMO that would be a good way to cover this. BTW a pair of folks have been intensely working at deleting BSA articles and BSA article content and that duo is here in this AFD. Article needs wikifying and a bit of paring to be more oriented towards informing a typical (non-BSA) reader. I'd be happy to work on that if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:North8000, I read over your comment twice but I see no policy-based reasons for keeping this. "Millions have been through it" isn't one, and I don't know what "good sub-article" means or why that means we should keep it. IAR is not an excuse to have all this material in our encyclopedia. I suppose you mean me as part of that duo? Well that's sweet. Can we please get any reliable secondary sourcing? Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that's what we need. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the ping would need to be on or after June 17th. Soon I'll be gone until then. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your post completely ignores my argument and so is not a response to my post. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument essentially says "I like this stuff and I find it valuable and should be retained" and not grounded in guidelines supported by the wider community and IAR shouldn't liberally invoke to try to retain "I like it and its informative" article that isn't supportable in ordinary guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a completely invented insulting mis-statement of my argument, so far off that it bears no relationship to my argument. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone, now Graywalls has posted this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philmont Leadership Challenge and is starting to attack Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America). Just saying. BTW, this appears to be an continuation of the discussion held: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#User:Graywalls_reported_by_User:72.83.72.31 --evrik (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody came forward for filing that drive-by report and I see Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31 has no other edits. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:evrik, can you explain what you mean with "attack" and how that jibes with [{WP:AGF]]? Drmies (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made my recommendation, gave the basis for it and made my offer. Now I've seen two people misstate what I said. Including misstating that my mention of IAR was explicitly only to follow a common and useful-for-Wikipedia norm which is not explicitly supported by policy. Even if I wasn't going to be gone until June 17th I'd be stepping away from this now,content to go with whatever is decided and leaving my offer open to Wikify if it is kept and if pinged. I'm extending that offer to include doing a careful merge if that is decided and if pinged. In the larger picture the duo has had some valid points that could point toward some refining of BSA articles but unfortunately, I've seen what IMO appears be a hostile view towards the BSA articles, a pretty heavy targeting of them, and where their only activity on them has been towards large scale deletion of material and deletion of articles with no activity towards improving them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The discussion here seems contentious when all that needs to happen is review the references to determine if the topic is notable. Unfortunately, I cannot find any in-depth coverage to show how it meets WP:GNG, nor do I see any references pointed out above that would qualify. If someone is able to provide the sourcing they feel shows notability, I would be happy to review and even change my !vote. Would recommend a redirect to Boy Scouts of America if page is ultimately deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) per nom. This does not meet WP:NORG. In particular this is a non notable product of a notable organisation. WP:NPRODUCT is the relevant guideline. There should be sustained coverage per WP:SIRS. That coverage does not exist. Rather than deleting the page, a redirect to the training page is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIRS coverage, and a redirect that preserves the history would also preserve copyvio like the paragraph beginning ILSC helps crew members with leadership positions..., copied from this Word doc. And that's just from comparing the current text to the sources it cites; I'm guessing there's more copyvio in the history and/or non-cited sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 14 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 List of building or structure fires#2018. Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Manila Pavilion Hotel fire

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. A brief and cited mention at List_of_building_or_structure_fires#2018 can also be an alternative to deletion. --Lenticel (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Per Slgrandson
TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:26, 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. Malinaccier (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Guarino

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

The same article was deleted at Cam Guarino by User:Kuru. I tagged this article for speedy deletion but it was declined by User:GB fan. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article at Cam Guarino was created by a check-user verified paid editing sock evading a block on another account. I've added 'Johnson Abigail' to an existing follow-up. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked the article's author, Johnson Abigail, as a sock. GB fan - I don't mind allowing this discussion to play out, but I believe that a G5 speedy would now be within policy, and more expedient. You declined the original speedy tag - do you objections to deletion at this point? Girth Summit (blether) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objections. At the time I declined, there was no investigation of any kind I could point to. There wasn't even a sock puppet identified that was pointed to. ~ GB fan 15:09, 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 keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of festivals in California

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

List with only 2 entries, only one of which has an article. Does not meet WP:STANDALONELIST. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the linked Wikipedia page, the article topic (which is about festivals in California) needs to be talked as a whole in other sources. Such sources are not referenced. 47.153.138.166 (talk) 02:47, 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. ✗plicit 06:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Reza Khoshshans

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

Refund requested after soft deletion so here we are again. Two editors in support of deletion and no support for keep in the first AfD so hopefully we can get a bigger consensus here. As before, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Soft deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Still no sources found. This is about all I can find [53], which does not help notability. Even what's in the article now isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article should be deleted as it fails to meet the WP:GNG notability guidelines. Most sources are either affiliated with the subject or are press releases, offering only trivial mentions that do not establish the subject’s notability. Furthermore, it is essential that the subject meets the notability criteria of either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. More coverage is needed from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. AstridMitch (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2024
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 International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. (non-admin closure) Josethewikier (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war

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

I've created this article copy-pasting from the main article (Israel–Hamas war) 1 month ago, but I think this article is very poorly written and I cannot help but find the International Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war article to be thousands of times better than this one. I believe this article should be deleted. Maybe one or two things can be merged into the above article, but I don't really see how. It's also a possibility to rename the above article to remove the word "international" after the potential deletion of this one, but I digress. Josethewikier (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably add a Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7._Author_requests_deletion G7 tag to get this speedily deleted since you are the original author and no other substantial content has been added. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I could, and I probably will soon. I just wanted to ask the public if they have any better suggestions. Josethewikier (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per G7 would be fine, otherwise this would be an easy redirect to the article mentioned above. You can be bold and redirect the article now, then withdraw your nomination here. Conyo14 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shall withdraw this AfD and redirect to above article then. (unless I should G7?) Josethewikier (talk) 16:19, 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 keep‎. The consensus in this discussion is that this article meets WP:NPLACE and there is also little articulated support for the deletion nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Park, New Zealand

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

Proposing to merge/redirect to Flat Bush (Most of the area falls under Flat Bush). Not gazetted/included in Auckland Council's official map tool and fails GNG, no sigcov turns up in a search with most results pertaining to a school and one even stating the area is Otara: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Addressing_Pupil_s_Behaviour/UlAAhkusknAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22clover+park%22+auckland&pg=PT109&printsec=frontcover Traumnovelle (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit to not understanding this nom, as a simple search of the NZ Herald brings up over 300 results about the suburb. SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at any of the articles? They're all appear to be generic news reports about incidents in the area and do not establish any notability to the place itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but those articles clearly define it as a place, Kia Aroha school says it's in Clover Park and not Ōtara, houses are listed as being in Clover Park on house listing websites, it exists in parliamentary debates including a parliamentary grant in 1986... places have some of the lowest notability thresholds on the entire website and I really don't see what's to be gained from deleting a perfectly good article about a place that is literally a point in the generic map box when you view the map, just because of some technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The threshold for places is WP:NPLACE. The relevant paragraph is this one:
    Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.
    >it exists in parliamentary debates including a parliamentary grant in 1986...
    There are records dating back to the 1800s of some places in my neighbourhood, yet no one outside of my neighbourhood, and even some of them won't know what they are. Simply existing is not grounds for an article and the information would be better off included in the relevant article/articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're proposing an area that is clearly defined by the census and is recognised by multiple NZ government entities does not qualify for an article because it's not included in a place names layer on a single website, which again would be an extreme technicality for our most permissive notability standard. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am suggesting a place which fails WP:GNG and isn't recognised by New Zealand's official gazetteer nor by the regional authorities map tool doesn't qualify for an article. WP:NPLACE explicitly excludes census tracts and if stats nz areas were considered notable we'd have even more stubs with nothing more than demographic information and an infobox. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, it doesn't fail WP:GNG. Second, you're incorrectly and narrowly assuming legal recognition has to come from being gazetted, when it's clearly a place name which has some sort of legal recognition - the suburb address for the Clover Park Community House is Clover Park, not Flat Bush. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me a source with significant coverage of it.
    >you're incorrectly and narrowly assuming legal recognition has to come from being gazetted
    It doesn't - it's just one way of being legally recognised.
    >the suburb address for the Clover Park Community House is Clover Park
    New Zealand Post doesn't define suburb names or boundaries so referring to them is pointless. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, recognised by Statistics New Zealand and the New Zealand Post Office, has Clover Park Community House, has a population of almost 10,000 people. It doesn't make sense to me to lump it in with Flat Bush, which already has a population of 45,000 people. As stated above, relevant news articles are given as occurring in Clover Park. Like most places in New Zealand, Auckland does not have official suburbs, but it does have wards and local boards, so the suggestion of a merge would be more appropriate to Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board or Manukau ward, except no one would ever list those as part of their address. The larger body in human terms would be South Auckland.-Gadfium (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Statistical/census areas are not considered for NPLACE due to issues with them. 'Auckland University' is a statistical area for example, but it obviously isn't a suburb/locality. Other areas listed by them include: Botany Junction, Redcastle, Armoy, Middlefield, Savonna, and Baverstock. None of these have articles because they're non-notable areas that aren't gazetted.
    Suburbs in Auckland have official recognition via the gazetter or on Auckland Council's geomaps (which is where the Council refers you to for road boundaries and whatnot) Traumnovelle (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it necessarily matters, but none of those areas you listed are considered suburbs by either Openstreetmap or Google Maps, which even displays a distinct suburb boundary for Clover Park when you type it in. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter because those sites use user generated submissions which cannot be used to establish notability. Please read through WP:NPLACE. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very familiar with NPLACE, I started that sentence with "not that it necessarily matters." I just wanted to note you threw out a number of false equivalencies. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this place has an article which could potentially lead to why user generated sources may have it listed? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't work that way - a definitional polygon on Google Maps would not be created because of a spurious Wikipedia article, especially in a country where they wouldn't need to use user generated data to be accurate. But again, we're veering away from AfD relevancy... SportingFlyer T·C 07:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this seems to me to exceed WP:NPLACE as a search turned up a bunch of mentions, including a direct mention in the media by a PM. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one of those do you find to be non-trivial coverage? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NPLACE. Non-trivial coverage here for example: [54]. Paora (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is literally what trivial coverage is, coverage where something is mentioned but not explained or any detail is given about it: 'addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content' Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments above... recognized by Statistics New Zealand and meets WP:NPLACE. Alexeyevitch(talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Census tracts ... are not presumed to be notable
Census locations cannot provide notability, terrible precedent to assume they do and you'd have to apply the same logic to dozens of non-notable housing developments and areas no one has heard of. If it is actually notable then why is it not recognised by the Council or the Gazetteer? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. SportingFlyer T·C 02:10, 12 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 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanati Clothing Company

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

Likely fails Wikipedia:ORGSIG Lordseriouspig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_7&oldid=1227758896"