Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 8: 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/ATG (autophagy acronym)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Front for the Liberation of the Golan (3rd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Front for the Liberation of the Golan (3rd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demoparty)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demoparty)}}

Revision as of 14:25, 8 June 2024

< June 07 June 09 >

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 merge‎ to Autophagy. This is my best guess at a rough consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder, please do not move, redirect or merge an article during an AFD discussion, it really complicates the discussion and its closure. I mean, just wait until the discussion is closed, please. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ATG (autophagy acronym)

ATG (autophagy acronym) (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'm unsure of the need for a separate article on an acronym which offers nothing more than a few lines of basic non-encyclopedic synthesis. Could be covered in Autophagy instead. X (talk) 14:25, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Front for the Liberation of the Golan (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Demoscene#List of demoparties. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nullarbor (demoparty)

Nullarbor (demoparty) (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources (including by searching in Trove). Also, the Nullarbor website had a section for media coverage; many of the sources listed there either aren't reliable, don't provide significant coverage, or aren't independent (media/press releases). A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is actually the 2nd AfD, the previous one was in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullarbor (demo party). --Mika1h (talk) 13:19, 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 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 14:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dress of universities in Queensland, Australia

Academic dress of universities in Queensland, Australia (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)

While certainly interesting, not encyclopaedic and not notable. WP:NOTDATABASE 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:20, 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 redirect‎ to Nayib Bukele#Presidency. To be clear, Dclemens1971's comments and research have established the notability of this topic. However, there is consensus in the discussion below that there is no need for a standalone article for what can be concisely covered at Nayib Bukele#Presidency. Malinaccier (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second inauguration of Nayib Bukele

AfDs for this article:
Second inauguration of Nayib Bukele (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 maintenance tag claiming sources exist. However, most of the sources are not about the inauguration but the current affairs of nation that is covered in 2024_Salvadoran_general_election#Presidency_of_Nayib_Bukele and Nayib_Bukele#Presidency, i.e. [1]. There is nothing much at least in the English sources about the preparation of the event, what transpired during the event, and any post event celebrations, with exception of a bombing plot, and a protest in Chicago, both of which can be easily tucked into 2024_Salvadoran_general_election#Aftermath. – robertsky (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect/merge to Nayib_Bukele#Presidency. Don't make articles just for the sake of making articles. Inaugurations do not automatically need a standalone page. Reywas92Talk 17:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an acceptable outcome in lieu of an outright deletion. – robertsky (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I haven't even delved into the Spanish sources but there is lots of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV in English alone, including of the event itself (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, AP, Al Jazeera), guests (MercoPress, Politico, Deseret News, Xinhua), international reactions (AP), plus the bomb plot (AP, Reuters) mentioned by the nominator. I'm sure there's even more in Spanish. Now that the event has happened, there's plenty of coverage to support a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the sources you have raised here:
    • Deutsche Presse-Agentur, AP, Al Jazeera these are some of what I referred to when I wrote most of the sources are not about the inauguration but the current affairs of nation. If it is about the event itself, I would expect significant coverage about the event itself and not a majority of the content of each source about the state of affairs in the country, his management style, and the challenges ahead for him or the country.
    • Guest list is the least of consideration for notability of the event. Notability is not inherited, nor this page should be a guest list as well, which some had tried to turn this page into (see WP:NOTDIR and also WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Nothing in the sources here (MercoPress, Politico, Deseret News, Xinhua) is of anything significant about the event except that 'X had attended".
    • (AP) that is an reaction to the president's management in his term (in my opinion, might be worthy of a split from his main article if extended further).
    • bomb plot. further details than what has been provided currently is required. otherwise by itself, it is a news report.
    – robertsky (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like any good news source, the coverage will situate the event in its context. In fact, under WP:NEVENTS, such sources should be "in-depth coverage [that] includes analysis that puts events into context." Each article I cited devotes several paragraphs (up to half the article) specifically to inaugural events and the rest to the context. As for guests, inauguration pages on WP almost universally cover international guest attendance. See (as just a few examples) Inauguration of Lai Ching-te, Second inauguration of Goodluck Jonathan, Inauguration of Bernardo Arévalo, and so forth. (And every source I provided is WP:RS for this kind of news and provides significant coverage of the attendance and the dynamics around it.) Finally, the alleged bomb plot was part of the preparations for the inauguration and belongs in such an article. Unless you're trying to say that presidential inaugurations are inherently non-notable topics, in which case you need to propose an SNG, it's clear that this subject clears the tests imposed by WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for a separate SNG. The entire WP:NEVENTS has to be taken into consideration, not just the coverage of the event. Coverage is a given, after all it is a planned event directly after the election:
    Points to consider:
    1. Is there a lasting effect from the inauguration as an event? None so far.
    2. Is there a significant impact of the inauguration as an event? None so far.
    3. What's the depth of the coverage of the event? Surface level. What was the planning? What happened during the inauguration? Who/What agencies were involved in the planned? Why was there a change in the venue? What was said during the inauguration. As argued before, the analysis is already written for in the general elections page, and the inauguration is the result of the general election. There is no need for a separate article as such.
    4. What's the duration of the coverage? Immediate after the event, no further news coverage that I can find in the 7 days since the inauguration.
    5. What's the diversity of sources? Diverse but same set of talking points.
    6. And with respect to inauguration as a planned event. Is the coverage a routine coverage? Yes. One would expect major news outlets to cover a planned national level event as part of their routine news cycle.
    As for the other inauguration pages, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But if I may, these pages are likely going to be evaluated in the same manner for AfD. – robertsky (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider:
    1/2. Is there a lasting effect/significant impact from the inauguration? Bukele remains president, so yes. The swearing-in is required under the constitution and thus it has an ongoing effect. The election is the predicate for this event, but it is not identical to the inauguration and it has no effect if the inauguration does not take place according to constitutional procedure. (This is
    3. See below in my comments on the Spanish language sources, but the depth of coverage is sufficient to meet this test.
    4/5. We are 10 days out from the event, which NEVENTS makes clear is not too soon for an event to become notable. But the event has been covered beyond the initial day or two of news, and it has been covered in a variety of sources in both English and Spanish, with both straight news and opinion coverage. NPR discusses the inauguration's influence on the Biden administration's immigration policy. LoveFM provides skeptical coverage of Belizean participation in the inauguration. Semafor covered the inauguration in light of Claudia Sheinbaum's election in Mexico.
    6. It definitely goes beyond routine coverage with substantial detailed mentions in the U.S. political press as well as the press in Spain. It's not just wire services and Salvadoran press covering this.
    (P.S. Please read carefully: I didn't cite the other inauguration pages as an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for notability of this subject. I cited them to point out that these types of pages generally cover international guests, which demonstrates a longstanding consensus that guests are a significant aspect of inaugurations. Thus, WP:RS coverage of inauguration guests contributes to the notability of the subject matter.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How much has the article really changed since its previous iteration? I still do think this was recreated by a certain LTA block evading, though I can't say for certain. jellyfish ✉ 04:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox remained the same; all sections you see now were there as well, unfilled; the international guests section was unfilled (naturally, since it was before the event).
    This is the lead in the last deleted revision for evaluation:
    The Second inauguration of Nayib Bukele as president of El Salvador will take place on Saturday, 1 June 2024, in the El Salvador Chamber of Deputies in San Salvador. The inauguration will mark the commencement of the four-year term of Bukele as president and Félix Ulloa as vice president. The inauguration will mark the formal culmination of Bukele's presidential transition that began after he won the 2024 Salvadoran presidential election held on 4 February 2024. – robertsky (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've provided numerous English-language secondary and reliable sources upthread that provide significant coverage of this event. Further search finds numerous Spanish-language sources as well: Stories in La Prensa Grafica interviewing a historian on symbolism in the ceremony, on the economic and social aspects of Bukele's inaugural address, on international reactions to the inauguration, critiquing Catholic Church participation in the ceremony, and protests by Salvadoran expats at several embassies around the world, plus detailed coverage in Spain's El Pais: [2], [3]. Despite the nominator's determination to reject every source presented thus far, at this point we have an abundance of multiple language/country/types of sources to validate the notability of this topic and I'm going to leave the discussion to other editors to review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So maybe write an article with them then? We do not need a standalone article that says nothing except that he was inaugurated (WP:NOPAGE). Even if there are sources toward notability, all of these can certainly be included in in Nayib_Bukele#Presidency or 2024_Salvadoran_general_election#Aftermath, and then WP:SPLIT when appropriate and warranted. Presidency of Nayib Bukele would also be an appropriate split, which would include info about inaugurations. Reywas92Talk 14:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I don't have time to write that article, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP so if the sources support notability, we keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're not deleting, we're merging this measley three sentences while remaining open to a split if/when there is more content. "if the sources support notability, we keep" is downright false because you could use sources to establish notability on many, many things Bukele or other politicians do, but we have WP:NOPAGE and editorial discretion to cover notable topics within the context of other topics. Here, we can cover this topic with these sources in the context of these closely related articles, and we don't need a separate article just to list a few attendees. There a lot of heads of state around the world now and in history, all of whose inaugurations were covered in the media, but very simply we do not inherently need separate pages for these concepts just because sources exist. Reywas92Talk 21:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has created pages for other inaugurations yet, so we're not having arguments about those pages (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per other's reasoning, and partly on WP:BANREVERT. It is a nice honeypot for the sock. No prejudice to recreation if someone wants to actually create a real article as the event is notable. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per Classicwiki. Almost entirely written by socks and obvious anon socks. Wikishovel (talk) 05:15, 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. ✗plicit 12:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Hernández (footballer, born 1992)

Luis Hernández (footballer, born 1992) (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)

Potentially fails WP:GNG here. I found him on Transfermarkt and Soccerway but these don't count towards notability. I found some brief mentions in La Brecha, Pasión Rojiblanca and ESPN but none of this can be considered significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 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. (non-admin closure) CMD (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malek Rahmati

Malek Rahmati (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 searching about the 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash. I prefer the information of this article in other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:34 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isochem

Isochem (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 company is a wholly owned subsidiary PMC Group International which does not have a wiki page or non-primary articles on it by reliable publications. of https://www.chemanager-online.com/en/news/pmc-buys-isochems-pharma-business Mixmon (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason to delete. You have not proved that Isochem itself fails GNG. –<bUser:LaundryPizza03|LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (but improve): Some news about this company could be found, mostly dealing with its buyout by PMC: [4], [5]. That might be just barely enough to meet WP:NCORP. I don't read/speak French, so someone who is able to parse French sources might be able to vet sources better than me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 12:07, 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 delete‎. Those editors arguing for Delete cast doubt on whether this institution is a "significant accredited college". Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karsten Henriksen

Karsten Henriksen (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:NPERSON. Non-notable individual, run-of-the-mill educational administrator. No claim of notability (except perhaps for the Platinum Jubilee Medal, but even that was given to 420 000 individuals worldwide). WP:PROMO, reads like a WP:RESUME. Potentially violation of WP:COI as the editor is a single topic editor, and claims to own the copyright of a picture of the subject. Melmann 11:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but edit. This article needs substantial trimming and rewriting to change it from a resume to a Wikipedia page. However the subject is the president of Northlands College, which appears to satisfy C6 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a number of edits towards WP:NOTRESUME; hope this is helpful. Qflib (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qflib Is Northlands College a “major academic institution”? I can't even find it among any of the major university rankings (but, it's possible I'm just bad at searching). Melmann 07:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Historically we look for schools to offer masters degrees or higher as one indication of whether it qualifies (this excludes community colleges). This school qualifies under that criterion. Qflib (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this entity the result of three community colleges joining together? In any case, what would be a (non-major) academic institution? Like a vocational school? Melmann 09:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A vocational school does not offer graduate degrees (masters or higher). I would not consider a college that only offers associate and/or bachelor’s degrees and is not otherwise notable to be “major.”
    There are a few R1 universities that started off as teacher’s colleges and only offered bachelor’s degrees originally. So IMO the history of how the college came to be isn’t directly relevant as to whether it is currently “major” for our purposes here. Qflib (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How an institution is established isn’t relevant. Public Institutions in Canada are established by law… passed by the government. There are numerous institutions that started as a college for example Yukon University that do exceptionally valuable work. 2001:56A:6FE1:B447:911:8C81:F497:9BCE (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think Northlands is major enough to qualify for #C6, and we should go through GNG instead. All our sources are currently PR fluff, stories about Northlands, or stories about the one event of him becoming head of Northlands. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about GNG. But since we don't have a specific definition of what "major" means in WP:NPROF, I do tend to think we should assume that a school fits the criterion if they offer one or more graduate degrees, or if they are a historically significant institution (like Oberlin or Byrn Mawr). Of course, I respect your opinion to the contrary. Qflib (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, it appears to be a conglomeration of three community colleges. I think we've generally held that community colleges don't count for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Northlands College is a public institution service 50 percent of the landmass of Saskatchewan. As a public institution it offers a comprehensive array of programs from adult education to masters degrees with an indigenous student population of over 90 percent. I think the confusion here is the understanding of higher education in the USA vs Canada. 2001:56A:6FF0:41DD:55A9:9553:A7EA:A447 (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    David, this particular institution offers bachelors degrees and at least one master’s degree, unless I’m reading this wrong. If I’m wrong, apologies. Qflib (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the individual is the coauthor of the Nunavut Arctic College/Memorial University Transformational Agreement which has been noted by numerous media outlets and leaders
https://higheredstrategy.com/better-northern-higher-education-strategy/ 24.72.14.113 (talk) 02:10, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Pineda

Yael Pineda (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)

A really poorly sourced article on a BLP about a footballer that briefly played in the 2nd tier of Mexico. The best that I could find was Futbol Sapiens, which is not enough to show a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Cameron

Stephanie Cameron (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, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. None of the political positions occupied by this subject is NPOL-passable. Also fails GNG or BASIC generally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to add some more info in a couple hours but won't be able to so I won't contest the deletion. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely should be able to make improvements. This nomination doesn’t stop you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for her and found many people with this name... I put Tasmania in the search box and found very little about her: fails WP:GNG. Also, Deputy-mayors and councillors of themselves are not considered notable according to WP:politician. They need significant press coverage for that— Iadmc♫talk  12:44, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Tanay bus accident

2017 Tanay bus accident (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. GNews shows a temporary ban on field trips which lasted merely six months. A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion. I've also added the reference mentioned above as a citation in said entry. Lenticel (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - Per nominator
TheNuggeteer (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a distraction. The article should be kept by EVENT. The rest is something to keep in mind. A general concern. gidonb (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 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 redirect‎ to List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2017. Complex/Rational 13:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Nueva Ecija bus accident

2017 Nueva Ecija bus accident (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 is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion. Lenticel (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hariboneagle927, you might want to specify whether you want to delete or merge, merging assumes that a redirect will be made to preserve the page history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-install

Zero-install (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 has been undeleted following soft deletion from the previous AfD. Despite that, I still think that this fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFT, as searching for "zero install" (with quotes) on Google returned no reliable independent secondary sources. GTrang (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has become some kind of Frankenstein combination page that disambiguates between several usages of the term zero-install, even though the article was originally about a specific piece of software. I would rather have this article deleted and then a new article created about zero-install created, if the general concept is even notable in the first place. Notability doesn't stack -- using the term in two different contexts to establish notability is very confusing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources related to a concept itself are: a B. S. WP:SCHOLARSHIP thesis (it's not even masters!) only cited by a patent and the software; and a WP:RESEARCHGATE paper that does not appear to be in any peer-reviewed journal or have significant citations. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 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! 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a term, I don't think it currently meets WP:NEO though it might meet Wiktionary's inclusion criteria... I'm not actually sure, I don't really edit there. Depends on if there's a third use and the two currently cited count as "durably archived" I guess, which seems plausible enough. Delete. (actually, now that I think about it a bit more, it might get deleted on wikt: as a sum of parts) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even rewritten as a concept, I am not convinced it meets our general notability guidelines. I do see mentions on Scholar, but these mentions are passing and pretty sparse. Malinaccier (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Ho King

New Ho King (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)

Highly unlikely to pass the WP:10YEARTEST (and WP:SUSTAINED). Content which isn't related to the song isn't substantial enough to merit a stand-alone article. – Hilst [talk] 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, took a spin through the hits, and before the feud there’s not enough coverage for an article, just lists, listicles, coverage of nearby crime, and one art collective that named itself after the restaurant, everyday restaurant coverage stuff, not anything that would give the restuarant lasting notability. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (Ruth Bader Yinzburg)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sources published before the Kendrick Lamar song "Euphoria" was released on 30 April 2024:
      1. Shikatani, Gerry (1999-12-18). "Cuisine's familiar as an old friend". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "We do that now at the New Ho King, owned by Howard Wong (and his nephew Albert Wong) who once worked in his father's Rose Garden Cafe in Moose Jaw, Sask., a city where, in fact, writer Fred Wah's grandfather also cooked. The New Ho King's menu covers cooking from various regions of China, but more than anything, customers know it's grounded in Cantonese cuisine as familiar as an old friend. We remember the original Ho King on Dundas St. at Larch St., a tiny block east of Spadina Ave. There we'd pick at periwinkles in black bean sauce at 3 a.m. But 10 years ago, it closed its doors. Then in 1996, there was news. It had resurfaced on Spadina Ave. under new owners, but with their friend, original chef/owner Tom Quan, at the wok."

        The review notes: "It is quite simple, not high-end dramatic. But servings are large, and few Cantonese kitchens are cooking with such accomplishment and light touch, while leaving an equally light trace on the wallet."

      2. Kaplan, Ben (2008-01-12). "New Ho King Restaurant" (pages 1 and 2). National Post. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "Our Chinese food restaurants should be open for delivery after the bars close, and this inexpensive Spadina Avenue Cantonese greasy spoon is as good as we've tasted any hour of the day. The pork chow mein ($6.95) is crunchy and the stir-fried noodle is wet, dripping with a tangy black bean sauce chock full of beef and bean sprouts Perhaps the General Tso chicken ($8.50) left something to be desired; a harder fried outer coating might have provided a sharper contrast with the white chicken meat, but this restaurant is a revelation—the only way to improve it would be to include a 3:05 a.m. helping of cold tea with its lightning-fast delivery."

      3. Chow, Jason (2008-02-02). "The Dawdling Dragon". National Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "1. New Ho King. 416 Spadina Ave. Everybody knows this late-night spot feeds the drunks till 5 a.m. (see our cold tea story on Page 13), but few know that you actually don't have to endure a room filled with club-land loudmouths to get your fix of chow mein. The better alternative: Go home and call for delivery. You can get your fried rice in the comfort of your living room as late as 3 a.m. on weekdays and even later on weekends."

      4. Quadri, Sarah (2003). "New Ho King". In Clark, Alexandra (ed.). Cheapeats Toronto: Toronto's Guide to Good Inexpensive Restaurants. Plethora Press: Toronto. p. 83. ISBN 0-9731201-1-8. Retrieved 2024-06-13 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Even on a Sunday night you could be lined up outside the door for this place. New Ho attracts all ages until the wee hours of the morning. There's an unbelievable selection of Chinese and Cantonese dishes, all served very fresh at reasonable prices. Don't forget to try the hot & sour soup ($5) - excellent and they don't skimp on the shrimp. Other favs include the General Tso chicken ($7.95) and the eggplant and shrimp with garlic sauce ($8.50). A worthwhile stop in downtown Chinatown."

      5. Davey, Steven (2011-06-20). "New New Ho King". Now. Archived from the original on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13.

        The article notes: "It might not be the most cutting-edge Cantonese kitchen on the Avenue but New Ho King is certainly one of the most popular as the lengthy lineups after last call will attest. To handle the crowds, NHK has moved into much larger and far swankier split-level digs three doors away. ... The food’s the same as it ever was, a little bit too salty and verging on over-cooked. Like that matters at 3 am?"

    2. Sources published after the Kendrick Lamar song "Euphoria" was released on 30 April 2024:
      1. Brown, T.M. (2024-05-06). "A Chinese Restaurant Is Winning the Kendrick Lamar-Drake Beef. New Ho King, open since 1976 in Toronto, has become an unlikely pop-culture battleground after being featured in songs from both rappers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-27. Retrieved 2024-06-13.

        The article notes: "Caught in the middle of this culture-consuming rivalry is New Ho King, an unassuming restaurant in Toronto’s Chinatown. The restaurant, which has served dishes like hot-pot grouper and tofu, and sweet-and-sour pork with pineapple to Torontonians for nearly 50 years, was briefly name-checked in “Euphoria.”"

      2. Cecco, Leyland (2024-05-10). "'There's been one winner – this restaurant': Toronto eatery is victor in Kendrick-Drake beef. Hip-hop luminaries bash each other in a diss track war of war of words featuring an unlikely venue: the New Ho King restaurant". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13.

        The article notes: "New Ho King, which has operated in the city’s Chinatown for nearly five decades, is still grappling with the newfound fame. Until recently, its tables would be sparsely populated on weekday evenings, picking up pace on the weekends as late-night crowds wandered in. But on a Thursday evening, a line snaked out the door as diners clamoured for a table. Passersby stopped outside the pink glow of the restaurant’s neon sign and posed for photos. ... Neither Lamar nor Drake specify which rice dish diners should order from the 14 menu options: the most popular is the Ho King Special Fried Rice, a mix of shrimp, pork, eggs, peas and lettuce."

      3. Assaly, Richie (2024-05-02). "Drake vs Kendrick: Toronto Chinese restaurant New Ho King takes centre stage in escalating rap beef". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13.

        The article notes: "At 410 Spadina Ave., in the heart of Toronto’s historic Chinatown, New Ho King is a go-to spot for authentic Chinese food and late-night eats."

      4. Liu, Karon (2024-05-06). "We ate at Toronto's New Ho King, the spot Kendrick Lamar name-dropped. Here's what to order". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13.

        The article lists five dishes.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow New Ho King (Chinese: 新豪京) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:48, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 10:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Dickov

Anna Dickov (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)

Poorly sourced women's footballer. The two independent sources in the article are a trivial mention and an interview with minimal routine coverage. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 07:33, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Hill Ponies

Star Hill Ponies (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 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! 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:30, 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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Malinaccier (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTAM-LD

WTAM-LD (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; some references are outdated. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:27, 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 redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Based on minimal participation, the article can be recreated, see WP:SOFTDELETE. Malinaccier (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Important Party

Very Important Party (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 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, 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 redirect‎ to Gul Panag. Based on minimal participation, the article can be recreated, see WP:SOFTDELETE. Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Road with Gul Panag

Off Road with Gul Panag (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 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! 07:30, 1 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, 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 no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satja Nai Chum Joan (Suea Sung Fah III)

Satja Nai Chum Joan (Suea Sung Fah III) (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:56, 25 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, 1 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! 06:48, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sokpoly Voeun

AfDs for this article:
Sokpoly Voeun (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 article about a filmmaker and photographer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers or photographers. The strongest attempted notability claim here is a table of "nominations" for awards at various film festivals, except there aren't actually real awards in the mix here: three of the listed festivals are just "screened" or "selected", with no evidence of any actual award nominations or wins shown at all, and most of them are "to be announced" because the festival is still in the future and hasn't even released its program announcements yet, so it still isn't even confirmed that the film will even screen there at all, let alone win any awards.
All of them, further, are "sourced" to the self-published websites of the film festivals themselves, rather than media coverage, and the rest of the footnotes are also a mix of primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage in media or books.
There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator and primary other editor have been blocked as sockpuppets in an WP:SPI check following their behaviour in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reign in Slumber discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 25 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, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Still no reliable sources found in my searches, same as in 2022 when this last came up in AfD. Sourcing now used for the article is all red/orange per Cite Highlighter, so none are reliable. Daily Motion, ImdB and others. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ZERO hits on Cambodian websites using a .kh search [11]. There just isn't coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it with fire: Zero evidence of notability added since the last AfD. None of the sources provide suitable evidence of notability. No BEFORE results that would pass either. Most of the film festival references fail verification entirely. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I suppose it would be notable if reliable sources verified that he is 531 feet tall as it says in the infobox :) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:37, 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 redirect‎ to Wiślica#History. Despite all the time and effort, no additional sources were found. If and when sources are found that establish independent notability beyond what was presented here, any editor is welcome to restore this page as a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 19:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Wiślica

Sack of Wiślica (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)

As

I hereby formally propose to either draftify Sack of Wiślica (if any editor is willing to adopt it), or to redirect it to Wiślica#History. (Note: Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was renamed to Sack of Wiślica on 3 June 2024‎ by agreement between NLeeuw and Piotrus on the talk page, so this could be regarded as a 2nd nomination of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)).

Rationale: WP:NOPAGE; fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG for a stand-alone page, and the sources used so far create WP:POV issues as well. It is one of several dubious articles written by now-blocked User:SebbeKg (previously we agreed to delete SebbeKg's article Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) on 27 May). Editors seem to agree that the event took place, but nothing for certain can be said about in detail, as all the sources cited are either WP:PRIMARY (Kadłubek, and in the case of Długosz someone who wrote centuries later and added details that are not historically credible), or WP:USERGENERATED & WP:POV (in the case of KWORUM), or WP:SELFPUB (in the case of Dawne Kieleckie). Everyone agrees that the only substantial WP:RS is Benyskiewicz (2020), and that this source alone is not enough.

The disagreement is that User:Piotrus would like to keep a stand-alone page based on RS that are yet to be found, and that someone else should find and add these yet-to-be-found RS (citing WP:BEFORE), whereas User:Marcelus and I think that this event could easily be summarised in 1 to 3 sentences in Wiślica#History by reference to Benyskiewicz (2020), at least for now. Alternately, Marcelus and I think the current article could be draftified for now, but Piotrus has declined my offer to adopt it as a draft, citing having too little time to do it himself, and proposing to add Template:Sources exist to motivate other users to do it instead. However, the template does not allow such usage (see also Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). I have argued that the present situation of keeping the article in the mainspace as is, is not acceptable either, because it evidently is not ready for the mainspace (if it ever merits a stand-alone article at all).

So, if nobody is willing to adopt the draft, Marcelus and I are proposing to redirect Sack of Wiślica to Wiślica#History until an editor (Piotrus or someone else) finds enough material, based on WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, written with an WP:NPOV, for a stand-alone page, and has written that page. I already created such a redirect WP:BOLDly, which was BOLDly reverted by Piotrus, and that is fine per WP:BRD. But if there is consensus in this AfD to create a redirect, this may not be reverted BOLDly again until the conditions above for a stand-alone page are met.

Other than that I would like to say that I have generally enjoyed cooperating with Piotrus on this topic amicably. But a formal decision seems to be necessary to break the deadlock on the future of this article, and Piotrus has suggested that taking it to AfD a second time might settle the matter, so here I am. Good day to everyone. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I said on article's talk page, we have one in-depth academic source already, and indications that more sources exist (but are hard to access due to being Polish and not digitized well): "BEFORE search in GBooks in Polish strongly suggests other sources exist. Ex. this book by Gerard Labuda mentions keywords "Wiślicy" "1135" (together) on five distinct pages (but sadly I can only get snippet view for two or three). That book is a bit old (1962), but here for example is a more modern one, from 2006, that mentions those keywords together on 15 (!) pages (seems reliable, published by an academic organization, and the writer is a historian associated with Jan Kochanowski University, no pl wiki article yet). I could look for more sources, but I don't have time & will and I think this shows that we can reasonably assume sources on the sack of Wiślica in 1135 exist and the topic is notable." The article needs to be expanded from those academic seconday sources (it is trye much of what we have is PRIMARY), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 16 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) 08:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right the article should be written in a few sentences I would propose this :
In 1182, Casimir was involved in disputes over power in Halicko-Wlodzimierska Rus'. In that year, Casimir's army attacked Brest, with the intention of installing Svyatoslav Mstislavovich, son of Agnes, daughter of Boleslav the Wry-mouthed and Salomea of Berg, on the throne there.
Svyatoslav's candidacy was opposed by Agnes's younger sons, with whom Prince Vsevolod of Bełsk set out for Brest, along with reinforcements from the principalities of Vladimir and Halych, and the Yotvingians and Polovtsians. Casimir eventually won a victory over the reinforcements coming to Brest's rescue, and also captured the city itself. He achieved his political goal, and installed his chosen prince Sviatoslav on the throne. The 1182 expedition to Brest was thus his complete success. This state of affairs did not last long - after a short time the established prince was poisoned. The exact date of this event is not clear; it probably happened as early as 1183. Casimir did not fail to act, and installed his other nephew, Prince Roman Mstislavovich of Vladimir, on the throne
Source
Józef Dobosz: Kazimierz II Sprawiedliwy. Poznań: 2014, p. 153-155.
Mistrz Wincenty (tzw. Kadłubek): Kronika polska. tłum. i oprac. Brygida Kürbis, Wrocław: 1992 s. ks. IV, chapter 14, p. 217. Birczenin (talk) 20:19, 23 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× ☎ 18:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bago University Students' Union

Bago University Students' 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)

I have performed WP:BEFORE and searched for in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. However, I found only these:

These sources are just passing mentions. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The majority of sources that are cited are about the protest and arrest, where other people and this union's members were arrested. Does this establish notability? Please ping me if you find any in-depth coverage of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 10:02, 25 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! 07:25, 1 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! 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm not seeing anything approaching GNG here. I'm not comfortable calling any of the applied, presented or found reliable sources directly detailing this WP:ORG. I agree largely with source analysis by the nominator. There are bare mentions in RS. I'm handicapped by my not speaking the language, but my reasonable search finds nothing detailing this student organization. I'd be happy to find RS but I'm not seeing it in English. BusterD (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now in the past 10 years, along with the political transition, almost all universities in Myanmar have started to form student unions. It is undeniable that student unions play key role in Myanmar’s democratization, and there are significant full coverages in mass media (e.g. BBC Burmese). However, a single student union of a university which has only a few sources would not satisfy WP:GNG.
    In fact, there is an organization that combines (almost) all the student unions in the country under the name of "All Burma Federation Of Student Unions" (following the step of the union of the same name in history). Once there is an article about the new All Burma Federation of Student Unions, this article should be redirected to there. Unfortunately, since there is no currently then it should be deleted for now. I’m not sure if it’s okay to draftify…Htanaungg (talk) 10:30, 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 delete‎. Given the author's apparent ambivalence to the article being kept or deleted, I am closing this as "delete" despite a relatively light discussion as I think this is non-controversial. Malinaccier (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport (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)

Unneccessary WP:FORK of Football War, already covered there in a few sentences. Page unlikely to be expanded nor new RS published Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

u can delete if u want Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or i i can change text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i can change the text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 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! 07:01, 1 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! 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge. I agree on having the article deleted, besides the fact that I'm also having it's information merged on the Football War article. (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't both delete and merge an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King and Vicki Grant

Chris King and Vicki Grant (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 doesn't have reception or signification coverage about the character, and the hero forms section was written awfully or its fully redundant; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 25 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! 07:00, 1 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! 06:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dial H for Hero#1980s series - There is nothing here except for excessively detailed, primary sourced, in-universe plot summary. And the entirety of the plot information here is already present, in more succinct form, at the main Dial H article. Pretty much the only information here that is not already included there is that ridiculously long list of "Hero Forms" and "Villains" that is completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE information that should not be included. There is no reason for this to have ever been split out to a separate article as the same information is already covered at the parent article, making this a redundant fork that should simply be redirect back to the appropriate section of the Dial H article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Result

Supplemental Result (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)

Procedural nomination as the post-WP:BLAR redirect was rejected at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result. One suggestion was to add content about the subject at the Google (I assume Google Search) article. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 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 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! 04:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bekemeier

Michael Bekemeier (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 meet WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. I can't find any WP:RS. Claggy (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to editing wikipedia. He is an actor/stuntman in SAG-AFTRA who has a world record and a couple of online fandoms. I am not sure what wp:rs, wp:nactor, wp:bio? If you can help me understand and fix this page rather than deleting it, I would greatly appreciate it.
I see what those things are now and he HAS had notable roles. He was the boogeyman in The Boogeyman and the main entity in the film Imaginary, among other films. Please look at his IMDB for background if you insist he has not been in enough. And his world record is clearly linked on this page. Or is that also not enough? He is well known for his contributions to the Atlanta stunt and contortion community. As far as reliable sources... is the Guinness site and IMDB not enough? Of course there are no peer-reviewed articles as he is a stuntman... I am happy to try to add more sources, but those are fairly reputable for this line of work.
I motion to move this to the improvements page instead of deletion. I am open to any suggestions for improvement.
Cheers,
cashworth6
@cashworth6: "WP" stands for Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia requires that its subjects be notable to prevent people from adding information that isn't verifiable and is in many cases incorrect.
There are several policies that determine whether a subject is notable. You should start by reading WP: N (general notability guidelines), then reading WP: NACTOR (specific guidelines for establishing notability for actors), WP: BIO (guidelines for notability about people), and WP: RS (guidelines for what is and isn't a reliable source). These are guidelines that users use to argue whether an article should be kept or deleted. You should also read WP: AFD to get an overview of how the deletion process works.
IMDB contains user generated content under WP: IMDB, so it isn't reliable. Anyone can add anything, including incorrect information, to IMDB. The Guinness source mentions him as a record holder and names his occupation. This doesn't meet the standard for in-depth coverage. If you can find reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth (e.g. a passage about him in the New York Times, a section in a book about stuntmen that discusses his work), then this would improve the article to where it should not be deleted. You're free to ask any questions here or on my talk page if you wish, but please read these policies in their entirety before doing so. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(for the avoidance of doubt, this is a description of the nomination and not a vote) HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help and I apologize for my confusion. Cashworth6 (talk) 15:06, 2 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! 04:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete little to no sourcing in anything found; what's used now isn't enough and I can't find any listings of this person. To the comments above, the Imdb isn't a reliable source, Guinness records aren't useful and being in the union isn't notable. We'd require articles written about this person, somewhere, in order to be notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my apologies. -cashworth6

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DUnit

DUnit (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:58, 1 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! 03:43, 8 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! 00:29, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Astorga Junquera

Juan Astorga Junquera (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 has a stable article at Spanish Wikipedia but notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines for either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST isn't evident. I'd like to hear what others think. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable Any biography: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field- His recognized contribution to Digital Art Curation. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding reliable sources to show notability. There are huge swaths of unreferenced material in the article about his career. IMDB and Facebook citations are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am also having difficulty finding significant coverage in reliable sources. This is mostly due to translation issues and there seems to be some mixing of info on this subject and their father, mixing information on Juan Astorga Junquera, and Juan Astorga, Juan Astorga Anta, etc. This subject's father, Juan Astorga Anta was the first director of the Museum of Modern Art in Merida and it is named after him ("Museo de Arte Moderno Juan Astorga Anta").[15]) There might some salvageable article here, but leaning towards delete at this time Elspea756 (talk) 14:47, 5 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! 03:34, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Agcaoili

Phil Agcaoili (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)

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 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! 03:32, 8 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! 00:31, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SagamoreHill Broadcasting

SagamoreHill Broadcasting (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:NCORP because of a lack of in-depth coverage. PROD was contested so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 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! 03:32, 8 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! 04:02, 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 keep‎. This article still needs work to make it less promotional, though. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fox (author)

Scott Fox (author) (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)

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).
Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 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! 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.
    We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.
    What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)
    Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?
    Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?
    Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.
    Scott
    p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.
    Thanks. Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!
Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.
We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.
If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.
Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.
Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.
Thanks again very much for your work here.
Scott
https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/
https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif
https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love
https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires
https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad
https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/
https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today
https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24
https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/
https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox
https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no WP:SIGCOV of Sullo, only passing mentions of his role in creating Nikto. There's significant coverage here, but it's a blog and appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I also reviewed the discussion in the no-consensus 2006 and 2007 AfDs, and the "keep" votes were highly unpersuasive, rehearsing the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS already in the article and making non-policy-based arguments for notability (such as a one-word "notable" and citing a "desperate wish" to keep the article). I would encourage other editors to review the sources and prior discussions carefully. If after 18 years(!) sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources cannot be found, this article should not be kept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:13, 9 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! 03:59, 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 redirect‎ to Lindsay baronets. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay of Evelix

Lindsay of Evelix (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)

Completely unsourced except a dead link; cannot find any references to the family as a whole rather than individual members. Rusalkii (talk) 04:37, 1 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! 03:27, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poitín (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. The founder and main contributor of the site is apparently someone from the band and the page is more a self-presentation. FromCzech (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. Do you have any suggestions to avoid it being deleted? Poitin31 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as well how to avoid deletion (I'm not a member of this band in case of any accusation of self-presentation). Kmarty (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear more opinions from editors about this article and what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 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 redirect‎ to List of unit testing frameworks#.NET. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CsUnit

AfDs for this article:
CsUnit (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. Has one ref from a predatory journal. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know enough about the sources to assess the quality of the journal sources and whether the nominator would say they are predatory, but there appears to be sufficient scholarly coverage of this subject. However, my lack of knowledge prevents me from !voting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything significant. The one ref I was talking about is this, which is inactive (it's also a low-quality journal so fails RS). --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:34, 9 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! 00:33, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cuppa (Java library)

Cuppa (Java library) (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:57, 1 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! 03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article was quite obviously created by the developer. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:57, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Calvo (baseball)

Jorge Calvo (baseball) (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 does not meet the criteria for notability. A Google search yields no results outside of Baseball-Reference. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:18, 8 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! 03:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:47, 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 no consensus‎ and no indication of any forthcoming input Star Mississippi 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Calvo

Bernardo Calvo (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 does not meet the notability criteria. There are simply no references to him on the internet other than compendiums of baseball stats which include his name. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:11, 8 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! 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:47, 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 delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdaControl

AdaControl (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: N. PROD removed by article creator who added a user testimony. Since this testimony is self-published, it cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not self-published, it was presented at the "Reliable Software Technologies – Ada-Europe 2017", proceedings published by Springer, see https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-60588-3 Jprosen75 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this to be JP Rosen, whose connection to AdaControl is explained in this bio. They've created ~46% of the page. I've left them a COI warning. I'm tagging the article, which also contains promotional language like "gives the same level of accuracy as the language", soon. Still, I don't think that means we must delete, as these are all fixable issues. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has been out for nearly a week now and most of the sources found don't really establish notability. Are we sure this article should still be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see my response above. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"gives the same level of accuracy as the language" is really about ASIS, and explains why ASIS was chosen for the tool.
Yes, I am the author of the software, and I'm willing to improve as required. Jprosen75 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did your authorship have to be pointed out by another user? You need to read WP: COI. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chill it, I already sent a message about COI. Not every new user can automatically know to read all policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rosen disclosed his connection in 2010 [26]. Do your homework, HyperAccelerated, and don't be making accusations without something more than an opinion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being told to "do my homework" when WP: DISCLOSE hasn't been followed. Talking to hardworking volunteers like they're children isn't funny.
Notices need to be displayed prominently on the talk page or on a user's profile. Having it mentioned in passing in an improperly formatted Talk discussion is not in line with policy.
Please direct any further correspondence about this matter to my Talk page -- my willingness to assume good faith drops dramatically when you add remarks like these to the discussion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true, then it needs a source that states that claim in full. IMO using the same "backend" doesn't necessarily mean they have the same level of "accuracy". Aaron Liu (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I am not a frequent contributor, and I did not know about the COI policy. Feel free to add the COI template (I am not sure to do it correctly myself). Actually, I added this article when I saw that AdaControl was missing from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis, while the competitors software were there, which I found unfair. Jprosen75 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more thoughtful opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for inadequate sourcing and lack of evidence of notability. The article, "derived in whole or in part from Adalog" comes across as heavily promotional. Please note the serious COI issues when considering the discussion above. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doczilla How do the COI issues make it fail notability? What about the sources I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say the COI issues have anything to do with notability. They might make a difference, though, when considering the relative weight of !votes and objectivity of arguments made by those with conflicts of interest, and they may bring added scutiny when considering promotional aspects of the article: Are we able to trust the article, and are we able to trust those who fight to keep it? Speaking of those sources, they are not impressive. Valid, reliable, independent sources are needed. Closers will be familiar with such things and will make their own decisions. I have weighed in on this, so I will not be the closer. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I believe that the two sources are enough. Sure, the JSA presentation is less than ideal, but both are independent, significant, and reliable. Even just the Qualoss article is enough to write a stub about. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources do not support notability. Owen× ☎ 11:54, 23 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! 02:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBON-LD

WBON-LD (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 GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Desperately seeking participants..... (80s reference)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lacking independent sourcing. Within the citations I see sourcing to the station itself, FCC registrations, and accessibility listings. As of this writing the two independent sources that mention the station just do so in passing: an obit piece for a former news anchor and one mentioning the sale of the station. The article has been around in at least stub form since 2006 so this seems to have just flown under the radar not to have been nominated for AfD long ago.Blue Riband► 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This diff demonstrates considerable progress on adding reliable sources to this article. I don't see that contributor making assertion here. I make my assertion, not on that contributor's behalf, but because of the several reliable sources quietly applied. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The London Sentinel-Echo article looks like multiple paragraphs of significant, independent coverage. The WMYT article isn't great as it mainly focuses on the founder, but it does delve into the station a bit. I'd say this is a relatively weak pass under WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan

AfDs for this article:
Tan Yinglan (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)

Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:
Oblivy (talk) 02:53, 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 merge‎ to ESPNU. No participation in the past 7 days changes the outcome determined by the previous closer, Star Mississippi. I see no reason to contradict their decision last week. I don't think additional relistings would help. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNU personalities

List of ESPNU 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)

This group does not have the requisite coverage in secondary sources as a group to meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe there was a consensus for a merge as a viable ATD, but nom's request for a relist is reasonable, so I have done so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 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. Neither "keep" !votes adequately addressed the WP:SIGCOV issue, nor how playing at the highest level abides by relevant notability guidelines. ✗plicit 14:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Anderson

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand women's rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. A possible redirect target is New Zealand women's national rugby league team. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources establish notability, by current Wikipedia standards, rather than just making a claim.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Literally zero independent sources in the article--everything is from league press releases or directly from a governing body--and even then there's still zero SIGCOV. A search on PQ (including for Raquel Pitman) returned exclusively namedrops in squad list press releases and a couple trivial mentions in match reports. JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 23 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. Feel free to discuss a possible change in article page title Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piñon, Montrose County

Piñon, Montrose County (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)

Having reviewed the sources I generally rely on to determine if a Colorado place is real or formerly existed. In this case, there appears to be a location named "Piñon" in Montrose County, but it's not notable nor actually a town. No SIGCOV in RSs. Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: I still disagree with the editors arguing for a keep (and don't see enough of a distinction from Nucla), but there's no denying the good work they've done in adding material to the encyclopedia and no need for an 1AM AfD. I'll move the article from its current name to Piñon, Colorado per the general agreement over retaining the ñ, not including Colony, and following naming conventions in not referring to the county in the article name unless necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pbritti, I think it should remain as Pinon (not Pinon Colony) because all of the reliable newspaper and book references (many more than I added to the article) say Pinon or Piñon, and it is the official name for the town in these records and how it was known by locals in the past. @SportingFlyer is correct that Pinon is the common name. Pinon was a distinct town which is now a ghost town - a mining boomtown.
      BTW, I've spent time in this area on an extended photographic road trip, and went through Nucla, Natarita, Paradox, Uravan, Bedrock Slickrock, and drove through many of these tiny mining towns thruout Paradox Valley and Montrose County. Some still have derelict buildings, other were completely raised when the uranium mining boom occurred (the are is filled with vanadium). The Paradox Valley area has a fascinating history.
      The only change I would suggest is either to put "Montrose County" in parenthesis or "Montrose County, Colorado" in parentheses), but I'm not sure if that is standard formatting. If there is not another Pinon, Colorado then I think that should be the article name since that is how the other small towns or former towns mentioned above are formatted. Thank you for offering to withdrawing the AfD. Netherzone (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Using the sources provided, I don't think we can definitively say a. Piñon was a distinct community from Nucla (differing only in about five miles of location and sharing both the same people, government, and buildings), b. that it is a ghost town, and c. that it clears GNG. The following is a review of sources in the article:
      • 1. RoadsideThoughts: Not strictly an RS and certainly fails to provide SIGCOV. However, it does give us a geolocation, so best to keep it for now.
      • 2. San Miguel Basin Forum, Jan 12, 2005: This is a local newspaper publishing someone's summary of what appears to be an older self-published book and a masters dissertation. It suggests Piñon was the second-largest town in Montrose County but then describes the same community, under the auspices of the Colorado Cooperative Company, establishing themselves as Nucla.
      • 3. The Co-operator: This is a 119-year-old primary source, so caution advised. However, page 8 suggests that the Piñon site was just a temporary location for the CCC community that established Nucla–further suggesting continuity between the communities.
      • 4. San Miguel Basin Forum, October 1, 1975: Describes Pinon as a landing place for the CCC before everyone and everything moved to the Nucla site.
      • 5. San Miguel Forum, July 7, 1994: Deferring mostly to the name "Pinon Colony", the article describes the people of the CCC community moving from the Pinon site to Nucla and taking their buildings with them.
      • 6. The Denver Public Library source explicitly describes Piñon as the same community as Nucla.
      • 7. Montrose Press, July 2, 2009: This is about a geological formation known as the Piñon Ridge and has nothing to do with the community. Should be removed.
      An additional source can be found here from the Montrose Press (using the incorrect spelling of "Pinion"). It establishes that the CCC camp was first named "Cottonwood Camp", then Pinon, then (when everything but the cemetery moved) Nucla. These are all the same community, moved repeatedly as artificial waterways were constructed. It is akin to how Dillon moved when the Dillon Reservoir was constructed: the same community, but a different spot. Notably, Piñon does not appear in comprehensive guides to Colorado ghost towns, like Guide to Colorado Ghost Towns and Mining Camps or Ghost Towns of the Colorado Rockies. As to name, Piñon, Colorado (with no mention of the county, as no other "Piñon" exists in Colorado) would be the correct name per the conventions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Those aren't all of the sources, though. As I've noted, Colorado Day by Day spends time on them as two separate communities. Nucla has an incorporation date in 1915 according to that book, so it's very clear they're distinct communities by that date alone, even though there is a mention of someone from Nucla in a 1909 government report. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering the majority of sources specifically about the subject disagree with that book which isn't specifically about the subject, I would emphasize the Denver Public Library article as our best source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pbritti, I respect what you do here but I disagree with you that Pinon was a non-notable settlement. I stand behind my !vote to retain the article. I've continued to improve the article and added additional newspaper and book sources, and three historical photographs. I've also added content about the correlation between Nucla and Pinon from The Daily Sentinel [30]. You may find that the article now meets the Heyman Standard. Please consider having another look at it in its current state. The former settlement has a history that has encyclopedic value, even though it no longer exists and the population shifted to Nucla. Clearly it was a notable settlement, per the above and that it was the second most populous town in Montrose County. I feel strongly that its removal would not be an improvement to the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheNuggeteer (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koch Marx

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were routine transactional announcements (1, 2, 3). JTtheOG (talk) 02:04, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luvuyo Pupuma

Luvuyo Pupuma (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)

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 02:00, 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. Withdrawn by nominator, the sole delete has not offered a viable counter-argument for discovered sources. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirakira (video game)

Kirakira (video game) (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)

Nothing in the article suggests this game is notable; single footnote is to some Internet radio show whose relation to the game is not even clear from the article. Metacritic has no reviews. Maybe sources exist in Japanese, but nothing useful seems to be found on ja wiki. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. TheBritinator (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 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 redirect‎ to Hum TV without prejudice against selective merge of sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 18:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (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:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:29, 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! 01:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Globe, Oregon

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable location, article sourced only to GNIS and to a topographic map. Little else found. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG in absence of better sourcing. Topo maps do suggest there was once more of a settlement there than at present, but without sourcing to describe it we can't have an article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Strong Merge. I absolutely agree, because it should be in the article about the Lane County, Oregon in the first place. I've already proposed on merging it to the article about Lane County of Oregon anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge? What is there to merge other than "there is a place at [coordinates] named Globe"? As others have said around here, if all you can say about a place is something you can say about literally any other point on the (ahem) globe (coordinates, elevation, name), then you have nothing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahedan Stadium

Zahedan Stadium (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/Zahedan#Sports Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 8 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! 01:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added translations of both reference titles. I think the article is notable because it has good multiple references, even though it is a stub. I also moved the coordinates into the infobox. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:07, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riksundar Banerjee

Riksundar Banerjee (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)

Failing all criteria of WP:NBIO, publishing articles and non notable books not fulfils WP:GNG Pinakpani (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton, Lane County, Oregon

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable railroad waypoint. Sources consist of 1) GNIS (does not count for notability); 2) the DeLorme atlas (likely based on GNIS); 3) a place-names gazetteer (also not sufficient for notability), and 4) the page for the Hampton Boat Launch at the Willamette National Forest USFS page, which is a page about, well, a boat launch, and not any "community" or "locale". The text of the article clearly says this is a "locale", which is not a populated place, and no other sources could be found; thus, this fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:23, 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. "Could be useful" and "historical tidbit" are not policy based arguments Star Mississippi 02:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sligo Wild Geese

Sligo Wild Geese (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 source since 2014 is a brief mention and I can find nothing to indicate any notability. A google search (excluding Wikipedia) find only a few hits with just a couple of brief mentions. A newspaper.com search also returns nothing. KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ireland. KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. A relatively short-lived (local/non-profit/community) organisation that fails WP:CLUB and WP:SIGCOV. (We don't even have sources to establish the basic facts - like when the org were established/established - not to mind anything that establishes notability.) In my own WP:BEFORE, the only news sources I can find include this and this and represent represent the scarcist of trivial passing mentions in (hyper) local news sources (indicating that subject org was not even covered in any great depth in very local news coverage; Not to mind the type of [at least national] coverage that would confirm that the club's activities were "national or international in scale". As would be expected by WP:CLUB.) The only "claim to fame/notability" given in the article, about the org being "notable for many firsts, including their involvement in pioneering north–south co-operation during the beginning of the then fragile Irish peace process" represents flowery editorial and puffery that isn't supported by anything at all...) Guliolopez (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was trying to de-orphan and clean this up but the sourcing doesn't seem to be there. --Here2rewrite (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't the least sourced or most puffed stub I've seen today, or even the second, but it's close enough in spirit (per above) and the first I saw already nominated. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a notable group. Spleodrach (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think with some research, the article could serve an interesting historical tidbit. --evrik (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the recent additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 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 merge‎ to Mette Frederiksen#Personal life by an abundant unanimous consensus. Discussion closed per WP:SNOW. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Mette Frederiksen

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Should be merged into Mette Frederiksen#Personal life and would fit perfectly there. Absolutely no need for a separate article. CycloneYoris talk! 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This event isn't notable enough to be remembered for any length of time. She was purely injured. The unknown person at the time of writing possibly never had a plan to use any weapons but to just shove. Unlike the other example in the article such as Fico's attempted assassination being an event likely to be remembered because a politician was injured by firearm by someone who opposed the Prime Minister's policies. 71.223.90.84 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Buffoons, why would you make an article on a man shoving someone, no matter how important they are. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree I was reading the article and thinking that this is too light to be considered attack. What's next, calling an insult an attack on a politician? This is a waste of data. Cganuelas (talk) 19:11, 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 redirect‎ to 2016 CBA Playoffs#Finals. Seems like a highly unlikely search term but I'm just here to carry out the consensus. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liaoning Flying Leopards–Sichuan Blue Whales brawl

Liaoning Flying Leopards–Sichuan Blue Whales brawl (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)

Neutral nom on behalf of an IP who stated: Zhanghang0704 only ever made 6 edits, all over the course of 3 days in late March 2016: the creation of this article, 4 more edits to it, and an edit to Liaoning Flying Leopards. I believe this article is a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as the brawl (which happened 5 days before this article's creation) does not appear to have sustained coverage - to say nothing of the article itself being extremely barebones despite a whopping 9 references. Star Mississippi 00:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOTNEWS and hardly notable. ADifferentMan (talk) 02:13, 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 redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saturne Party

Saturne Party (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 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 00:41, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition (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:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Meh. This is crystallbalish but useful, and there are already some sources about the upcoming program. Yes, technically we might be justfied with dratifying this for a while, but seriously, this is make-work that is pointless. We know this event will be notable. Why waste time moving it out from mainspace and back?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to International Chopin Piano Competition. Doesn't need a seperate article, IMO.— Iadmc♫talk  12:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place! WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I do note that the other events have their own articles but they are full of information after the fact. Draftify is another option — Iadmc♫talk  12:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place is not what WP:NOTCRYSTAL implies. The competition is just as likely to take place as the next Olympics or the next World Cup, all of which are events which fulfil WP:NOTCRYSTAL criteria: the event is notable, almost certain to take place, and preparations are in progress. intforce (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The competition is certainly notable. Previous competitions have been won by very notable performers. The fact that is going to take place all else being equal and is in preparation is not in doubt. My worry is that this is just a place holder for the event to come which is notable only for being the 100th anniversary. I still vote merge and create the article when the Competition is over — Iadmc♫talk  12:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – looks like 3/4 reliable independent sources exist discussing it. Sources will only ramp up in the future. Seems useful to have a solid starting ground for a quick-moving event like this. Aza24 (talk) 18:06, 8 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! 00:44, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_8&oldid=1227921904"