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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:58, 17 June 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 16	June 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

561 (Transperth Bus Route)

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

No WP:SIGCOV at all. Steelkamp (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

does have significant coverage. It's a bus route, and the article describes said route as well as start and end points. Also has reference which links to the bus timetable and map. Wikipedia's SIGCOV guideline states that an article must "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The article addresses the topic directly, by talking about the bus route itself. It details the journey the route takes from start to finish. And it also provides a reference to the timetable/map of the route, meaning there is no need for additional research. For these reasons this article should remain open. There is nothing wrong with adding bus route articles to wikipedia as they are an important part of everyday transport, and this route in particular connects two important stations in the southern suburbs as well as the local school in Secret Harbour. Rick Astlios (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is also a new article and more content (images/paragraphs) will be added in future if the article remains up Rick Astlios (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need more substantial sources than just a timetable and map, of which at least some should be independent sources. As far as I'm aware, no such sources exist. Steelkamp (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as its only reference is to a timetable which is a primary source. I couldn't find any other secondary reliable sources such as independent news articles from a Google search. Fork99 (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, if for some reason this was decided to be kept, the title should be something like Perth bus route 561 in line with similar articles like Sydney bus route 333 and London Buses route 1. Fork99 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to see how any bus route could be notable, but this one certainly is not. Bduke (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Bus routes can be notable, but this one does not have significant coverage from secondary sources and thus fails GNG. Sounder Bruce 05:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some Perth bus routes are in their historic context 'notable' at a stretch - the problem with a route like 561 there is buckley's chance of actually adequately providing WP:RS that actually are in places that might have something. Google is a waste of time. Trove might have had something, but the route is something that is less than 25 years old, and as a result, nothing short of the archives of the ticket and timetable newsletter might have something - but then they do look at the older era. A possible sideway glimpse in a real live archive - https://slwa.wa.gov.au/pdf/ephemera/pr11903tragen.pdf which any of the Perth based editors could access if they had the interest to physically check - might have something, but the Secret Harbour locality (which has little of help in the article to identify when it was actually specifically developed as a locality) is 1984 + in age, which means that the chance of an easily accessible community news service for the area is also zilch, as it would require whichever newspaper to have locality specific news, which might have had comment about public transport... The Sound Telegraph appears to have no interest in bus routes. To assert notability of a bus route like this, is I am afraid to say, pointless. JarrahTree 15:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Technically could be redirected to list of bus routes in Perth, Western Australia#500–599 but the article is really new and also dabbed so delete is reasonable. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Joseph (politician)

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

Member of a Parish council, whose sole news articles about his recent decision to run in the current election. If he wins, automatically notable, but at this point he is subject to general notability policy, and has no indication of passing Brislian (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft per WP:TOOSOON. All the coverage is specifically related to one event WP:BLP1E, if he does get elected he will be notable as you mention, thus drafting is best for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond running as a candidate, the individual is not notable. TOOSOON applies. Can be re-created after the election win, if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Delete per ~~WP:TOOSOON, and~~ nom. and others ~~above~~. Sal2100 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Changing above !vote from "draftify" to "delete" per the rationale of Antonine below. Sal2100 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a blatant example of not notable. WP:TOOSOON shouldn't apply here as otherwise you could apply to all the other candidates standing in the general election, but the editorial guidelines are quite clear that only notable people get articles. Simply standing for election in a national contest does not automatically make someone notable, so this should be an automatic deletion as a simple case of not being noteworthy. Antonine (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails multiple categories related to BLP articles. Textbook example of not notable and not meriting an individual Wiki article. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous votes. Unelected candidates are not inherently notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands Boy Scout Association

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

This has no sigcov/notability and no coverage in secondary and reliable sources. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move the material to Scouts Aotearoa at least until there is much more material than there is now and do the same for Scouting in Niue and Scouting in Tokelau. Bduke (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Scouting. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite this article being created 18 years ago, it has no sources (violating WP:OR), and is only comprised of one singular sentence (making it a WP:STUB). Mjks28 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the material to Scouts Aotearoa as suggested above. Bduke (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the (very little) information seems unreliable. The connection to Scouts Aotearoa is unsourced; the World Organization of the Scout Movement describes the org as an "potential member" within the Council of South Pacific Scout Associations [1]. --jergen (talk) 18:05, 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 redirect‎ to List of mosques in Azerbaijan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh

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

Short list created in 2013 that has no sources that mostly duplicates the info in the better quality List of mosques in Azerbaijan. As an WP:ATD, I'd also support a redirect to the Azerbaijan list. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, Islam, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You don’t need to bring this to AfD. See WP:BLAR. Mccapra (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you do due to it being contested/likely to contested. An AfD outcome to redirect for example would be a binding consensus.

As to the nom itself, I support a redirect to the Azerbaijan article. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mosques in Azerbaijan, per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree that you should redirected the article. If that failed then you could AfD. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mosques in Azerbaijan: With the dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh, there isn't much defining aspect (de-facto borders etc.) left of the region and this list. No prejudice to recreation of a similar but sourced list for Azerbaijani provinces. Aintabli (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Had to be redirected in the first place. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added sources and pics to all items in the list. Plus I added more items to the list. And there are more items to be added. Technically speaking, I would support redirecting, since NK Republic has been dissolved. If the consensus will be "Redirect", I will move the content as well. Otherwise, I will extend the article. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:11, 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. I see a consensus to Delete. Any editor can create a redirect if they so choose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kahuta

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

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [2] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, Israel, and India. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've concerns about articles created by M Waleed, as they often include WP:OR and rely on questionable sources. Despite my advice to use drafts instead of creating articles directly in the main namespace, it appears that my suggestions were not followed- hence this AFD nom. Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable one-sided claim does not need a separate article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakaria1978, the existing sources include indian and Israeli sources so how's this one sided Waleed (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel–Pakistan relations. Article on a non-event that is already mentioned at Israel–Pakistan relations. A redirect per CHEAP and ATD is the only correct solution. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 21 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!} 04:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks coverage from third party sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A thorough source analysis would be helpful here given the competing claims of one-sidedness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It focuses on a single viewpoint and doesn't have any independent sources to back it up. Maybe this topic could be added to a bigger article, but right now it doesn't seem like it stands on its own. Waqar💬 17:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Snowing. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brat (Nnamdï album)

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

No real media coverage rather than a couple interviews in the initial press run. Only one major review. ⠀^tomástomás_tomás⠀talk⠀ 03:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed this somewhat malformed nomination. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Don't know what happened with the autogen. ⠀^tomástomás_tomás⠀talk⠀ 03:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why was this nominated for deletion? Besides the three good sources already cited, a web search shows plenty more, including this in-depth article on its production from the Chicago Reader, reviews in Document Journal and PopMatters, and more coverage within this Vice profile. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reviews from Pitchfork, PopMatters, and Loud and Quiet, all three of which appear on RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears on multiple year-end/mid-year album rankings as seen here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 3 cited sources at the time of nomination show criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. In addition to the sources found by Hameltion and QuietHere I'd add this profile from KEXP. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per (a) the above (b) WP:SNOW (c) even more reviews that look usable such as mxdwn.com (not mentioned at MUSICRS but used in several articles), The Alternative, [3] Musikexpress. Geschichte (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources from Hameltion and QuietHere. hinnk (talk) 22:43, 18 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 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archi & Meidy

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

Did not find any sources behind this series to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Indonesia. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Yohanes Surya. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 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!} 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Huawei Mate series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Mate 8

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

It exists, but doesn't appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Huawei Mate series but I was unsure about that, especially as this is wholly unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 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!} 02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge' per nomination. Artem.G (talk) 11:49, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Dodds

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

No evidence of notability for this footballer. The only sources are a pair of interviews with some routine coverage interspersed, as well as the BBC piece with two sentences of independent coverage. My searches did not yield much else. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Leska

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage is here or elsewhere to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:32, 24 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!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This skater doesn't meet WP:NSKATE. Their achievements (junior medals, national championships) seem to fall short of the bar, and searching online doesn't reveal any significant coverage either. There wasn't any defense for the article in the previous deletion discussion either. Maybe this skater will achieve more in the future, but for now, it seems best to remove the article. Waqar💬 18:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She never advanced to senior-level skating. It's safe to say her skating career is over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Komosa

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 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!} 03:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think we're facing the same issue as with Michał Tomaszewski AfD back then. From what I can read based on my Google search ("Krzysztof Komosa łyżwiarz figurowy"), news sources only refer to Komosa in brief mentions (2001 and 2004); nothing in-depth about himself. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia has been unsourced for nine years and likewise does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. No news have been released on Komosa over 20 years either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found to meet the WP:GNG. The only source is a scoring database. Let'srun (talk) 14:27, 30 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!} 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirofumi Torii

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD featured only a bevy of personal insults and zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletiion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 24 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!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Israeli Figure Skating Championships#Pairs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Anne Sacks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the same reasons as the last AfD. This subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli Figure Skating Championships, where Sack's achievements, two national silver medals, are recorded. Per CHEAP and ATD. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 23 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!} 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough based on the competitions she won, or did not win, having placed only silver in the Nationals, then 17th in the World Championships, then nothing more after that. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She won twice silver medals in Israel. I wouldn't discount the huge efforts that go into that with "only" and "nothing more". A redirect is well deserved and as ATD and CHEAP usually takes precedence over delete. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 29 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!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli Figure Skating Championships#Pairs per WP:ATD-R. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 06:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (Negro leagues)

Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931) (2nd nomination)

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

Repeating my reasoning from 2021, but WP:NBASE now no longer exists:

Not notable. I cannot locate stats or a roster spot for this person on seamheads.com or cnlbr.org or baseball-reference.com. (B-R "Bullpen" [an open wiki] has an article created at the same time and same person that created this article.) The given source is an obit [4] that vaguely refers to playing on a Negro league team at some time. The given team ceased play in 1951 when the subject was 20, but as I stated, I cannot find any other source backing this up. (This palyer should not be confused with Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1908), also a Negro leaguer.) -- BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's one source (an obituary of the kind likely provided by the family to a local paper) claims he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants. A separate article in the Bristol Herald-Courier on his receipt of an award puts dates on it: "After he graduated from high school in 1949, he played baseball with the Bishop Stateliners, the Amonata Slugger and the West Virginia All-Stars from 1949 to 1951. Then he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants of the Negro National League until he joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1953, where he also played shortstop for the 2nd Marine Division baseball team." However, this is not a possible sequence, since the Baltimore Elite Giants disbanded in 1950. So that casts doubt on the reliability of the source (and thus on the obituary) right there. I'm not finding any other sources that confer notability under WP:NSPORTS (either as a player or a coach), WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the discrepancies laid out above, we cannot verify key facts of his life meaning there's nothing on which to write an article. Star Mississippi 21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm satisfied that WP:PROF has been met. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Faingold

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

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are in reliable sources. That's the point. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe's exactly right, and this is the reason why WP:NPROF is constructed the way that it is at present. Qflib (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response may be terse, but it completely misses the point.

My reading of the arguments in favor of keeping are along the lines of "The subject has X citations and an h-index of Y, and I think that's enough to establish notability". Nobody here is disputing citation counts. What is up for discussion is why this level of citation is enough to establish notability. You've also said that 5746 citations is enough to establish notability. Why? There's an equal amount of reason to believe that 5747 citations is the threshold at which we should consider a subject notable.

Furthermore, sourcing generally needs to be in-depth. Citations are often passing mentions in a related work section, which does little to establish notability.

Having specific sources in hand makes this discussion easier. I'm difficult to sell on vague, wishy-washy gestures to a collection of citations and baseless claims that the subject's citation counts just happen to be enough to satisfy the criteria for WP: NPROF. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions and for academics, citation counts are routinely considered in discussing notability. They are not the only factor but they are a factor that shouldn't be casually dismissed as being arbitrary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PROF#C1 based on citations which, yeah, like it or not, is the most common way of assessing whether someone meets WP:PROF#C1. Scopus lists 5746 citations to Faingold's papers which, in Wikipedianese, means that there are 5746 reliable sources covering Faingold's work. Most of these will be passing mentions but it is still incredibly unlikely that with more than five thousand potential sources we won't find enough to support a decent summary of his contributions to science. That's enough for an article (biographical details are nice to round it out, but not strictly necessary) and the core logic of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure)‎. St Anselm (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fathers of the Church

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BOOKS, with only primary sources used in article. A BEFORE search is complicated by the title of the series. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up citations to individual books in the series, but I can find no secondary coverage of the series as a series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the book exists! [5] [6] and there are reviews [7] [8] Not sure where to go with this. It's a massive undertaking so is probably notable in its field but not enough coverage yet— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Logos has the entire 130 volumes for sale electronically for a cool $2365.00 before discounts. Not every book sold by Logos is notable, but many (most?) of them are, and recognized as reference volumes for Christian and adjacent religious studies. How many of the 130 included volumes are individually notable? I have no idea. We've had previous discussions on book series articles recently, and looking at this in that light, I'm relatively certain this should be kept, but more research would be reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens and @Iadmc - Looks like three of the four links posted above are to direct links to the individual books, not reviews, but the Sage Publications link is to a 1948 review of the series. If we can turn up one or two more reviews of the series itself, I will consider that sufficient to keep and withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was hard to find those! I'll try though soon — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was not able to turn them up in my BEFORE search but I would like to keep the article if we can establish additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was just a discussion on how series relate to NBOOKS, last month I think, and I believe the general consensus was that a series involving multiple notable books merited an article. Of course, it would then have to list or link to those books, which it currently does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From that discussion, actually, I'd say that a series article without individual book articles to link to can be a sensible outcome per WP:PAGEDECIDE when individual books are notable but readers will be better served by series-level coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn @Jclemens Can you share a link to that discussion? I am operating off the WP:NBOOK policy, which does not address series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Sure, it's here. Looking more closely, there were a few folks who wanted to treat "large general-topic publisher book series" different from, e.g. Game of Thrones-style series. But if folks are able to turn up NBOOK reviews for a few of the individual books in this particular series, there would at least be a case to be made. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see what comes up. After reading the debate, I'm reluctant to withdraw this nomination on the basis of proposals that have not been adopted as policy; my read of the governing policy would still require WP:GNG to be demonstrated for a series even if individual books are notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But each book having it's own article would be mad! Better to have them under one umbrella surely? — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dearth of reviews I'm not sure how many are notable on their own anyway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I'll throw my two cents in: I think that if the series is published as a series and there are many reviews for the individual books (but those are not independently notable themselves) then the series should be treated as notable. That said, it should absolutely be up to the quality of the reviews and where they were published. Offhand the reviews for the series looks to be pretty numerous. They seem to get routinely reviewed in The Heythrop Journal and Scripta Theologica, but have also received reviews from Isis (journal), New Blackfriars, and so on. My workplace's database is pulling up hundreds of reviews. Granted I haven't been able to verify them all, but that does point fairly heavily towards notability and I do think it would be a disservice to not cover the series because there aren't enough individual volumes that are notable. That's kind of taking a "not seeing the forest for the trees" approach. Besides, with something like this it's usually better to just cover the series rather than the individual volumes in order to prevent the creation of dozens of articles (assuming that the individual books are notable). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand I am seeing enough reviews to where I could probably argue individual notability and articles for some volumes, but I think that might be a waste considering that these would likely be multiple stub articles. Better to have the one article and cut off unnecessary individual ones. (Here is what I'm seeing, if anyone is curious.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are dozens of reviews of articles in the series: people write reviews every time a new one comes out: so the series is certainly notable, with many reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some books in the series are independently notable and were previously published. Augustine's The City of God has been published in many different versions over the centuries, for example, and thus there are many reviews. But are there reviews of the version published in this series? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I take a look: yes. The reviews are specifically of these editions, and evaluate things like the editors' selection of sermons to include and the usefulness of the footnotes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm neutral on whether the article should be kept, but if it is kept it should be renamed as The Fathers of the Church should redirect to Church Fathers, easily a primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having had a chance to comb through some of the reviews, I'm seeing too much to justify either deletion, or articles about the individual books. As far as I can work out, all of the 100+ volumes has gotten at least one serious, scholarly review. If you look them up individually by title & translator you start to get clear NBOOK passes, e.g., the first two I tried, vol. 70 [9][10] and vol. 131 [11][12][13]. This appears to be a thoroughly notable series. As for the name, I am not excited about renaming but The Fathers of the Church (series) works for me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Given the commentary here, I won't prolong the debate. Keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Olivo

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

This article is about cartoonist that does not meet notability. The sourcung in the article is primary sources, or not reliable sources. I can find nothing in my searches to substantiate inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. Whpq (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this comics artist. The Comics Journal is a RS, but it's a piece written by the author, so is primary. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete , I agree.. I didn't find anything significant.

Bigwombat (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided are not coverage of the artist, rather they are blog posts or promotional listings. I am not finding any RS online for this person. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:09, 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/561 (Transperth Bus Route)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Joseph (politician)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cook Islands Boy Scout Association}}