Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rusf10 (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 6 April 2024 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seismicity of the New York City area.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 05 April 07 >

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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seismicity of the New York City area

Seismicity of the New York City area (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)

Why do we even have this topic? Earthquakes in New York are rare. Seems like WP:NOTNEWS. But even most of the sources used in this article aren't really specific to New York earthquakes. We don't even have an article about seismicity of San Francisco which probably would be more appropriate.I could see incorporating some of this into an article about Earthquakes in the eastern United States, but we don't even have that. Articles about New York do not get auto-notability, just because its New York. Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of deleting this article because the corresponding article for San Francisco does not exist, we should create the article about San Francisco. 104.162.205.129 (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think San Francisco is mostly covered at the articles for the named faults because it has named faults. The geological dynamics at the transform plate boundary are different than what is seen in the Northeast, where the pressure from divergent plate dynamics causes different patterns of earthquakes. The earthquakes in the Northeast are not less serious, they just don't always occur in the same place. I can focus the article more on New York specifically but I'm not seeing a reason to delete it. NeonSpectre (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While an article could be created for today's earthquake I think that may be a little NOTNEWS-y. The article was moved to this title today. The previous title was better. Other titles might be even better. It includes the historic New York earthquakes about which much has been written, and the historic earthquakes that were felt in New York. I don't really care that we don't have an article about San Francisco, but you can write one if you want to. NeonSpectre (talk) NeonSpectre (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point here was missed entirely, it was not that we need an article about San Francisco earthquakes, it was why does New York gets its own article when we could actually have a legitimate article about the earthquakes in the eastern Untied States which would be notable have seems to have plenty of sources, unlike this where its just using bits and pieces of other sources that are focused on a broader topic or just news articles about a particular event.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already started the process of splitting the general content about the eastern United States and focusing the article on New York CityState. I wasn't very concerned about the title when another editor moved the article to Seismicity of the New York City area. Your complaint seems to be about New York though which I don't get. There are many easy to find sources for the Seismicity of New York State. NeonSpectre (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? see WP:NOTAVOTE--Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? because the seismicity of any major region is notable. Page isn't entitled “New York gets lots of earthquakes," and the documented rarity of a phenomenon in a region is notable as its documented commonality. Look at Snow in Florida. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, an article for "Earthquakes in the eastern United States" sounds like a great idea. But it does not currently exist. This article may be thin and perhaps could use a clean-up, but this is a situation where the issue is not that we've got an article for a specific locale, but that we DON'T have a better extant overarching article, or one for other regions (as mentioned, such as San Francisco). DarkSide830 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a two-pronged issue, but I do think this meets the GNG, independent of the existence (or lack thereof) of articles about the seismicity of other regions.
  • There are scholarly sources like this, this, this, this, or this, in addition to resources like this. This doesn't even include the news and magazine articles that address the subject. If you're talking about seismicity in New York state, the reason for the AFD makes even less sense, as probably hundreds of scholarly sources exist about earthquakes in New York (e.g. the western part of the state).
  • Furthermore, I don't see how an article on the seismicity of NYC, or earthquakes in NYC, precludes the creation of an article about earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area or even the eastern U.S. Even if there wasn't enough material to warrant a separate article about NYC earthquakes/seismicity, it still does not prevent the scope of this article from being expanded to cover the eastern U.S.
– Epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I understand the recent news of an earthquake that happened not too far from here, the recent spur in attention regarding to the earthquake may help improve the article. I honestly believe it could have been better if there were some work to be added and as mentioned from others, it already has met some requirements that other users mentioned. 20chances (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rarity of earthquakes in the NYC area and thus explanations for their occurrence have been the focus of numerous reliable sources (e.g., those presented by Epicgenius) that would satisfy GNG. Such an article would also provide a place to discuss earthquakes that may not be individually notable (to not run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS for each one), and could readily be expanded in scope to include the northeastern US if the NYC area is too specific. The nomination statement also appears to rely somewhat heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and scope and sourcing issues are better addressed with cleanup than deletion. Complex/Rational 21:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic for this article is not centered around news of latest events, even if a section is. This topic has been proved to meet GNG and is more of a scientific topic than one focused on just "earthquakes that happened in New York." VarietyEditor (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Statesmen Drum and Bugle Corps

Empire Statesmen Drum and Bugle Corps (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)

Inactive organization; lacks notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Because of the earlier PROD, this AFD is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a pity to delete it, but I do not know how far regional versus national coverage will go. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie McBeath

Katie McBeath (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:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Snedeker

Jan Snedeker (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:BIO notability tests. This man seems to be of interest to his descendants (because he is the earliest known person with the family name), but he has not received significant coverage in published sources and there is not indication of his being important outside the family or a very local context (the article's best assertion for his notability is that he was one of the several founders of a colonial village). The three books cited in the article are a book (probably self-published) of family history and genealogy and two books of the history of the area where he lived. Before starting this AfD, I found online copies of the two history books, identified places where his name was mentioned, and added citations to the article. I found only peripheral mentions of him. He is also covered on the genealogical site WikiTree at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Snedeker-9 in an article that has far more information and reference citations than the Wikipedia article, but nothing I see there indicates significant published coverage or demonstrates his importance to people who are not his descendants. Orlady (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Reading earlier through Google Books, I saw a lot of mentions under four different names. There were one or more persons named after him but this was easy enough to separate. I agree with Orlady that the length of coverage is not a strength. The cumulative coverage, continued interest, and the fact there are no BLP concerns for this 17th-century historical figure do work in the article's favor. Also, while the descendants and other regional history buffs seem to pay attention to this figure (as already mentioned by Orlady), they do not try to make him into something he wasn't as we sometimes see. It's a healthy interest. I am leaning keep and would appreciate it if user:Ruud Buitelaar could also take a look, as Dutch and history. gidonb (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. For the record, much of what you see in the current version of the article is content that I added to give the stub article a fighting chance. In the article version I found, the article claimed he was one of 3 founders of Midwout (a "fact" that was not supported by the histories cited; it appears to me that he was merely one of the three men whose names somebody remembered), and the main thrust of the article was on the meaning of the name Midwout. That's content that arguably could be moved into the article about Midwout. Orlady (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBT, I hadn't examined the edit history, as I usually do. Just the product as is and the potential sources by NEXIST. Looking at the history, I am impressed and not surprised since I'm a longtime fan of your work around Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Gidonb for inviting me to the discussion. I think @Orlady did an amazing job researching the subject. Jan Snedeker´s claim to fame is being a founder of Midwood but if history books about the New Netherlands colony hardly mention him, then it is not Wikipedia´s task to rewrite the books and insert his name. That said, I would love to see a publication about Snedeker and his life and works in New Netherlands. Until then, I support the delete vote. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only thing I can see for notability is a magistrate, but we don't have much on that for sourcing. [1] seems to be a fictionalized account of his life, but beyond that, there isn't much. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Garland mayoral special election

2018 Garland mayoral special election (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 was incorrectly PRODed [2] after being through an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayoral_elections. I WP:REFUNDed it and brought it here. While incorrectly applied, the PROD put it best: "Routine election in suburban city, local coverage of routine results only without evidence of notability." Nickps (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Texas. Nickps (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My fault with the PROD. I missed a small "afd" edit summary in the page history. Usually edit summaries for AFD nominations are a little more prominent. Did you have the article restored and brought it here to AFD simply because I made a mistake in the PROD 3 years ago? Seems a little bureaucracy for its own sake. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nom is correct in their assessment of the article's notability, though there was no need to undelete it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I need to explain my rationale here. Since most of the articles from the original AfD still exist (and the ones that don't are merged somewhere else), to me that looks like there is consensus that this content belongs on WP. The fact that I personally think this shouldn't be the case is irrelevant. Had I phrased this as a purely procedural AfD without endorsing the PROD's reasoning it would have been clearer. Nickps (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input would be helpful given the context nom identifies in their comment of 30 March.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unexciting but notable. Elections are never routine. The two relistings suggest to me that AfD participants are being overwhelmed by the volume of nominations. Perhaps we need to tweak policy – so that a few more small-town mayors and random psychology professors are allowed in – in order to keep AfD at a manageable level. I find using Google Translate to make sense of Indonesian-language articles that are better than their English-language counterparts is increasingly draining. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ow, I would love to see more articles about mayors in small towns/municipalities. The Netherlands had many tiny municipalities (often with less then 500 inhabitants). That those municipalities often survived only a few years is a small detail. The Banner talk 16:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) No worries. It is true but I am not going to spend time on that.[reply]
  • Delete Nothing really here. Wikipedia is not a database of election results. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per NOTDIR and nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Pppery, and The Herald. Every local election gets local coverage, which is insufficient to show encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony

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

This is a clear WP:NOTSTATS violation of indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be more sympathetic to these articles if they were maintainable over time, but experience shows that they're not. You'd need a small army of NBA editors to deal with all the little details that need updating. Rankings and records easily go out of date; for example, Nikola Jokic has surpassed many of Carmelo's Nuggets accomplishments, but that's not reflected in this article. There are some things that Wikipedia will never be able to do as well as sites like basketball-reference.com.
  • These articles might work if they were limited to awards and truly significant records, but in most cases, we should be able to make room for such facts in the main article. (Of course, the main Carmelo Anthony page is super-bloated itself; the level of detail per season is higher than what you'd find at Michael Jordan. That's because people wrote Carmelo's career section while his career was ongoing, rather than taking a retrospective approach.) Zagalejo (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to add that there are some things basketball-reference (and all others) will never be able to do as well as Wikipedia on sports lists. When done right, career achievements is a collection of pertinent info from a variety of RS sources that no single non-Wiki source has access to. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Carmelo's achievements are not significant enough, and he is constantly falling down the franchise record rankings. However, the rest of the NBA players on Category:Career achievements of basketball players are a keep vote from me except Dwight Howard and Dennis Rodman. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am very conflicted on this. List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony#Career-highs is interesting, does not fit on the main page, and never requires updating. I only said Delete because Dwyane Wade's page was deleted which I do not necessarily agree with but for the purpose of fairness I say this should as well. If criteria was established as to what should go on these pages and what should not then I think it could work for the Top 75 all-time. IMO if player is arguably Top 10 (or Top 75?) all-time he qualifies for a page. Players outside Top 75 do not deserve their own. Here is the NBA’s 75th anniversary list, Dwight is not on it but Carmelo, Chris Paul, and Dwyane are on it. If any need updating, I can assists with that.WP:NOEFFORT is not a good enough reason to remove all of this time-consuming volunteer work. Before AfDing for this reason, please put an update section box at the top of these articles, wait a couple of years, see if anyone helps, and discuss on the Talk page. Thoughts? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't mind the career highs table (assuming the dead link can be replaced). But I'd still rather not encourage these articles. As a data point, look at List of career achievements by Russell Westbrook. That has been tagged for a while, and the career stats table at the top is obviously out of date, but no one has responded. I don't think most volunteers have the patience to work on these articles. It's tedious and unfulfilling work. I think we just need to be realistic. It would be better for people to focus on the main player articles, rather than ultra-detailed spinouts. You probably could fit the career high table in the main Carmelo Anthony article if we tighten up the prose there. Zagalejo (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get it, but it's unfortunate for the creators of these articles who expect other editors to follow their lead. I think we should aim to keep these articles for those in the Top 10 all-time discussion which can vary quite a bit from source to source. Carmelo, Russell Westbrook, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Dennis Rodman are not in there as far as I can see. Here is ESPN's Top 10 rankings and The Athletic's. Since the Top 10 talk is such a focus of emphasis for the media, I think ultra-detailed articles are relevant to the large audience trying to understand who is right in their "hot takes". FYI List of career achievements by Michael Jordan has received 6,100 views in the last 30 days, so people are certainly looking. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...it's unfortunate for the creators of these articles who expect other editors to follow their lead: Consensus can change, not that there's evidence that there was a formal consensus that these pages were ever needed. As early as 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade was a "delete". As the nom said, WP:NOTSTATS, and WP's purpose is not to recreate basketball-reference.com's database or compile tidbits sourced to AI site statsmuse.com. There's a reason articles have an "External links" section.—Bagumba (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination). WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio.—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section", whether it is WP:Trivia is a matter of opinion. For all we know there is significant RS coverage discussing these "one of X players" achievements. I hope these AfD's do not spill over into WP:SPINOUT articles for Top 10 players. They are justified and appropriate IMO. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, I found The Athletic article saying "only player in NBA history to score 50 points without a single point in the paint". This info is not WP:OR and these records are being talked about. I'll leave it at that. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    whether it is WP:Trivia is a matter of opinion And this discussion is about our opinions. For all we know there is significant RS coverage discussing these "one of X players" achievements: Per WP:ONUS, feel free to source them and gain consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Instead of trying to go by similar pages that were kept or deleted, it would be useful to go back to the relevant P&G.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the nom cited WP:NOTSTATS, and my !vote referenced WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:UNDUE. —Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, I agree with what has been said before. Specific elements commented on by reliable sources may be eligible for a merge, but I think everything of that sort that is relevant is already in the main article. BrigadierG (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein national badminton team

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

No evidence of notability, one local article in Liechtenstein, otherwise either passing mentions (e.g. the Faroese articles just state that their team beat Liechtenstein, it doesn't give any actual attention to the Liechtenstein team), databases, or non-independent sources (organizers and the like). Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Notability can be assumed as the national team. Sourcing is poor, but does not warrant deletion. I can work on addressing more odious elements in the coming days.TheBritinator (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's questionable whether "national team notability can be assumed" in every existing sport. It depends on the sport, and may also depend on the country (if the sport in question receives coverage there). Florentyna partially argues with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and not all of the coverage is significant or independent. Geschichte (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NTEAM is specifically clear that no sports team has "assumed notability": "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline." None of the sources identified above by Florentyna are secondary. Without evidence of notability this fails WP:GNG. I have had a brief look for sources but have not located significant secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No improvements in article since its nomination. Can we see an evaluation of sources brough to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Smash

Solar Smash (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 WP:PROD. The article lacks secondary reliable sources to satisfy the WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE yields no reviews, which is unfortunately strongly suggestive of non-notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with everyone here as it does fail WP:GNG. Don't even get me started on the reception. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find: Unity case study, hardcoredroid.com (uncertain reliability) IgelRM (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Solar Smash is a really popular game, and this article needs to be fixed, but I do not think it should be deleted in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arhan D (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arhan, you may like to take a look at the general notability guideline, and particularly rebuttals against something being popular making an article notable to understand the issues raised in this discussion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McCoy (worship leader)

Matt McCoy (worship leader) (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 carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unfootnoted article about a musician and church leader, and added two reviews of one of his albums. I have not found other coverage to add. I am not sure if one of the publications, CCM Magazine, is a reliable source, as its About says "The information in the post above may have been formatted to suit this website, but is not necessarily material originally created by, or exclusive to CCMmagazine.com", and no author is given. In any case, based on two reviews I do not think that the subject of the article is notable under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Tacyarg (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_April_6&oldid=1217473495"