Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 22	April 24 >

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 speedy keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confrmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Book of Mormon places

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

Wp:gng - one or two of these list items are notable for their own article. There are no secondary sources about places in the book of mormon, leaving this as a partial list as derived by individual interpreters from the book of mormon. This should be deleted until reliable secondary sources write something meaningful here Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list, presumably with defined WP:LSC. Not all entries need to be notable, and the presence of Mormon archaeology and Historicity of the Book of Mormon as topics point to these being a sufficiently discussed set to merit inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, disagree with the nom, as a good number of the list items are notable enough for their own article - Zarahemla, Cumorah, Nahom among them. This list fulfills WP:LISTPURP, being informational and navigational in nature. Rollidan (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the same as List of biblical places or the many other such things at Category:Biblical places, or Category:Significant places in Mormonism, or in any of the subcategories in Category:Religious places. Dream Focus 04:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think there is enough significant coverage of these subjects as a class (which is the key bit for lists, not whether each is individually notable) to merit a stand-alone list article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 24 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!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Kurtz

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

Played only 3 first grade games. Only sources provided are primary. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are databases or primary sources. Unless more references can be found current coverage isn't sufficient. Mn1548 (talk) 13:14, 23 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Filiga

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

His first grade career was a mere 11 minutes in total. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier. Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable. Article could probably be expanded. Mn1548 (talk) 13:11, 23 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!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of dead links in the sources which needs to be fixed, but they do establish WP:SPORTSCRIT. His name is even in the headline of one of the ones that still works. Article needs a cleanup and an update. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: suggest that his failure at NRL is actually a notable event, which meets significant coverage threshold. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:56, 2 May 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 radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZPY-LP

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

Defunct low-power station. No secondary sources at all. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, Companies, and Oklahoma. AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching through google yields results that boil down to either listening to the station or information already included in the article. mwwv (converse) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct where it is already listed as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct: this is another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" still in place in this topic area as late as 2020 (a year before the 2021 RfC that made it clear that GNG and its requirements for significant coverage are the inclusion barometer). Outright deletion is not being outright opposed either; there simply isn't much to retain here, and it has only ever been sourced to the FCC database (which only establishes potential existence, which is neither notability nor the establishment of same). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 27 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!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct: Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 4 May 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!} 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Cup semi-finals

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

Non-notable topic. 'Algerian Cup semi-finals' is not independently notable outside of the Algerian Cup and an unlikely search term. Merging may not be an option since the whole article is unreferenced. Details of the semi-finals themselves seem to be already covered in individual season articles, although for example 1964–65 Algerian Cup is completely unreferenced as well. C 679 04:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 04:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. C 679 04:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really is not about notability, season pages are okay for the cup and that covers each semi, this is really not in the WP:SCOPE of how to construct the football content on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't need a separate articles for semi-finals, they can be covered in other existing articles like the parent article Algerian Cup or the season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Separate articles for finals are understandable, but not for semi-finals. Svartner (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algerian Cup as preferred WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inexplicable why this was made. I believe deletion should be used to set the right precedent. Geschichte (talk) 14:58, 29 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 no consensus‎ and no input for four weeks Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde

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

No secondary sourcing--and none that I can't find. Google News offers nothing but Facebook and Wikipedia (GNews, how you have fallen), but there's nothing else I can find, not in the regular search and not in books. It's unfortunate but not all scouting organizations are notable per WP:NCORP. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Secondary sources exist (eg [1], [2], [3]), but both my Dutch and my Papiamento skills aren't good enough to include them. The little I understand suggests at least national notability. --jergen (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those prove that the organization exists--these are run of the mill newsy notes on a social club one would expect in a local publication/website. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Aruba is a really small nation with less than 200,000 inhabitants so "local publication" equals "nationwide publication". In my eyes both criteria of WP:NGO are met. Keep. --jergen (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, this meets all the requirements of the kind of local reporting we usually discredit: a totally mundane event written up in highly promotional language--and that's the best of the three sources. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 2 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!} 02:51, 9 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!} 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:48, 23 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) 18:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mormon

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

Article doesn't meet wp:gng What little reference it does have is a passing mention used to describe a plot point. No secondary sources cover this topic in depth. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before nominating the article for deletion, Big Money Threepwood deleted a list of sources that an earlier edit summary explained "can be used to expand the page". Also, I added the shortened note citations to "Thomas (2016)" that exist on the article and appear to have forgotten to actually add the book to the sources list: John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction (CPT Press, 2016). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are plenty of sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places, I am not seeing the sort of significant coverage in independent sources which would indicate stand-alone notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike several other since-deleted articles on that amounted to trivia meaningfully sourceable only to the Book of Mormon, the Waters of Mormon's role as the setting of the Book of Mormon's expression of what Latter-day Saints consider their baptismal covenant has made it the subject of textual study and cultural reception of which there is coverage (Stott's identification of an intertext with Joseph Bellamy's preaching; Bolton connecting it to Anabaptism; Whitley's coverage of its appearance in poetry). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:14, 29 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!} 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close nomination -- This was nominated by a now-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bogus nomination. X (talk) 12:49, 3 May 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!} 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Republic of Ireland

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Ireland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [4], [5], and [6] which may be helpful in determining notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:03, 9 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!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to hear a review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:15, 29 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. ✗plicit 13:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Germany

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 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!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No evidence that these lists are encyclopedic, they've never been discussed as a group in RS. BrigadierG (talk) 00:04, 22 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!} 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate list of trivia. Flibirigit (talk) 11:51, 28 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!} 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rinus Bothma

(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. JTtheOG (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 23 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 redirect‎ to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Song-nam (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads where his name is listed and only known for. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea per Govvy. Giant Snowman 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Anwegmann (talk) 01:14, 24 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!} 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Jin-song

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at all to go on here. Fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:14, 24 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!} 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alenga Charles

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

This comes across as WP:TOOSOON, as the player is young and only getting started. That said, this article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG as it stands right now. Several searches hardly brought up databases, much less anything of substance. Anwegmann (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tanzania. Kpg jhp jm 04:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are quite number of sources though primary and silent meet out criteria for media coverage. The article may be notable in the future. But for now, WP:NOTJUSTYET. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 24 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!} 06:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Ghanimi

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

I can't seem to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV on this player. This might be a WP:TOOSOON situation. In any case, it clearly fails WP:GNG. It was also draftified previously due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV, but the original creator moved the article to mainspace without changing anything. Anwegmann (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Morocco. Kpg jhp jm 04:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Looking for sources only brings up stat pages like Transfermarkt and fbref . Kpg jhp jm 04:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 23 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!} 12:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lette

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

Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer Ed Cowan so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 4 May 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 14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Purcell (businessman)

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Created by a single purpose editor. An orphan article. I don't see his achievements adding to notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Article claims he's a musician but I don't see evidence of that. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, South Korea, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, low significance and self promotional. 6 of 11 refereces are behind paywall for Newcastle Hearld, so most will not be able to view them. Oddly, they are archived, but still blocked by paywall. Teraplane (talk) 01:11, 18 April 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 02:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t appear to be notable. Long Dong Johnsonn (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional puff piece article with nothing much in terms of reliable sourcing outside the local paper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BEFORE search turns up few reliable sources apart from the local paper, which as other editors have noted, we cannot see without a subscription. Here's one not included, but I don't know whether Business News Australia is truly independent. Of existing sources, the two ProQuest links don't even show whether the articles refer to Purcell. All of the Herald links save this one appear to be Q&A-style interviews and thus not RS. The Radio National and AdNews sources are likewise Q&A-style interviews and thus not RS. In sum, I don't think there is enough independent, secondary, reliable, significant coverage to pass GNG or BIO thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 23 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAST-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several references, most offline to NewsBank (Duluth paper is some of the hardest to obtain anywhere — that can be said of any Forum Communications paper!). There is SIGCOV of its very short-lived news operation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Each of the sources added by Sammi provide the WP:SIGCOV needed for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More review of new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 16 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!} 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:15, 30 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!} 07:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyosha (tank)

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

Questionable notability; lack of WP:RS to establish notability Amigao (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is video footage of the tank's actions Salfanto (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to T-80 models. The article is very poorly sourced, and "video footage" is not going to add reliability or credibility (it's easy to fabricate). In the doctrine of Russian military deception there is explicitly a measure named "Disinformation" (дезинформация). Under this measure, Russia actively seeks military advantage by tactics such as "untrue information to journalists". This accompanies concealment, imitation, simulation, and demonstrative manoeuvres (false trails). In other words, denial and deception come as standard in war or peace, and this is war. Do we believe that Putin congratulated some soldiers as heroes, etc? Yes. Do we believe that this was the work of one super-tankish-tank and its heroic crew? Not especially. Is this an encyclopedic article? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this article is to tell the history of the tank similarly to other articles about named tanks such as Eagle 7 or Bomb Salfanto (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I believe that wikipedia is best when not biased to one side Salfanto (talk) 15:27, 9 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!} 03:12, 16 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!} 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with Tsar (tank) and several other articles by this user, there is minimal coverage by secondary sources, and as such it is padded out with WP:COATRACK content. Loafiewa (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mr. Komori (talk) 18:43, 24 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 redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabado Barkada

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009 but was actually unreferenced since 2006. No good hits on GNews and GBooks. GNews archives only turned out two ads related to it. Alternatively, Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 9 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!} 03:12, 16 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!} 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:15, 30 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 no consensus‎. There are well-made arguments on both sides and neither prevails in quality or quantity. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Unaegbu

AfDs for this article:

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

I came about this article during clean up and saw it's contains a bit vague and non verifiable content. Taking into cleaning up, I became tired at the line seeing almost if not all the sources lacks editorial guidelines, perhaps doesn't go with our policy and guidelines for reliable sources.

On the other hand, apart from the quality percentage of primary sources linking to book that were self published in the platforms such as Amazon, etc., the article generally doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV, and it contains a bit hoaxes that were made (those like references/acclaims which I have removed when cleaning part of the article). The article in general doesn't conform with Wikipedia's inclusion for authors, journalist too—since he edited a magazine and has written for some magazines per the article. Lacks verifiable source and seem looking like a advert/promotional/vaguely constructed source, and more.

The books he wrote doesn't meet our guidelines for books, so we may try redirecting or WP:PRESERVE albeit there is nothing to be preserved here. I also discovered the previous AFD that reads 'no consensus', and it seems there were no improvement or rather say; the previous AFD seeking for clean up which I've did to some part and found no substantial need for the inclusion of this article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I once looked at this article and realized that it was created when some of the links verifying some information were not yet dead links. It was created in 2010 or so. For such kind of articles, caution is required. I saw that he was mentioned by the Nigerian author, Chimamanda Adichie in the New Yorker Magazine and he was involved in creating the Occupy Nigeria protests online. There is also some newspaper articles (see Newswatch) on his writings, especially his poem on Lagos, said to be the longest metrical poem by a Nigerian. I think it needs serious clean up and I may help to find his recent activities. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Royalrumblebee, dead links doesn't mean anything. There is the Wayback machine for saving pages to archives. While you argue about being mentioned by notable Nigerian writers, it's not a criteria for notability. Almost all the references are links to his publications and things about him were written from a PR which is no shadowed to the eye. In any case, provide me with the links that credibly show this article meets notability. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok. I found some of his academic publications, including two in JSTOR. But I will look for articles about him, and really- I share your opinion about making sure articles meet notability to remain in this encyclopaedia. Note: see https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6285-4800 Royalrumblebee (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Royalrumblebee, that can't be a source. It's a database. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh ok @SafariScribe. I see The Punch as a reliable Nigerian newspaper and it talked about him as a celebrity in depth here (https://punchng.com/nigerian-entertainers-born-october-1/). I also see Daily Trust as another reliable Nigerian newspaper and it told the in-depth story of how he and other two writers (Gimba Kakanda and Richard Ali created the Occupy Nigeria group that online-remotely organized the protests in Nigeria in 2012 (https://dailytrust.com/the-occupants-of-nigerias-harmattan/). I also see Newswatch (Nigeria) as a reliable Nigerian newspaper made a full page review of his book and it states in its first line as well as in details later that "Jeff Unaegbu's This Lagos Na Wa has set a record as the longest poem written by a Nigerian! (https://web.archive.org/web/20120504135846/http://www.newswatchngr.com/editorial/prime/bob/10326094437.htm). Other reliable newspapers that mentioned him only in passing are the American magazine The New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/notes-on-grief);
  
  This Day here (https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/09/15/james-nwoye-adichie-1932-2020);
  
  Daily Post (Nigeria) here (https://dailypost.ng/2014/05/02/ekweremadu-donates-transformer-nsukka-community/);
  
  There are many more, but less reliable links that mentioned him in depth such as this (https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,61413.0.html). I have already inserted in the article his direct activities as a journalist reporting for Vanguard (Nigeria).
  
  My honest opinion is that inexperienced editors added a lot of unreliable links such as amazon over the reliable ones and so the article only needs serious clean up. I have seen articles in Wikipedia held by just one reference that is not as reliable as the ones I saw on this article. I have included the reliable links above already too. Thanks. Royalrumblebee (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Royalrumblebee, all these sources doesn't link or explained the article like one. For example, a source can say "John Doe is a Nigerian writer who was awarded an MFR by the president of the country. He hasbeen recognized in .....". Then another days "John Doe said he was awarded an MFR by president Doe. In a speech by the president, the world revognised many people and John Doe, standing at the outside asked who is the president." In both sources, the first one seems to he verifiable, significantly covered albeit requires multiple confirmation. It also was taking about John Doe,while the second was taking about an event he attended while giving much view on the president. The thing about John Doe was reported by him—so it's not verifiable. I believe this can help though not broadly covered. Thanks! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Reading Beans
https://punchng.com/nigerian-entertainers-born-october-1/		A reliable national daily in Nigeria	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://dailytrust.com/the-occupants-of-nigerias-harmattan/		A national daily that is has majority of readers from Northern Nigeria	This is an interview-like article talking about #OccupyNigeria and not necessarily about this subject	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120504135846/http://www.newswatchngr.com/editorial/prime/bob/10326094437.htm	?	The source is a major newspaper	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail; talks mainly about the book	? Unknown
https://www.gistmania.com/talk/topic,61413.0.html	This is an interview	Gistmania is a gossip blog without any editorial started		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The table above was prepared in response to Royalrumblebee. If we want to talk about book reviews, maybe, someone should write an article about the book itself. With the sources I see, the entry does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the source table, most appear to be non-RS. "Being born on October 1st" is about the best source, but that's not enough. I don't find anything further. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked closely at the sources, but I wanted to point out that WP:NAUTHOR allows people with multiple notable books (per WP:NBOOK) to have articles even without biographical coverage. In the sources listed here, I only see one contributing to NBOOK -- the Newswatch review of This Lagos Na Wa -- but I wanted to suggest that those interested in a "keep" should look for a second review of that and additional reviews of his other books. I think Achidie's mention of Biography of Nigeria's Foremost Professor of Statistics, Prof. James Nwoye Adichie in "Notes on Grief" is probably not enough to contribute to NBOOK for that specific book, but it might have reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that all written was his books where many are self pubs. WP:NAUTHOR also covers being covered per WP:GNG. Strongly, we know this article contains vagues of uncited words. Also trivial mentions doesn't meet notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Notability as per WP:ANYBIO which allows people with major awards to have articles: His book, “Ode on Lagos” won a national award. This is the Association of Nigerian Authors/ Cadbury prize. This was reported in page 35 of a Nigerian national newspaper, The Nation (November 30, 2011). Below is the online link as hosted by The Nation newspapers. Please turn to page 35: https://issuu.com/thenation/docs/november_30__2011/1

His book, “Freedom in Our Bones” also won a national award. This is the Nigerian Universities Research and Development Fair award in 2008. It is reported in a national newspaper: Edukugho, E. (2008). “Third Nigerian Varsities Research Development Fair: Matters Arising”, Vanguard, April 3, P.43. It is available in the offline archives of this newspaper on phone request but there is no online link yet.

Notability as an academic or creative professional as stipulated in WP:AUTHOR: The subject is an academic as well as a creative professional. He is cited by many scholars as per WP:AUTHOR which allows multiple citing of a subject as proof of notability. This link leads to his book, “92 Days” being cited in an article, “Nigeria’s Leadership Questions: A Re-Appraisal Of Key Issues, 1961-1990”: https://journals-co-za.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.31920/2753-3204/2023/v1n1a4 Another book he wrote, “Fifty Years of African Studies: A History of the Institute of African Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka (1963–2013)” is cited thus: https://ebin.pub/transformations-in-africana-studies-history-theory-and-epistemology-1032277475-9781032277479.html

He is cited in JSTOR too (Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, Vol. 27, 2018, page 36: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48561674?searchText=jeff+unaegbu&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djeff%2Bunaegbu%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A161914275d5e91e6c796bf7c807fce36&seq=13

Notability as per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK: Aside from the review of his book, “Ode to Lagos” by the national Newswatch, the article indicated that his book, “92 Days in Power” was reviewed by Professor Christian Opata in page 40 of the national Nigerian newspaper, Daily Sun of Friday 19 December 2014. This review is available as shown:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2ZsX_N3K5iih_8jOB2K3bpwhrOgCvNy/view?usp=sharing

Notability as per WP:GNG: The subject has also been mentioned in depth by more national newspapers aside Punch as already mentioned above. Here are two from two different journalists:

Prof. Ozioma Onuzulike. (2007). “I write to Put Right the Wrongs_ Jeff Unaegbu”, Sunday Vanguard, April 8, P. 48.

Oge, O. (2011). “Poet Harps on Need to Educate Young Poets”, Nigerian Compass, Wednesday July 20, p. 16. The two above came from a bibliographical iindex list in a University library catalogue offline and I confirmed them as a journalist. There are no online links yet.

There is a long bio of the subject in this journal: https://themuseunn.com/guest-lecture-writing-and-publishing-trends-in-the-new-decade-mr-jeff-unaegbu/

Most of his books cited via amazon links would have to be changed to the more authentic links from the New York Public Library as shown: https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/search?q=jeff%20unaegbu

And Stanford university library: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?search_field=search&q=jeff+unaegbu

I will help do the clean up now. [ Diamondsee (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NAUTHOR for having their work reviewed on Newswatch and making significant contributions in his field, which is evident from WP:BEFORE. @LEvalyn I definitely agree with you on this. For several reason, I am not comfortable !voting for deletion here. I have taken over 1.5 hours doing BEFORE and have come to this conclusion. I have also personally reviewed short stubs about American authors who I deem to pass WP:NAUTHOR just exactly with the same minimal coverage this person has and having their work reviewed by INDEPENDENT RSs SIGNIFICANTly. The person and his work were reviewed by Newswatch and there's also a bit of SIGCOV at Punch, these two, is enough for me to write a stub. This person appearing in so many other sources (whether reliable or not) also shows a sign that they've made significant contributions in their field. Deletion is not cleanup for Christ's sake, and that is all this article needs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To line up Diamondsee's sources with NBOOK criteria, what I see here is:
- NBOOK#2 (major literary award) for Ode to Lagos and the ANA award // 1/2 of NBOOK#1 (2 reviews) for Ode to Lagos with Newswatch review
- 1/2 of NBOOK#1 (2 reviews) for 92 Days in Power with Daily Sun review

The various citations don't really play a role for NBOOK. I don't think that's strictly an NAUTHOR#3 pass, since NAUTHOR#3 (significant body of work) is typically met through multiple wiki-notable works. Looking at the citations and other coverage, though, I see the case for NAUTHOR#1 (regarded as an important figure, widely cited) or simple GNG. I still haven't done any looking for sources myself, but I share Vanderwaalforces' sense that I have seen useful articles with similar or worse sourcing. I also increasingly suspect that the best sourcing will have been in print rather than readily available online. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 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 delete‎ per WP:CSD#G4. ✗plicit 02:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvín A. Santana

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

No establishment of sustained notability using WP:RS Amigao (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Dominican Republic, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as with Marvín Sántana, Marvin A. Santana, and Marvin Amparo Santana... Hatman31 (talk) 15:17, 23 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. ✗plicit 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David McGarry

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

An unsourced article, and there is nothing that I could find online that would allow David McGarry to meet notability requirements for musicians. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Video games, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination. InDimensional (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 29 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 no consensus‎. No consensus to delete after one month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Colorado Physical Therapy Program

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

Despite being a large article, it appears to have been mostly edited by COI editors and contains original research that isn't backed up by sources. The far majority of references are simply from the university's website, and as such notability isn't proven due to the lack of outside sourcing. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, United States of America, and Colorado. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - and selectively merge any content with reliable independent sources to University of Colorado School of Medicine. As the nominating editor stated, article seems promo and lacks secondary sources. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eejit43, thank you for the valuable feedback! I am presently retrieving outside sources to backup the information presented in this article. I am aware of the problem of promotion of interests on WP and how many hide their identity. My hope is that being transparent will help, along with the pending external citations that will demonstrate impact and notability both locally and nationally. Mikepascoe (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

An initial draft of the article had 31 cuanschutz.edu (internal) sources + 23 external (independent) sources = 54 total.
The present version now has 19 internal + 42 external source = 61 total.
The percentage of sources from the university website (Eejit43's original comment) has decreased from 57% to 31%.
Further improvements can be made, thank you for your continued review

Mikepascoe (talk) 14:49, 15 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!} 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really seeing any SIGCOV from secondary sources. A selective merge might still be the best way forward.-KH-1 (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you please explain what a selective merge is and how this is a good way forward?

I'm also not sure how to satisfy the SIGCOV (significant coverage?) requirement. There are several external sources discussing the Program now from refutable sources. Do you have an example of a source that meets SIGCOV from other Wikipedia articles?

Thank you very much! Mikepascoe (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. It would also help if an editor(s) would address User:Mikepascoe's valid questions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 30 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 merge‎ to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cotabato City bombing

AfDs for this article:

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

All the sources provided are from time of event. Almost 11 years after, no lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Philippines. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013 per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:28, 23 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!} 07:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar (tank)

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

Fails GNG, and appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article simply needs more sources. Salfanto (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say this because the story of the tank is relatively recent Salfanto (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three questions, mostly directed to Salfanto but any editor may take them up:

Do the sources this article simply needs exist? If yes, then please present them here.
If the answer to the above question is no, then should we reasonably expect supporting reliable, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage to emerge in the near future? If yes, then this article was created WP:TOOSOON, but userification/draftification might be a viable alternative to deletion until such sources emerge.
If the answer to the above question is no, then is a redirect to T-72 operators and variants#Soviet Union and Russia a viable alternative to deletion?

Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking these questions.

So far I have found 3 sources which call the tank Tsar.

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/characteristics_of_trophy_russian_tsar_ew_for_t_72b3m_tank_given_by_ukrainian_expert-10115.html

https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-anti-drone-tank

https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-situation-report-russian-anti-drone-electronic-warfare-tank-captured

Again, tank you for asking me those questions (pun intended) Salfanto (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete This seems to be a single tank with a bunch of field modifications which got taken a week ago. It's way too soon to think that there is going to be lasting interest in one tank, especially given that the modifications appear not to have worked. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are just enough sources to justify the article. Cortador (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. An interesting question is do we have other articles on other tanks? If so, then may be there is lasting interest in tanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: There is precedent for it, as some individual tanks may be considered notable. Compare Cobra King (tank) to this article, the former of which has many secondary sources discussing it with a sufficient level of depth, whereas for this article I feel we're scraping the barrel - the majority of the sources currently cited do not even mention the tank once. Loafiewa (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:GNG / WP:NEVENT, for lack of secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only relevant because it was in a war-related news cycle. Sources seem to be the normal sites that cover anything and everything that happens in Ukraine. An interesting event, but not a notable one. No evidence that this will see any further or substantial coverage. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:30, 24 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 no consensus‎. There is no consensus to delete the article. There is however, a strong current suggesting that it should be substantially altered in some manner, whether that is renamed, or broadened in scope. Those discussions can occur on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold phosphide

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

No reliable evidence for existence, while not notable. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be a bit hasty.

A lack of evidence for existence is not evidence that something does not exist.

If you want to claim that AuP^[1] it isn't a real thing, you really need to cite contemporary work. The citations in the extant article are a wee bit long in the tooth. While the historic claim may have some interesting tidbits someone might dig up, it really is more the fact that there really is such as thing as gold phosphide (even if not AuP, but rather Au₂P₃^[2]^[3]^[4]). So the page has some definite need since they are spelled the same, even if they are different things.

Per one site "Gold Phosphide is a used in high power, high frequency applications and in laser diodes." ^[5]

I don't have access to the chemistry literature that this page would require. There isn't anything in PubMed, which includes a lot of primary chemistry literature as well. So it is pretty obscure, but that doesn't mean we cannot make room for it in our hearts, esp. if it plays some important role, e.g. in high power/high frequency laser diodes.

I would suggest making it a chemistry stub/draft and seeing anyone in the chemistry club wants to adopt it.

The PubChem CID 19094837 is not at all convincing. Just as a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, having an unambiguous identifier for something doesn't mean its real either. The two SIDs 56368501, 162106709 are probably for something real (even if they are the worst entries ever in the history of PubChem). 2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) (This is User:DrKC MD editing logged out. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

American Elements is NOT a reliable source WP:VENDOR, due to their commercial interest. All the information we can find about it is in archaic literature, when concrete characterization such as X-ray diffraction or even Raman spectroscopy had been developed. I change my stance to rename to gold phosphides to broaden the scope to other actually characterized gold phosphides like Au₂P₃.^[6] Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/19094837
^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022459616302675
^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/56368501
^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/162106709
^ https://www.americanelements.com/gold-phosphide
^ R. Prins; M. E. Bussell (2012). "Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity". Catalysis Letters. 142 (12): 1413–1436. doi:10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7.

Keep Hypothetical compounds can be notable (Xenon octafluoride, Nitrogen pentafluoride, ...), and while the sourcing here is not of the first water, it seems easily sufficient to demonstrate minimum required coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG see [7] [8] [9] -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this deletion discussion about something called Gold phosphide or about something with the formula AuP? Most of the hits for the former are for Au₂P₃, and people commenting here have interpreted things in different ways. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is supposed be something with the formula AuP. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:17, 13 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!} 20:22, 15 April 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, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem, the sources cited all seem to be talking about different things. References 4 and 5 flatly contradict each other (one says gray solid, one says black with metallic appearance). Hypothetical compounds can be notable but we would have to make the article about a specific compound and be sure our sources reflect that. Since I'm not sure we can do that, I would support a rename to gold phosphides and rewriting of the article; failing that, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)

Rename to gold phosphides per previous "keep" and "rename" arguments. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:08, 23 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 merge‎ to Camp Evangelista. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Evangelista shooting

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

All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Philippines. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the location it occurred in its own section at Camp Evangelista. Its closest claim to notability is making the army reevaluate some of their practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camp Evangelista per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camp Evangelista. More significant to that article. Borgenland (talk) 09:24, 29 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 redirect‎ to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Maree

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources has to be addressed. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads is an WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as Josh Maree. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 9 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!} 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 23 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) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads. No standalone notability and no established first grade career. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Participation-based athlete criteria, which both keep !votes are based on, were deprecated 2 years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 06:19, 7 May 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 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialty Hospital, Jordan

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

Previously deleted and salted at Specialty Hospital. The only sources here are press releases, the hospital's self-written description, and some kind of advertorial. I can't find much online for this case. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TNT. It's big enough - over 210 beds - to be notable, but this barely referenced article is a mess. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 29 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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women

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

Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello Piotrus, I should think that even if the National Lampoon is a satirical magazine, it is significant coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Forget what I said, it's obviously a primary source....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. A redirect (many targets can be considered) is also possible. Opposed to Deletion. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the reviews already in the article, there's this, this, this, this and this which is enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find independent sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Hkkingg (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg Take a look at what @Somebodyidkfkdt found. It looks promising, although sadly the last three seem to be empty? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TWL doesn't provide access to the last three unfortunately. There's also this, this, this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Delete~~ There are just two significant articles on this movie (that I can find). One is a full paragraph in TV Guide from 8/20/1994. The other is the LA Times article, which is genuinely substantial. This movie gets continued brief mentions in video guides, but almost nothing else. Hard to see this coming even close to meeting WP:NFILM Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Did you look at the sources found above? And are the sources you found oline and linkable for others to review? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here[10]. The video guides are available at archive.org. Oblivy (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Playing the devil's advocate (since I am the nom), I think that we have enough sources to show this meets GNG with SIGCOV, although I did not access your sources (but coverage in LA Time, which you call substantial, is pretty good). I'll ping User:Cunard in case he can locate it and quote it/link it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, LA times is source #3. Oblivy (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to comment. There's little of substance except in that short period of 1994, but Cunard brought the sources. There's a common sense reading of GNG that could easily prevail here and I'd be fine with keeping the article. Oblivy (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bell, Miles (1994-08-19). "'Attack of 5'2'' Women'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 333, no. 30. pp. 12, 16. ProQuest 2362086371.
  The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama."
2. Hiltbrand, David (1994-08-22). "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 ft.2 Women". People. Vol. 42, no. 8. p. 12. EBSCOhost 9408227615.
  The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+"
3. Schwarzbaum, Lisa (1994-08-19). "Feminine High Jinks". Entertainment Weekly. No. 236. p. 46. EBSCOhost 9408227610.
  The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. "
4. Willman, Chris (1994-08-20). "TV Reviews : '5 Ft. 2 Women' Doesn't Measure Up as Timely Satire". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged."
5. Taylor, Jonathan (1994-08-19). "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny."
6. Mendoza, Manuel (1994-08-21). "Tonya-Lorena sendup is a mean-spirited letdown". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat." Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't."
7. Richmond, Ray (1994-08-19). "Television - HBO 'Enemy' Remake Wages Uphill Battle". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath."
8. Laurence, Robert P. (1994-08-18). "Tawdry events turn into comedies - Harding, Bobbitt inspire outrageous minimovies". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story." ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard and other editors earlier in the discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 28 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!} 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Invader

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

Lack of notability, I was unable to find any reliable sources indicating notability. DePRODded with the rationale that the article could be merged or redirected to something, I don't think there's any suitable redirect target as there are many Space Invaders clones and I don't think a non-notable one is suitable to mention on the article for Space Invaders. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space Invaders video games as preferred WP:ATD. Sorry, I included the wrong link in my deprod comment. ~Kvng (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having previously worked on getting both Space Invaders and List of Space Invaders video games to featured status, I can say that I did not come across this game in my research. To be fair, I wasn't searching for specific clones, but I would imagine that even a passing mention would have popped up if it was a little notable. As the list is intended only for official Space Invaders games, I don't think merging a clone into the list would be the right move. We'd still have to prove notability for inclusion because there were many clones and we can't make a unsourced catalog of clone games. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: From jp-wiki and elsewhere, company appears to have also been written "Technon/Teknon" & "Kogyu" or "テクノンコウギョウ" or "テクノン工業". Game also written "ビーム・インベーダー". It is mentioned at [11] & [12], but those are both recent. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could also fall under WP:NOTINHERITED, and it's not worthy of merging with Space Invaders either. When I worked on Space Harrier many years ago I learned about multiple clones of the game that were produced, and none of them stood on their own merits. The same applies in this instance. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 06:32, 25 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 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Philippine Air Lines DC-3 disappearance

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

Per the page creator's own admission, there is little information about this event. I quote: "This would be peculiar due to the lack of info, with only airframe records mostly available. Currently I have not been able to find more info on the flight itself."

I have been unable to find any coverage at all in secondary sources; all sourcing in the article is from databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability issues. Although an unfortunate incident, the disappearance does not show any notability outside the event itself. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:22, 24 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) Desertarun (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency

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

Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but burn to the ground and rewrite. This group does seem to have been discussed widely back around 2004-05: [13], [14], [15] (note that the CNet article was long before Red Ventures turned the site into an AI-generated garbage heap). The coverage may not quite be "significant" in all cases, but is there. Regardless, the article is absolutely awful and is inexcusable in its current form. Also, note that more recently the abbreviation WWiSE has been used for an unrelated software package: [16]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have reworked it and added sources identified by WeirdNAnnoyed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead still isn't enough though. It just cuts straight to "Two industry "Pre-N" groups, TGnSync and the World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency (WWiSE), were formed". No identifying sentence. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechie, Do you have a suggested improvement? Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge it to the timeline in IEEE 802.11n-2009 @TheTechie? That seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep But absolutely crummy stub. Needs a total rewrite. X (talk) 19:03, 23 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.

[1] ttps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/19094837

[2] ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022459616302675

[3] ttps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/56368501

[4] ttps://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/162106709

[5] ttps://www.americanelements.com/gold-phosphide

[review-6] R. Prins; M. E. Bussell (2012). "Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity". Catalysis Letters. 142 (12): 1413–1436. doi:10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]