Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 12

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Railrider12 (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 12 May 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 11 May 13 >

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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Oasis

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

Article has been moved disruptively by the creator that has COI without improvements since last decline, so I am taking this to AfD. I cannot tell whether this passes notability, but as I can tell from the comments of the reviewers. Before search shows primarily stories on her releasing songs and albums, and sources listed are rather mostly interviews and videos. ToadetteEdit! 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 19 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janno Lieber

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. If an editor wants to work on a version of this article in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. TOOSOON implies that there might be a time when better sources exist and a new article can pass AFC review and be put back into main space. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Forshee

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

Bio of a composer/academic fails GNG, NBIO, NACADEMIC, NMUSIC. The independent sources do not show WP:SIGCOV; WP:BEFORE search turns up no other reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage or evidence of notability under any of the other SNG guidelines that might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- composer/researcher doing good things to advance his career that are pretty typical for composers at this stage. Significantly TOOSOON at this point. On the non-academic side, lacking the awards or major ensembles (those not dedicated to producing student work) to pass notability; on the WP:PROF side, does not have academic appointments or the sort of extensive influence to pass there. (Some of the journals are important in the field, but book/CD reviews are not articles.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are mostly fair points. Not sure what the "TOOSOON" means--too soon to have a wiki article? Regarding academic appointment, a Google search shows that Forshee was a visiting professor and now instructor. As to the ensembles performing Forshee's compositions, the Callithumpian Consort and Trio Kobayashi are, according to their own websites, not dedicated to performing student works (they list Elliott Carter, Schuittke, Huber, Scelsi, Cage, Lachenmann, Richard Barrett, Jürg Frey, Larry Polansky, James Tenney, basically all widely known composers on the international scene). The articles by Forshee don't appear to be book reviews or CD reviews, but neither do they appear to be rigorous scholarly research articles; they seem to be somewhere in between: interpretive analytical essays? The one in Computer Music Journal is an early review of software by the pioneering computer music composer Trevor Wishart. Part of the motivation for this article is that Forshee is one of the few notable (or borderline notable) students of composer Anthony Davis, who just had his Met Opera premiere of his Malcolm X this season. Dolemites (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability cannot WP:INHERITED from Anthony Davis or anyone else; for each subject it must be established independently according to the criteria. No articles by Forshee can be used establish his notability, only what independent and reliable sources have to say about him with "significant coverage." Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Discussion currently leans toward deletion, but a clearer consensus would be appreciated given that there has been an objection to deletion and thus soft-deletion seems inappropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 28 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 merge‎ to Amantia peruana. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amantia peruana peruana

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

Subspecies are not inherently notable, while species are. Author declines to merge to the species article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 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 merge‎ to Amantia peruana. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amantia peruana infasciata

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

Subspecies are not inherently notable, while species are. Author declines to merge to the species article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many subspecies based articles. If you want to remove them the why not remove all of them? See Category:subspecies Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, subspecies are not inherently notable. That doesn't mean no subspecies are notable, just that the notability of a subspecies must be demonstrated. Your argument is WP:WHATABOUTISM and that doesn't fly here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mgp28's rationale, but I think WP:PM would have been a better venue for this. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merger was proposed but rejected by the author. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: Just because someone wrote the first version of a page doesn't mean they WP:OWN it. They can't unilaterally reject merging it, any more than they can unilaterally reject its deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:26, 20 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 23:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Gilbert mayoral election

2012 Gilbert mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:MILL Okmrman (talk) 22:37, 12 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 keep‎. Discussion on a possible move can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-disliked YouTube videos

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

If this list isn't wildly out of date now, it eventually will be. Dislikes on Youtube cannot be reliably counted anymore. The last deletion discussion decided to keep it for so-called "historical relevance", but I don't see how historical relevance justifies having an article that just progressively worsens with no hope of fixing it unless there's a chance of YouTube returning the dislike count. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nothing has changed since the last AFD attempt. There is sufficient coverage of this topic even if dislikes no longer exist. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the problem. Nothing has changed and ever will change about Wikipedia's list, which means it's always going to be inaccurate and eventually won't be able to provide any list that is consistent with what reliable sources consider to be "the most disliked videos". ―Howard • 🌽33 23:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Since allegedly there is still an extension to check dislikes.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The extension is merely a very rough estimate and will never be a reliable source. ―Howard • 🌽33 08:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this list's topic is covered by multiple reliable sources. That said, I think a requested move discussion might be worth it. The addition of something like "(2010–2021)" would help make the title much more precise at this cost of a little concision. I hope that would address some of the nominators concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any RS coverage of “the most disliked YouTube videos” post-2021 would most likely be referring to the current most disliked videos in reality. If you can find sources that justify maintaining a list that only goes up to 2021, I will reverse my deletion request and instead start a move request. ―Howard • 🌽33 05:35, 14 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 keep‎. This AFD is proof that sometimes editors show up after a relist or two. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Sherman (climber)

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

A very long standing, since 2005, and short article supported only by the title character's own books. Nothing independent and nothing reliable. Undoubtedly well known in their specialist circle but no evidence of notability as understood by Wikipedia . Searches find his books and , many photos including beer drinking on a rock face and very many web pages with the Wikipedia text. Difficult to say which came firts and to determione whether this is simply 100% copy vio, but with a start date in 2005, it is likely that this is being mirrored (without acknowldgement) in many other places. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Only just saw this now. I have sympathy for the nom as any WP:BASIC gives patchy sourcing, but Sherman is considered one of the founders of modern bouldering and the inventor of the now dominant V-grade scale (the "V" is believed to be his nickname 0f "Vermin"). Hope this is helpful. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2011, Geographic did a piece on him and saying John “Verm” Sherman is a legend among us. He pioneered bouldering and invented the V-scale for grading bouldering problems. He also championed the development of bouldering at Hueco Tanks, Texas. Quite a legacy.
  • In 2022, the York Times did a piece on bouldering being an Olympic sport, with Sherman, saying He went on to spend the next 50 years creating new boulder routes — called “problems” in the sport — and helped popularize bouldering through books, articles and outrageous stunts.
  • In 2022, when Outside did a piece on 12 Great Moments in Bouldering History, they opened it by explaining the effect of Sherman's V-scale on bouldering, and their sister publication, Climbing, has several articles that have sections that discuss his contributions here.
  • He has written several notable bouldering books that get coverage in the main climbing media (per WP:NCLIMBER), such as the American Alpine Journal, Climbing, and Gripped Magazine (Canada) who ranked him in their 10 Most Influential North American Climbing Titles.
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 Phoebe (moon)#Named features. ✗plicit 23:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leto Regio

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

No RS's found and fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. Proposing to redirect article with Phoebe (moon)#Named features. ArkHyena (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom SevenSpheres (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 01:52, 14 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 merge‎ to Kowloon Tsai. Star Mississippi 01:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Road, Hong Kong

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

Article was previously declined for prod. Rationale is a very simple case of failing WP:INHERITED. The specific application of this policy is also noted at WP:NROAD BrigadierG (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says:

    Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject.

    Sources
    1. Selection of two sources:
      1. "書院道精英地段" [Elite area of College Road]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2012-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-05-12. Retrieved 2024-05-12.

        The article notes: "九龍塘區的豪宅內街以寧靜見稱，書院道同樣具備此項特色，其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，兩座物業合共提供約48個單位，"

        From Google Translate: "The inner streets of luxury houses in Kowloon Tong District are famous for their tranquility. College Road also has this feature. Situated at the beginning of the street, Sheng Feng Yuan is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old and has two properties. A total of about 48 units are provided,"

        The article notes: "其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），盡佔名校網優勢，而書院道豪宅的入場費則由千萬餘以至逾半億元俱備。書院道鄰近喇沙利道，兩條豪宅街道的命名均源自區內名校之一的喇沙書院。"

        From Google Translate: "Among them, College Road is within walking distance of many famous schools, taking advantage of the network of famous schools. The admission fee for luxury houses on College Road ranges from more than 10 million to more than 500 million yuan. College Road is adjacent to La Salle Road. The two luxury streets are named after La Salle College, one of the famous schools in the area."

        The article notes: "書院道除了四周環境清幽恬靜外，最吸引買家之處，是優質學府選擇眾多，對於有意讓子女入讀名校的家長，吸引力自然特別高。至於在該街道一帶的名校除喇沙書院外，尚有瑪利諾修院學校、拔萃小學及黃笏南中學等。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to the quiet and peaceful surroundings, College Road is most attractive to buyers because of its wide selection of high-quality schools. It is particularly attractive to parents who intend to enroll their children in prestigious schools. As for the famous schools in this street area, in addition to La Salle College, there are also Maryknoll Convent School, Diocesan Primary School and Wong Wat South Secondary School."

      2. "書院道匯聚黃金屋" [Collection of Golden Houses on College Road]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2012-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.

        The article notes: "九龍塘不但具備傳統豪宅區的魅力，更吸引之處是坐擁九龍名校網，其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），尤其凸顯名校網優勢，老牌豪宅及豪宅新貴散落於寧靜的街道上，為講求實用的用家與愛好新廈的豪客提供不同選擇。"

        From Google Translate: "Kowloon Tong not only has the charm of a traditional luxury area, but what is even more attractive is that it is located in the prestigious Kowloon School Network. College Road (College Road), which is within walking distance of many famous schools, particularly highlights the advantages of the prestigious school network. Old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes are scattered here. The quiet street provides different options for practical users and high-end buyers who like new buildings."

        The article notes: "其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，..."

        From Google Translate: "Among them, Sheng Feng Yuan, located at the end of the street, is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old. ..."

        The article notes: "書院道另一個老牌屋苑為博文閣，坐落街道的中段，由於位於內街之中，加上面向喇沙書院的大球場，環境清幽，視野亦較開揚。"

        From Google Translate: "Another well-established housing estate on College Road is Bowen Court, located in the middle of the street. Because it is located in an inner street and faces the stadium of La Salle College, it has a quiet environment and a relatively open view."

        The article notes: "除了老牌豪宅外，書院道近年有一個矚目的新一代豪宅落成，乃由興勝創建發展的EI8HT COLLEGE。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to the old luxury houses, a new generation of luxury houses has been completed on College Road in recent years, which is EI8HT COLLEGE founded and developed by Xingsheng."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. "九龍塘樂苑 雅緻裝潢闊露台" [Kowloon Tong Lok Garden Elegantly decorated wide terrace]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-08-30. p. D5.

        The article notes: "位於九龍塘的書院道，屬於內街，靜處一隅，由於街道比較短，因此供應的豪宅僅約10個左右。中原豪宅Stately Home九龍豪宅副區域聯席董事何維進稱，書院道的豪宅樓齡十分參差，其中最新的書院道8號於2011年入夥，而最舊的一批，樓齡逾50年。"

        From Google Translate: "Located on College Road in Kowloon Tong, it is an inner street and is located in a quiet corner. Since the street is relatively short, there are only about 10 luxury homes available. Ho Wei-jin, deputy regional co-director of Stately Home Kowloon luxury homes, said that the age of the luxury homes on College Road is very different. The newest one, No. 8 College Road, was occupied in 2011, while the oldest ones are more than 50 years old."

        The article notes: "由於鄰近九龍城，位處名校網，故書院道除家長客、低調廠家外，均屬用家，放盤有限交投不多。 最新一宗成交於4月份錄得，為書院道8號中層，實用面積1,758平方呎，建築面積2,446平方呎，為屋苑最後一間餘貨，以5,190萬元成交。"

        From Google Translate: "As it is close to Kowloon City and is located in a prestigious school network, College Road is owned by users except for parents and low-key manufacturers. The listings are limited and there is not much transaction. The latest transaction was recorded in April. It is a middle-floor building at No. 8 College Road, with a salable area of ​​1,758 square feet and a built-up area of ​​2,446 square feet. It is the last remaining unit in the housing estate and was sold for HK$51.9 million."

      2. "香港8號" [Hong Kong No. 8]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2011-11-14. p. B3.

        The article notes: "書院道因鄰近的喇沙書院而得名，現時書院道8號為新盤Eight College，由興勝創建（896）發展，屬於香港六大建築集團之一，估計發展商命名時取8號的 諧音「發」，著重其「意頭」。 該樓盤毗鄰九龍塘火車站，交通便捷，並鄰近校網，包括香港城巿大學、香港浸會大學、喇沙書院、拔萃小學，以及耀中國際小學∕幼兒園。"

        From Google Translate: "College Road is named after the nearby La Salle College. Currently, No. 8 College Road is the new Eight College, developed by Xingsheng Construction (896), which is one of the six major construction groups in Hong Kong. It is estimated that the developer took No. 8 when naming it. It is homophonic to "fa", emphasizing its "meaning". The property is adjacent to the Kowloon Tong Railway Station, with convenient transportation, and is close to school networks, including City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University, La Salle College, Diocesan Primary School, and Yew Chung International Primary School/Kindergarten."

      3. "九龍塘明麗園中層 環境清幽" [Ming Lai Garden, Kowloon Tong, middle floor, quiet environment]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2019-11-01. p. D19.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道，是傳統豪宅物業集中地，該地段以路闊車流量少，環境清幽見稱，放盤向來罕有 ，其中明麗園中層單位，連車位叫價2,500萬元。"

        From Google Translate: "College Road, Kowloon Tong, is where traditional luxury properties are concentrated. The area is famous for its wide road, low traffic volume, and quiet environment. It has always been rare to find a listing. Among them, the mid-rise unit in Ming Lai Garden, including a parking space, is priced at NT$25 million."

      4. Ng, Chi-fai 伍志輝 (2015-06-20). "靚盤巡禮：九龍塘明麗園　 裝修新淨　環境清幽" [Tour of beautiful properties: Kowloon Tong Ming Lai Garden, newly renovated and clean, with a quiet environment]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. B4.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道附近名校多，行車路面寬闊，車流量不高，環境清幽，同時享有鄰近九龍城的方便購物地利，沿路新舊物業都有一定捧場客。 明麗園座落書院道近衙前圍道方向，屬區內老牌大宅之一，盤源向來不多，"

        From Google Translate: "There are many famous schools near College Road in Kowloon Tong. The road surface is wide, the traffic volume is not high, and the environment is quiet. It also enjoys the convenient shopping location near Kowloon City. New and old properties along the road have a certain number of fans. Ming Lai Garden is located on College Road near Nga Tsing Wai Road. It is one of the old-style mansions in the area. There are not many houses in the area."

      5. "書院道8號連平台 裝潢雅緻" [No. 8, College Road, with terrace, elegant decoration]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2015-04-17. p. D5.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道街道比較短，故此提供的豪宅物業不多，樓齡一般由37至54年不等。 ... 而書院道8號，屬目前該處樓齡最新的物業，僅4年樓"

        From Google Translate: "The street of College Road in Kowloon Tong is relatively short, so there are not many luxury properties available. The age of the buildings generally ranges from 37 to 54 years. ... No. 8 College Road is currently the newest property there, being only 4 years old."

      6. "書院道樂苑低層 特高樓底" [Low floor, extra high floor, Dao Lok Court, College]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-12-20. p. D7.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道可供二手轉售的屋苑，除勝豐園外，大部分均在10層以下；至於樓齡方面，除書院道8號於11年入夥外，餘下多已超過40年。"

        From Google Translate: "Most of the housing estates available for second-hand resale in College Road, Kowloon Tong, with the exception of Sing Fung Garden, are below 10 storeys. As for the age of the buildings, except for No. 8 College Road, which was occupied in 11 years, most of the remaining housing estates are over 40 years old."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow College Road, Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 書院道; simplified Chinese: 书院道) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an assessment of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see what's significant in the sources provided. It's a road with buildings in it. Geschichte (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources allow College Road, Hong Kong, to meet Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says roads "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject". The sources discuss the road's namesake, the luxury housing estates on the road, how the prestigious schools in the area affect the prices of houses on the road, how parents and manufacturers are the primary owners of the road's units or property, and the road's attributes (wide, short, quiet, and low traffic volume). A non-notable road would not receive this depth of discussion in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My problem with the sources presented is that they're all articles on property, not articles on the road itself, which is a short residential street. A proper article on a road - looking at London as an example - will have details on history, naming, events which occurred there, which the sources don't specifically cover. I don't think any of the additional sources count, and I'd like to see an additional source specifically written on the road before I think this would meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sun article is titled "Elite area of College Road" and extensively discusses the road's background and attributes. It is not an article focused on the properties on the road.

      The Oriental Daily article is titled "Collection of Golden Houses on College Road". The article's thesis is that "the road has old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes scattered throughout", and the article backs up this statement by describing the various properties that dot the road. Significant coverage of what is on the road is significant coverage of the road. The article provides further context by noting that the road is close to prestigious schools and that it is a quiet, inner street.

      The sources do discuss why College Road is named College Road (its name was inspired by the nearby La Salle College). There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways for the sources to discuss "events that occurred there". College Road's notability is not derived from events that occurred there. College Road's notability is derived from being dotted with luxury properties from its proximity to prestigious schools. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: College Road has received significant coverage in reliable sources so meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways. If the consensus is that the road is not notable, the article still should not be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article should be merged to Kowloon Tsai, the area the road is in.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Kowloon Tsai: where this content would be relevant and verifiable, while not requiring independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with a merge. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by OwenX. While I'm a fan of WP:50k, I also understand that not everyone ascribes. A merge is a more reasonable outcome and compromise than outright deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a rough consensus against keep, but not yet a consensus between merging and deletion. Further arguments in favor of keep that may shift this emerging consensus are of course also still welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 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 Travel Town Museum. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 1273

Southern Pacific 1273 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any secondary sources covering this locomotive. Could be redirected to Travel Town Museum or deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have more than one Redirect target article proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 12 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 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Local-government level politicians are not inherently notable under NPOL, and subject fails GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 19 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 23:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence G. Costanzo

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

Subject lacks notability under the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article survived a 2007 AfD but notability thresholds can change. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 12 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! 04:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se-lib

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

Open source library without secondary coverage. BrigadierG (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain further? What do you mean by secondary coverage? Can you give an example? Mudcap (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, all 5 criterion set out at WP:GNG - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For software in particular, there's discussion of the most likely forms that would take at WP:NSOFTWARE. BrigadierG (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY explains secondary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added references from additional sources independent of the subject. Included explanations that the library was funded for development, is used regularly in the classroom in multiple classes, on research projects, and is the subject professional training venues. I could add more instances. These should all qualify. Thank you for the improvement suggestions. Mudcap (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of the sources in the article seem to be independent. For example, this tutorial was taught by a lead developer of the library. Coverage from the organization funding the project is not independent either. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was taught be a developer, but the tutorial was sponsored by the independent International Council of Systems Engineers, San Diego Chapter. They decided to run the tutorial for the sake of its members, spend resources for it, and it is the listed on their website. Doesn't that qualify as independent? Thanks. Mudcap (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not - WP:IIS BrigadierG (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Any of the sources used aren't reliable or are passing mentions; I don't find anything extra about this software package, other than where to download it. Oaktree b (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:52, 13 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 Mary Higgins Clark#Selected television adaptations. No one argued to keep. When in doubt, go with the half who say to redirect without receiving objections. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to Remember (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:45, 12 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 23:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Troy

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

Fails WP:NBIO; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:42, 12 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 23:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wekiva Presbyterian Church

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

Fails WP:NORG; no sources; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it were verifiable (as stated in article) that this church's webcast truly was the first ever/longest running, that would be notable, but the only source for this claim is a former pastor's personal blog. No other evidence of notability for this church. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 13 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 Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. While it has been asserted by the minority of keep !voters that there are sources that establish GNG, sources that go beyond mere-mentions have not been identified in this discussion, and it seems likely that some coverage of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft may have been mistaken for coverage of this title, the expanded Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft that is the focus of this discussion. It has been noted that this title is a redirect on de.wiki to the relevant Donaudampf... root article. Between delete, merge and redirect, the discussion focused on whether there has been any mention of this specific variation in RS; such mention has been identified, but there does not appear to be agreement that there is sufficient coverage beyond such a mention to justify merging (of course, editors who find coverage supporting the inclusion of WP:DUE material at the target are welcome to add such material there as a bold edit). signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

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

Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [1]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".
Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:
  1. This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
  2. The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
  3. Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this does not appear to have been an actual organization, but rather a name contrived to be an example of an unusually long German word. However, if this name is mentioned in some other article here on the English Wikipedia such as German nouns#Compounds, it can be redirected to that article. Do not redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, the actual shipping company with which this supposed organization would have been affiliated if it had actually existed, because people who look up this word (if anybody does) are probably interested in it as a word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already also covered there, though. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a made-up word, existing purely as an exceptionally long curiosity, of dictionary value at best (if it even belongs there). It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kusma if there is sourcing. The Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft has (unsourced) claims of other silly long words derived from its name. But: is there sourcing this ever was a word, other than the Guinness Book of World Records and user-generated content like H2G2? Walsh90210 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without proven sourcing, deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should clarify. My question was on sourcing of The name of the company is well known in German-speaking countries as a starter to humorously construct even longer compound words. Even if this specific word was made-up for the Guinness Book of World Records (which seems plausible), I would support a redirect if there is other sourcing for that statement. It is hard to tell from an English-language Google search whether there is anything other than "people quoting Wikipedia" there. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to search in German, as that's where it's a novelty. It might not qualify for WP:GNG in English, but if you set your compass for German there's coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In German it is basically a children's game to construct long extensions of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Most made-up extensions are more convincing than this one (no educated native German speaker would use "-elektrizitäten-" instead of the correct "-elektrizitäts-" in this context) so I guess that is why this particular choice of made-up extension is more notable in English (albeit not very notable) than in German. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets GNG if you read the German article. Other long compounds of the same origin, such as Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitäns­anwärter­posten, can be redirected to this article. Jonashtand (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect, probably to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. The Guinness source used on the German Wikipedia is sufficient for verifiability, but not notability. I suggest that the content of this article can be summarised into a single short paragraph in the target article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least support Merge & Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Theoretical word, mostly a joke. German WP includes mention of it as an artificial creation:
    Das Wort ist ein beliebtes Beispiel für komplexe Mehrfachkomposita und deren Probleme im Bereich der Linguistik und Computerlinguistik in Thesauren, Übersetzungsprogrammen und Suchabfragen. In Österreich, wo die Gesellschaft beheimatet war, ist es wahrscheinlich das Paradebeispiel. Es wird gerne als Ausgangspunkt für Wortspielereien wie die Ableitung noch längerer künstlich zusammen­gesetzter – aber grammati­kalisch korrekter – Hauptwörter wie

    Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitäns­anwärter­posten
    Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitäns­kajüten­schlüsselloch
    Donau­dampfschifffahrts­elektrizitäten­hauptbetriebswerk­bauunterbeamten­gesellschaft
    Oberdonaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenkokarde

    und ähnlichem genutzt.      Mr.choppers | ✎  17:49, 26 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 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cape Verde

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

Non-notable battle. The article is comprised of mostly LLM slop, and extrapolates fake/conflicting info from a real but minor skirmish (mentioned on page 159 of the source listed). – Hilst [talk] 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Clear LLM work which is mostly nonsense. It contains nationalist neutral point of view violations (states that the battle "highlights the bravery and resilience of those involved in defending against piracy", the article also claims that the battle is "a testament to the challenges faced by maritime trade during the early 18th century."). While the discussed battle happened, its almost certainly unnotable. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:30, 16 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corné Weilbach

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. There's a couple sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 26 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! 23:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clermont Sans Fil

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

No indication this was ever notable and completely WP:UNSOURCED but given I don't know French, decided to AfD instead of PROD out of an abundance of caution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 12 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 23:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Riccioli

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of in-depth coverage available online. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 20:15, 12 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property Shop

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

Article about a television show, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This was created in good faith in 2009, a time when we essentially extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television series that was verifiable as existing regardless of the quality of its sources -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a television series now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG.
I've found very little sourcing of value on a WP:BEFORE search, however: I was able to replace the primary sourcing that this was formerly based on with one newspaper article about the show, but other than that one source I only found glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, such as other similar TV shows about other people and Tatiana Londono's later career ups and downs after this show ended, which might support a BLP of her as a person but doesn't establish the notability of this show as a show. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Doyle, John (2008-07-09). "Big hair and a loud personality can take you only so far". The Globe and Mail. ProQuest 382724423. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The review notes: "So I watched The Property Shop , which is the vehicle for the allegedly original and startling Tatiana. Besides, the come-on from the PR machine and the existence of Tatiana raise an interesting question: What makes for a good TV personality? ... The Property Shop (HGTV, 8 p.m.) is all about Tatiana. The premise is that we watch as real-estate-agent-turned-broker Tatiana opens up her own agency and attempts to conquer the urban real-estate world in Montreal. ... Tatiana is all pep and vinegar, and charmingly certain that she is unique, a true star. In the first 60 seconds of the episode I saw, she makes the assertion about her hair and her boobs and coming to get you. ... Usually, with the sort of TV personalities who are part of the firmament that Tatiana wants to join, there's either a narrative about the personality or the personality is merely a bland facilitator who helps the narrative unfold."

    2. Gravenor, J D (2008-08-09). "Real estate meets reality TV; Montreal agent Tatiana Londono stars in her own HGTV series - a "docu-soap" chronicling her rise in the real-estate world". The Gazette. ProQuest 434694385.

      The article notes: "Canadians across the country are now getting to know Londono, too, because of her documentary-style television show, The Property Shop, which airs three times a week on HGTV. ... But it takes a lot of video footage to make a 13-part, fly-on-the-wall reality series. So production crews tailed Londono for more than a year. Occasionally the camera penetrated her personal spheres, like the sanctuary of Londono's bedroom and the hospital room where her husband laid deathly ill. ... No, she's not shy. In fact, Londono came up with the idea of a TV show documenting her ballsy scramble to the top of Montreal's real-estate heap, taking on the big national firms and exploring the drama of wheeling and dealing. ... Episodes of The Property Shop debuted last month on HGTV. Now, the producers hope to find a home with the format they've worked out."

    3. McDonough, Kevin (2009-01-08). "TV Guy: A 'Wake-Up Call' to help couples". Times Herald-Record. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "Set in Montreal, the Canadian series "The Property Shop" (10:30 p.m., HGTV) follows real estate agent-turned-broker Tatiana Londono as she multitasks furiously under a helmet of golden ringlets. In this episode, she raises her kids, rents and renovates a new office, studies for her brokerage exam and attempts to land a slightly shady new client and sell his ugly property to dubious investors. With its emphasis on the "flipping" market, this import seems as if it's at least a couple of years old. The whole point of "Property" is to follow Tatiana, a sexy and slightly frazzled woman with a great sense of style, a youthful entourage and a flirtatious business manner. "Property" may not break any new ground in the real estate genre, but it shows off the slightly exotic Tatiana to her best advantage."

    4. Newsome, Brad (2009-09-10). "Pay TV - Sunday, September 13". The Age. ProQuest 364293422. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The review notes: "Here's an even less sympathetic protagonist, Canadian real estate agent Tatiana Londono. Theoretically it might be possible to feel sympathy for a real estate agent in certain circumstances — they've just been run over by a bus, perhaps — but tonight Londono succeeds in looking both ways before crossing the road. Londono explains that she's been making seven figures selling houses at an estate agency in Montreal but has decided to go into business for herself. She's determined to complain every step of the way, too. The vacant offices she looks at are crummy, her new clients don't know what's good for them and she has even less time to spend with her kids. Buyers and sellers remain stoic as they endure Londono's aggressive badgering."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Property Shop to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: In addition to Cunard's sources, I also found significant coverage in the Montreal Gazette: "Real Estate Meets Reality TV" (August 9, 2008). There is enough here to demonstrate notability. (It should be noted that the correct title is "The Property Shop". When this discussion closes, the page should be moved.) Toughpigs (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I hate such tiny stubs, but as far as notability is concerned, sources provided above (and I found a few more via WPLIBRARY) are sufficient. SIG coverage from multiple major independent and reliable outlet exists. X (talk) 01:06, 16 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 no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypelist

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

This is an WP:ADMASQ of a non-notable app/company. Speedy deletion was contested by a new editor who claims to be a "fan" of the app. No evidence of satisfying WP:NPRODUCT or WP:ORGIND. The references all provide routine coverage and/or are from unreliable sources. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analyzation of the article:
Like said in the nomination, the article, especially the product section, is positive about the "mobile social application". Buzz words like popular and AI-driven are used along with a dose of ethos, stating that several celebrities use it.
The citations seem to mostly based in trendiness or promotion. For example, HIGHXTAR is designed to advertise to the youths. Trying to research the topic, most of the citations seem to be of the same caliber but there may be a few citations. Any additional citations should be analyzed. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, as with Alfonso Cobo and related articles. There are sources from MSN, Conde Nast, Avenue Illustrated, and many other well-known sources. The article is meant to be a summary of existing sources, some of which might be bordering on the promotional side, but that can easily be fixed. There is no overtly promotional wording either, such as "award-winning" or "innovative" for instance. Moreover, this article satisfies basic notability criteria. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MaghrebiFalafel, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. You mentioned three sources. The MSN article is about a singer using the app - the article mentions the company in passing and does not provide any in-depth Independent Content about the company - fails CORPDEPTH. The Vanity Fair article is a "puff profile" on the founder and relies entirely on an interview. All the information is provided by the founder and has no Independent Content. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Finally the Avenue article has zero in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Are there any other sources you believe meets NCORP? If not, perhaps you might reconsider your !vote? HighKing++ 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Id looked up to see if there was any new news and didn't find any. Then given there already are some references in Spanish thought id see if there are other results in Spanish and there are: Larazon El Correo. They seem to say more of the same thing ie new app from this guy and it does xyz. I dont know if this helps establish notability. If the issue isn't the references, but the subject matter, so be it. If I had to vote it would be weakish keep but I also get the desire to delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep delete It's all hype about hypelist, and it may be TOO SOON, but the sourcing is reasonable. If this app does not pan out, the hype here may not be enough to save the article in the future. I looked again and the software has no reviews in the mac app store, and it only has one rating. All that we have are product announcements. I'm !voting to wait and see. Lamona (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the sourcing might not be enough in the future, then it definitely won't be enough now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, your comment got me to look again. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems almost A7, wouldn't go G11 though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The sources about the song can't establish notability, because notability isn't transitive. The only source I think could possibly establish notability is the Rivera article. The Vanity Fair article is an interview that contains almost exclusively quotations from the subject themself, and I couldn't immediately establish the other sources as credible. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As I have mentioned elsewhere, Hypelist is definitely notable and has quite a few users. It's widely used by now and many other applications with similar notability levels are also on Wikipedia. Redcrablegs (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a lot of people an app does guarantee notability. That's also a weasle statement: how many people are quite a few and who is providing these numbers? ✶Quxyz✶ 17:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Came back here to see what happened since my first comment. I noticed that the vote by Okmrman was deleted and they've now been blocked for being a sock puppet. On April 30 there was a comment on his talk page regarding spurious tagging of pages for speedy deletion. That was on April 30. This article was nominated for speedy deletion by a somewhat dormant account on May 9. The speedy was contested and 9 hours after this was nominated for deletion the sockpuppet voted here. Not that this affects the vote here one way or another. Sock puppet or not, doesn't impact whether a subject is notable or not, but the powers that be may wish to cast the Okmrman sock puppet net wider and investigate the editor who nominated this article for deletion. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz @Yamla Looking at this some more, I'm now convinced that Teemu.cod and Okmrman are one and the same. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, they were blocked for disruptive editing and their other account was the puppet (they're the master). It is a little weird, has AfD always been this much of a sockfest? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. It is peculiar. Then again, longer one spends here, harder it is to get shocked. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Teemu.cod is Red X Unrelated to Okmrman. Just a bizarre coincidence. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok thanks for looking into it. my apologies to teemu.cod MaskedSinger (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment People here saying the *company* is notable and then talking about the product are missing the point of establishing the notability of the *company*. None of the reference meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If you think one does, can you please post a link here and point out which page/para meets NCORP including CORPDEPTH and ORGIND? HighKing++ 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertorial tone, and little or no depth to the coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow. Can't believe this is still going. Not sure what's happening with AFD but this is a weird one. Nominated for deletion by editor who comes out of dormancy to nominate it and then hasn't edited since. Some editor who votes delete is blocked for going on a voting rampage. And then yesterday the discussion is closed not once, but twice by editors who are sock puppets?!?! Still this has nothing to do the merits of the page. Given that its been relisted twice and still no consensus, I think it should get the benefit of the doubt. It satsifies WP:GNG with the non English coverage and there is probably more non English coverage that can be translated and added. If it stays, Ill look for some and add it. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now closed a third time by some rogue editor! It's not just this article. It's also others that are up for deletion. Anyone have any idea what is going on and why? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah there's an AFD closing LTA. Just revert, WP:DENY and move on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031 Wow! That's so bizarre. Why do they do it? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "'Hypelist', el nuevo proyecto del exitoso emprendedor español que triunfa en EE UU" ['Hypelist', the new project of the successful Spanish entrepreneur who triumphs in the US]. El Correo (in Spanish). 2024-04-15. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes: "For the second time, the young entrepreneur has managed to cover another need of social media consumers in time. His new app, 'Hypelist', was launched a few months ago and aims to help people share recommendations for activities, products or places they are passionate about. The app innovates by leaving the framework of aesthetics and superficiality that so characterises content on today's networks, something that places this second project at an extreme opposite to 'Unfold', focused precisely on the visual. ... 'Hypelist' allows you to collect all the recommendations in a personalized space for when they are going to be missed. In this way, it has been presented as an application not for entertainment, something that already abounds, but for self-realisation and growth that pushes people to fulfill all their plans. ... This time the launch of the project has been accompanied by the 'Hypelist Session', events organised to promote the use of the new app and full of 'influencers' eager to share their recommendations through this new channel."

    2. Martin, Ruth (2024-03-26). "Esta es la Nueva App Que Usan Los Viajeros Expertos. Hypelist amenaza competir con Instagram y es perfecta para los que no pueden vivir sin las listas de favoritos" [This Is the New App That Expert Travelers Use. Hypelist threatens to compete with Instagram and is perfect for those who cannot live without favorites lists]. Grazia (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes: "Are you one of those who always makes lists for everything? Are you one of those who miss the guides that Instagram has made disappear and where you had your favorites saved? Then this new App is for you because with it you can organize, share and connect your best recommendations. It is called Hypelist and was created by a Spanish entrepreneur, Alfonso Cobo, who is not new to the world of entrepreneurship and technology. But not only can you create lists to save all your favorites, but you can also discover everything your favorite creators are obsessed with. Hypelist is the place where users share their true interests: the quirks that make them who they are; what truly obsesses and excites them"

    3. Pujalví, Camila (2024-02-07). "Hypelist: la aplicación para compartir recomendaciones que necesitas en tu móvil" [Hypelist: the application to share recommendations that you need on your mobile]. La Razón (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes: "In the blink of an eye, Hypelist has gone from a simple app to a cultural phenomenon. Its creator, Alfonso Cobo, recognised for his previous hits like Unfold, has once again surprised the market with what promises to be the hit of the year 2024. But his ambition goes far beyond conventional. Following the wild launch of the app, Cobo has decided to expand its reach and create an entire universe around Hypelist. Hypelist stands out as a platform to organize, share and connect the best recommendations. Aiming to appeal to a younger audience, Cobo has collaborated with talented singer Cara Hart to release a single titled "Hypelist.""

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cough, Cunard I don't think Grazia can be considered an RS for anything other than uncontroversial self descriptions, certainly not for establishing notability. I mean, on their about page, which is very conveniently written in English, where most publications normally put how they're totally very well edited and all that, they instead put:

    Our award-winning team prides ourselves on working with partners to create interesting, unexpected and unique experiences. Our collaborations are designed to deliver incremental value to our partners’ businesses. GRAZIA has a wide range of solutions to suit almost any kind of marketing and media mix. We offer branded content, video, integration into editorial franchises, innovative high impact ad units and local events.

    ... Yeah. I'll look at the other ones in a couple of minutes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe La Razón meets ORGDEPTH. I'm less sure about El Correo, but like risbel I am more concerned about ORGIND in their case (though El Correo might be better than risbel RS-wise generally). While I can't find anything other than the January press release, which those two articles seem to have additional content to (about the launch event, etc) they still read like content taken (perhaps paraphrased) from press kits rather than organic, intellectually independent coverage. Would rather kick it to RSN, though would not terribly object to this actually being closed as no consensus either. I would expect to renominate this (after some time of course) if that happens though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing I'm a bit concerned about is the language. It is clear that they are trying to sell Hypelist. It honestly sounds like a pitch to investors more specifically, they establish the credibility of the creator, describe demographics that it was made to appeal to, and describe the problem it is trying to solve. These are all pretty reasonable, but at the same time, the language is overly positive. Hart isn't just a singer, she's a talented singer. In Grazia, they describe the creator as well-trained, but they don't give any information in the quote. There are a lot more situations but their easy enough to parse through where I dont think I need to go over it more. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Belardo

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 26 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Fragnito

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV other than this, which seems like a press release ("The whole company expresses the utmost satisfaction"). JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 26 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 procedural keep‎. No rationale for deletion present. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Rohr

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

Couldn't find any reliable source on the subject. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 19:10, 12 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua

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

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as his rugby playing career, which included playing in all four of Tonga's matches at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he became a prominent lawyer in Tonga, serving as president of the Tongan Law Society and as a member of the 2009 Tongan Constitutional and Electoral Commission. He was a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa (Sustainable Nation-Building Party), and was a candidate in Tongan general elections in 2008, 2010 and 2014. Paora (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revaz Gigauri

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

Subject should have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage, excluding database sources.Does not pass WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now. Shinadamina (talk) 08:09, 13 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 2007 Rugby World Cup squads#Portgual. Star Mississippi 01:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Gama

Diogo Gama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Shinadamina (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now. Shinadamina (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2007 Rugby World Cup squads#Portgual Featured at a World Cup and for a minor nation, struggling to see suitable sourcing but there maybe more offline. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD for now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A week has not passed since the rationale was added. It should have been there the moment the AfD was posted, not tagged on later. This should have been closed immediately for lack of rationale. The original lack of rationale suggests WP:BEFORE issue. The lack of rationale other than noting lack of sources, including failure to discuss notability, still suggests WP:BEFORE issue. Do we know anything about the individual covered by the article? Did the nominator "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources"? Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have searched google and unable to find proper news articles on this individual. If you can find any, please post here.Shinadamina (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:22, 27 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 keep‎. given sources added. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Gál

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

Subject should have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of it, excluding database sources. Lacks references. Shinadamina (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I have added the rationale now.Shinadamina (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two GNG passing sources in foreign language Wikipedia. I imagine there will be sourcing offline also, given he won well over 80 caps for his nation and appeared in 3 World Cups. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:19, 20 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. Complex/Rational 20:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Siddiqui (politician)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any political office that makes them inherently notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 12 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! 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takuro Okuyama

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

Yet another really poorly sourced BLP on a footballer that only played 46 mins of football. Japanese Wikipedia has no decent sources. He is mentioned 3 times in this blog post and once in Reds Denk but this is far from enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable insignificant footballer without decent sourcing. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:20, 16 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! 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Yanagisawa

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

Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. The only half-decent source found is Livedoor, a blog post, which falls short of being WP:SIGCOV of Yanagisawa and, in any case, WP:SPORTBASIC and SIGCOV require multiple good sources for a pass. Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have any acceptable sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 12 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! 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiro Tanaka (footballer)

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

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in 1 cup game then disappeared, although he was briefly on the books for Operário Ferroviário Esporte Clube. Searching in Japanese, I can only find Niigata University and J League, neither of which are significant. I couldn't find any coverage of his very brief spell in Brazil. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:56, 12 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! 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shotaro Dei

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

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in one 2nd tier match and then disappeared to the amateur levels. Searching in Japanese, I can only find a couple of self-published blog posts like La Bola and LiveDoor, which are not considered to be WP:RS. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:44, 12 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! 16:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoji Yamada

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

Unacceptable sourcing on a BLP for a footballer that played in 2 cup games then disappeared. Searching in Japanese, I can only find coverage of the musician of the same name. I've had a look at Japanese Wikipedia but none of the sources there show WP:SIGCOV. Similar case to Yuki Toma and Kei Hirata, which were created by the same editor. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CuteDolphin712 in fairness, Japanese Wikipedia articles for footballers tend to be of a very high quality in my experience so it tends to be a good indicator on whether the en.wiki article is worth having. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 13 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! 16:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio UTD

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

Notability issues and a number of references don't link to anywhere useful. Okmrman (talk) 15:43, 12 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 02:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashaf Alvi

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

I'm struggling to see how this TEEN meets the WP:N for WP:NAUTHOR or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS as cited in the BLP, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - PR articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS. I would say WP:NOTJUSTYET. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:34, 19 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! 16:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogey Awards

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

Non-notable award with virtually zero independent significant coverage beyond this brief piece on the website of the Golden Globes. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:36, 12 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 06:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSA (basketball)

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

Not one source meets WP:GNG criteria. Toadspike (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:36, 19 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. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteshield

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

Seems like a reasonably successful consulting company, but that doesn't seem to have translated into any coverage of the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Announcements of things they did are good and all, but they're not really the type of content that would meet our criteria for inclusion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The page has a decent media coverage, has a general notability, cooperates with governments of various countries and with international organizations (such as the EBRD and UNESCO) thus responding to WP:GNG. Del Amol Banora (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new sources added today are good, so the notability and coverage issues are not so strict. Cooperation with UNESCO, the European Bank for Reconstruction and other global institutions might help add more information and sources. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page's sources still do not establish notability sufficiently. The references are from relatively minor sources or primary sources. "cooperating with governments of various countries and international organizations" is not in of itself a consideration for noteworthiness. A paperclip company could be said to "cooperate" with international governmental institutions by selling paperclips to them, but that does not make the paperclip company notable. CapnPhantasm (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I feel like I should clarify a little bit more. The firm's research has been actively used and publicly praised by UNESCO, with their book listed in the references and their chart included in the article. It's important to note that EBRD and UNESCO official websites shouldn't be considered primary sources or "minor". Additionally, some other media mention that the Whiteshield research was commissioned by the UN and the government of Kazakhstan. They are also mentioned on the official websites of UNIDO and UNDP and are quoted in other UN documents.--Del Amol Banora (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Del Amol Banora. Being cited works for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and, in some very rare cases, the works themselves. It does not work for companies or organisations, the articles of which we require to be based on the independent analysis of reliable secondary sources. There needs to be stuff written by the UN (or any other source with a reputation for fact checking) in sufficient depth on which to actually base an article, for any of us to, well, actually write a policy compliant article. Any source lacking analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas (of the subject of the article) is, by definition in policy, WP:PRIMARY. Any source that has a relationship other than the "actually writing the article" part of things (including, but not limited to vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees) is generally not going to be considered independent by the applicable guidelines. Those independent, secondary sources are required to go into substantial depth in their analysis, which excludes routine announcements of ordinary business activities. ("routine announcements" being the ones that would accompany such activities most of the time) None of the sources available meet all four of the requirements, and believe me, I had looked quite extensively. (though I do not claim it exhaustive) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes outnumber delete views so far, but what exactly is Whiteshield notable for?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:55, 20 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. Google search can lead an editor to sources that might prove to be reliable but Google search results alone don't establish notability. There are a lot of subjects that people search for or write about that don't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habibullah Khan Swati II

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and a quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can help meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO with WP:NON-SIGCOV. Google search also doesn't provide anything substantial.Sameeerrr (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

  • But google search provides many pictures of him from different pages along with mention of well known Tribal chief and information about his father and grandfather from newspaper and many blogs have mention of his name as a Khan of Garhi Habibullah. Most importantly, He and his father are mentioned tribal Chief on Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's website. Hazarewal333 (talk) 18:29, 13 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 West Yorkshire derbies#Leeds Rhinos and Wakefield Trinity. There is general agreement that this can serve as a redirect, although there is no consensus as to how much information would be WP:DUE to include there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry

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

No evidence that this is a particularly notable rivalry, if it can even be considered one at all. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festive challenge wasn't always exclusively a Leeds v Wakefield friendly (Leeds have played other opponents in the past: [9] [10]), so that part should definitely be removed or separated into another article. I've no problem with merging the rest with West Yorkshire derbies if others think it's notable enough for inclusion. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content relating to the Boxing Day friendlies to Festive Challenge. Thanks to @EdwardUK:'s work, I think this is well sourced enough to be kept, so I'm withdrawing my nomination for that part of the article. Now it's just whether the remaining content should be merged or deleted. I personally don't think it's a strong enough rivalry to be included even on the West Yorkshire page. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: To preserve the page history, it would need to be a merge or redirect rather than a delete. If it was merged, I doubt it would be kept following any clean-up of the WY derbies article. The head-to-head needs updating, and I am not sure how relevant the collective honours table is to any rivalry if the teams have never played each other in some of the competitions and Wakefield have never taken part in others. EdwardUK (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:08, 20 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 06:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitulu Day Secondary School

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

Non-notable institution and un-sourced article, a search returns nothing. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 19 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 Draftify.‎. Owen× ☎ 10:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer

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

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I agree, I'm seeing more and more articles written on little-known or little-documented battles fought in Central and South Asia. Many of them end up being disucussed here in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Draftify The sources do actually have SIGCOV around this battle, although it's not well formatted but could be fixed. I think the author has cited the different volume of History and Culture of the Indian People therefore we find nothing about this event in that volume, but after my findings in its preceding 5th volume, there is a significant coverage:

"In A.D. 1195-6 the Mher tribes of Ajmer combined with the Chalukyas to expel the Turks from Rajputana. Aibak had to rush to the help of the Turkish governor of Ajmer. Finding the Mhers camping near Ajmer he engaged them in a battle, but when the enemy were reinforced by the Chalukya ruler’s army, Aibak was forced to withdraw into". I guess these two sources should be enough, if not then draftify it, so that the author of the page could improve it by adding some more sources. Also the source from Thapar should be removed. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify: The page creator as a new user should receive our support if there's reason to believe sourcing could be found as described by User:Based Kashmiri. Page creator attempted themselves to move this to draft during this discussion but was reverted appropriately for procedural reasons. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 23 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 08:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte

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

Not sure if this violates WP:DICT (wikipedia is not a dictionary). While I see why we have Alba and éire, (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:20, 27 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 merge‎ to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Not sure if this is the right target article but it was the only one identified here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)

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

It still feels like the only good source is [12] that. The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, always specify a target article if you are proposing a Merge or Redirect. We have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Star Wars, its worlds and characters on many different platforms (film, TV, books, video games, maybe board games (?)) and the closer should be guessing which one you think is the most appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 19 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS

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

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:
Honorable mentions:
Dishonorable mentions:
jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was a SNOW keep‎. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blockout 2024

Blockout 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not relevant, random TikTok trend { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty ridiculous to vote for the deletion of a massive protest movement that significantly impacted the social media presence of dozens of celebrities. Especially considering a political climate that refuses to acknowledge the protests as legitimate and actively contributes to censuring folks who participate. Should #MeToo have been considered a random twitter hashtag? <IP removed> 19:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. S5A-0043Talk 11:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it covers a relevant protest movement linked to a conflict that is redefining the whole international system. 185.120.125.4 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic properly covered in the media. I would also suggest the nomination be withdrawn. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:46, 16 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. While there is not a clear consensus, I think Alpha3031 and BusterD's arguments are more persuasive. If the draft creator would like to work on the article in Draft space and submit it to AFC, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusking Pimentel

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

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [19], [20], [21]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddygypsy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Also, {{page creator}} and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please include a signature with your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article meets WP:GNG as far as I can tell. If the sources are reliable and fully backed up being the host of a notable TV show possibly meets WP:ENT. The NPOL may not be for here. Why not redirect to the show? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't quibble on whether they had a significant role (eswiki article on the show is no help since it only goes up to 2008 and has even fewer references than ours), but ENT specifically says multiple, SafariScribe, and I don't think I've seen anything that claims they were part of any other notable production. I also don't see anything that could really be considered GNG or BASIC-level SIGCOV, anything beyond bare mentions seem to be routine coverage surrounding the announcement, excluded by SBST. No objection to redirect though, I just didn't want to BLAR since I anticipated an objection was not unlikely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a second opinion on the sources offered in this discussion and if a Redirect target article was identified. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Osman Afrah

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

Standard BEFORE seems to have found nothing about the guy? Definitely nothing suitable for a BLP, which their own works (as currently cited) are not. Not for the whole article anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 12 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 merge‎ to WNYX-LD. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNXY-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 26 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 Daystar Television Network stations. Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WXNY-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources; could merge into List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:10, 12 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. Discussion consensus is that insufficient independent reliable sources have been identified, applied, or found which put this BLP subject past the bar for notability. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP account was not blocked. Please do not take it upon yourself to strike out opinions/votes unless the editor is a confirmed sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, in a non promotional way. Sources in article are programming annoucements, promo, etc, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: After checking, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, but I couldn’t find any. Therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NACTOR, I don’t think she has played a significant role in these dramas and films. Hence, she fails WP:NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 12:57, 24 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick

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

(Renomination: the discussion from 2010 closed as "no consensus.") I don't believe that Brenda Jean Patrick fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. She is (was? I think I found an obituary) an educational consultant who touted the idea of "customer care" in school districts. Most of the information I can find about her consultant work is in the form of press releases in local papers when she held workshops for a district. I don't see independent coverage outside of her PR. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 12 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 06:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinedine Booysen

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best sources I found were two sentences of coverage here and four-ish sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Since this article is verifiable per sources that the player exist and has appeared in few sources though not ready for WP:SPORTSCRIT, Why not redirect to Free State Cheetahs#Current squad. This will better save the total deletion of this game/sports I don't know much about but have seen many of the articles being deleted. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy pinging to @JTtheOG, @Rugbyfan22, @JoelleJay, and @Okmrman for the above comment. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of redirecting to current squads, as he could well not be in the next squad (I think his contract has just expired also). Realistically with the change in guidelines we need lists for teams like this, but I don't see there being the interest (given there's only a handful of rugby union editors left) in creating them, given the time required to do so. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't redirect to the current squad since that will change. I think if everyone here agrees that there isn't GNG-level coverage of the subject, and no suitable redirect, then deletion is the only option. It's not like any info is being lost that wouldn't be recoverable from the current squad page history (i.e. that he was on the team in a particular year). JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 19 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 preserved Airbus aircraft#Airbus A320. since it has not been demonstrated that the subject meets WP:GNG. This redirect target, though not proposed in the discussion, seems the most natural (but can be contested outside of AfD). The article's content may be merged at editorial discretion to the appropriate pages. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-WWAI

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

Once citations to unreliable blogs like Simple Flying and Planespotters were removed, there isn't any citation here and most of what I can find about this plane is user generated. I suggest it be merged into Airbus A320 family. Avgeekamfot (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 19 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 08:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Mensah

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

Another poorly sourced BLP with no WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. The best that I can find are Abidjan 1 and Abidjan 2, both passing mentions in Ivorian media. The Feyenoord mentioned is the one in Ghana, not the Dutch team. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it. I'm not going to withdraw this AfD yet as I don't think that it's enough on its own for a GNG pass. The coverage is Fifteen-year-old Francis Joe Mensah is one of the academy's best players, a lightning-quick, technically solid, left back, who can also play left wing. He predicts he will make it in Europe. He says he has no fear of failure. followed by a quote from the subject. I also think WP:YOUNGATH might apply given the age of the subject at the time (the coverage does not seem to be substantial and prolonged). I'd be interested to know what others think. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:20, 27 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. The Delete views present a stronger case, resulting in a rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 12:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission." More and more videos from long ago are being published on YouTube from official tennis sources, particularly the Australian Open (they are currently undertaking a project uploading a lot of their archive from 1975 onwards). A very good source of who is commentating on a match is the match itself provided by the tournament itself (just about as reliable as it can possibly be). And wikipedia policy seems to agree with that. The No original research policy states "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that information, and some due thought, the videos that the Open produce via YouTube or distributable under the rights of the Open to their respective broadcasting partners, are therefore WP:PRIMARY. So, basically, a source that demonstrates some significant coverage of who calls the game, commentates, reports, etc. would have to be done by a secondary source, like if a local tv station called out who was doing it. I am not saying it's a bad source, just that it wouldn't qualify for the main thing I am arguing for: WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a stand-alone list. Regarding primary sources, "a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Obviously the wikipedia policy has to be careful to ensure that, for example, an article written about a political party does not solely use as its source the political party's official website. Not relevant to a broadcast of the Australian Open, where the commentators are mentioned (incidentally there are many other videos of the same matches not posted by the official YouTube channel of the tournament which have the same commentary). What this whole thing about is one editor copying and pasting deletion requests and posting them on many pages based on bogus reasons, referencing wikipedia policy articles that he clearly hasn't read. This editor does not seem to be contributing much to wikipedia (certainly not anything to this article), and is only intent on destroying and removing perfectly valid material. And you Conyo14, seem to be acting as a tag team with this editor. In common with the original poster, you seem to show no interest in the subject matter (even admitting so in your comments here) yet despite this seem intent on giving your views on whether this article should be removed, quoting wikipedia policy articles you clearly have not read, then when your ignorance is shown up, quoting other articles. There has already been one ANI trying to ban the user posting this deletion request and there may be more if this user continues to behave in this way. Why don't both users consider spending their time more productively, creating rather than destroying. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey! I don't appreciate your tone here, perhaps you need to stop replying here as your accusations of a tag team are mislead as well as my interpretations of a policy that are not unfounded. You're welcome to continue your usage of your interpretation of the policy as well as mine, because as far as that goes, it won't matter until the relister does their judgment. Conyo14 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't me that first used the term "tag team", it was another editor that I do not know on the ANI, but it seems a pretty accurate description to me. I read the following text that you posted on the deletion proposer's user page, regarding the mass posting of deletion requests. "It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them". Those comments speak for themselves. I have quoted wikipedia policy documents that you and the deletion proposer have quoted throughout, showing how ridiculous your interpretations of them are (not surprising really, considering a lot of the text in the posts proposing deletion had very similar text on deletion requests for many pages which vary immensely). I have nothing personal against you, Conyo14, but your interventions here and on other removal pages do you no credit. I have not commented on the vast majority of the hundreds of pages which the user has requested for deletion, because they are on sports that I have no interest in, and I have a rule that I never edit or comment on subjects that do not interest me. But I agree there is little to be gained by a protracted argument. The wikipedia policies speak for themselves, as does the edit history of the editor proposing the deletion.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    k Conyo14 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conyo14, this discussion can't be closed as a "Soft Delete" as there are editors arguing for "Keeping" this article. Therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial and Soft Deletion is not appropriate. Soft Deletions are similar to Proposed Deletions and so if Deletion is contested, then SD can't be a closure result. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:LISTN due to a lack of references from secondary sources discussing the broadcasters as a set. Let'srun (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Let'srun, I am struggling to see where the notability here comes from to meet the LISTN threshold. While a secondary consideration as AfD is not cleanup, there's far too much original research here for my liking too — representative in my opinion of the lack of secondary sources covering this topic, hence the LISTN concerns. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a good knowledge of the level of accuracy of this article (the accuracy level is high). I would not defend an article that was not accurate. There are numerous sources already, primary and secondary, but I have added more. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your personal knowledge of the content included in this article is of minimal relevance, per WP:OR. But that is not the primary reason I believe this should be deleted. It is the failure of meeting the LISTN threshold through independent, reliable secondary sources that mean this should be deleted. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Greek wars

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

The article is a mess; it consists largely of unattributed copy-pastes from other articles, and purports to present a topic, the 'Indo-Greek wars', that is in reality a sequence of isolated and unrelated conflicts between different polities at different times. Alexander's campaigns take up half the article, but the other conflicts, which took place decades or centuries later, are dealt with far too briefly, and no attempt is made to weave all of this into a coherent narrative (which in itself is evidence this is an artificial topic). THe very name itself is scarcely used anywhere (cf. Gbooks). Constantine ✍ 11:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Problematic editor who created a number of very poorly written articles. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On its face, it appears to both duplicate other article content and be an inappropriate synthesis. And, on the offchance it is notable and just not written about in English language sources, WP:TNT GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 16:42, 12 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 06:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Station

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

I'm struggling to see how this YouTube web series meets the WP:N for NMUSIC or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS like this, this, this, and this, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - most probably paid / PR-related articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS.

While this coverage could contribute to establishing GNG, it alone isn't enough. Anyone who wants to argue for keeping this page should provide at least three best examples of coverage from RS to help establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 19 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 11:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekene Emigo

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

Another creation by Zombie with a lot of dubious info; I can find nothing to verify the move to Leicester City nor the 1 cap for Nigeria. This hasn't always been unsourced. It's previously had the unreliable WP:TRANSFERMARKT as well as a link to National Football Teams, although the profile linked has no confirmation of his cap or even his DOB. He definitely existed because I found trivial mentions in Modern Ghana and RSSSF but none of this is even close to WP:SIGCOV. This article has existed for 16 years without a decent source so, if we can't find one, it needs deleting. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:42, 12 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 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Ekwunife

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

Another poorly sourced BLP by a banned editor, see User talk:Zombie433 for more examples of these. The only sources found are All Africa 1, a paywalled source that says Ugochukwu Nwankwo, Diri Otimoti and Ebitimi Agogo will run the midfield and Teddy Lucky, Ignatius Ekwunife and Amakiri George in the fore. and All Africa 2, which says The goal disorganised Sharks the more and three bookings to Ignatius Ekwunife, Festus Umasah and Chidiekeke Okefe in a spate of five minutes

These are both passing mentions in a match report and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. I am unable to verify anything else from this stub and, even if I could, notability is still a big issue. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 12 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 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olatunji Adeola

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

One of many dubious BLPs created by the same permanently banned user, see User talk:Zombie433 for many other examples. I have searched all combinations of Olatunde/Olatunji Adeola Waidi, including changing the name order, and found no useful coverage. All I can find is the same Sky Sports article already used. It's a passing mention so does not comply with WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 12 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 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLAS-LP (Florida)

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

Zero secondary sources, lacking in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:05, 12 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 11:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Das Bobby

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject was never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and article relies majorly on sources that do not satisfy SIGCOV and INDEPENDENT, hence, fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:47, 12 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 keep‎. I see a consensus that sufficient sources exist to merit keeping the article and that OR and SYNTH issues, while present in the current article, are not insurmountable. Complex/Rational 16:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum weirdness

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

PRODded with the following statement:

Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024

Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:

deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024

The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good example is the article Bare particle, which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion.  --Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles.  --Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article:
Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.
While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition.  --Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Wishy-washy long neutral comment. This article does not say anything that is not already covered in a range of other existing WP articles on physics. It mostly appears to be some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As to quantum being weird, yes, even physicists say this. Anecdote: When I was a young student, my prof pulled me into his office, closed the door, and made me swear a secret oath: I must not talk about quantum to anyone who does not have a formal education in physics. Why? Because quantum is weirder than Hollywood or anything scifi authors could ever imagine, and people's heads would explode, and cranks and snake-oil salesmen would come out of the woodwork. I got the impression this was a standard oath administered to anyone studying physics, dating back to the WWII Manhattan project. Now, if this article was actually about that oath, and/or some sociological study of physicists, I'd be thrilled to vote "keep". But we don't need a compendium of weird stuff. Also p.s. excuse me: most of QM is weird for one reason: because weak convergence (Hilbert space) is fugnuts weird. So this is just math being weird, and not physics. And once you tune in, lots of math is really deranged and weird. Like way more weird than what QM has come up with. (I changed my tag to wishy-washy. I dunno, since everyone is talking about it, anyway, what the heck. Article could mention the U. Columbia prof who dropped his pants for Physics 101 to show how weird QM is. See youtube videos. My ex is a Dean of Students there, we chatted about this. CNN (2013) Columbia professor strips down for lecture) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: same vote, different explanation. The original article that was AfD'd was just a dictionary definition. It has since been edited adding some highly dubious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It makes claims about what scientists think which are just not true; most scientists who have worked in the area have no "weirdness" issues. It's math. Slightly different reason to delete, same vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it even relevant to the discussion that "most scientists who have worked in the area" have no issues? Some of the most notable ones clearly did have their issues, like Einstein with several aspects of QM, as expressed in his qualification spukhafte Fernwirkungen, and his statement, Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt. Scientists working in the area are not immune to the limitations of human intuition as shaped by evolution and everyday experience; if they have no issues, it is because they set their intuition aside when doing science. While true and probably sourceable, this is, however, not of direct relevance to the topic of the article.
    The intended article (now still a stub) is not about alternative mathematical formalisms (which are, by the way, not always fully equivalent with vanilla Copenhagen), but about the clash between human intuition and the best available fundamental physical theory. This is an entirely different topic than covered by our "Interpretations" article.
    There are, nevertheless, some connections with the "interpretations" that are worth documenting, since some interpretations of QM were obviously inspired by the desire to interpret some of the weirdness away. In the pilot wave theory there are no cats that are both alive and dead. But it does not imply and cannot explain the Born rule, so it is not mathematically equivalent. The mathematical formulation developed by Hugh Everett III in his PhD thesis is mathematically equivalent. Not so for its popularization as the many-worlds interpretation, which again does away with cats that are simultaneously alive and dead but likewise cannot explain the Born rule. Everett himself considered this transmogrification of his formal mathematical theory "bullshit".[28]  --Lambiam 07:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics which already discusses the non-definition aspects of the article in more detail. Any content that is missing from the redirect target could be merged, but I don't see any. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this is still a stub, not a fully developed article.  --Lambiam 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than a definition, what content would be here that would not be appropriate at Interpretations of quantum mechanics? There are many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics largely because it is "weird". Walsh90210 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but probably change it entirely? I don't see a reason not to have an article on the book titled Quantum Weirdness, but if the book itself doesn't meet requirements for notability, maybe just Delete. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cassie., you are "voting" both Keep and Delete? If you are not certain on Wikipedia's standards for notability, it's best to not participate in an AFD discussion than to give a contradictory opinion that doesn't help a closer assess consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. I'm familiar with the guidelines, I'm just not familiar with the book. Love, Cassie. (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Briefly, quantum weirdness is a thing referred to both in scientific publishing (and prepublishing) as well as the science communication press. I don't think the present article does a great job explaining it, but that's a signal it should be improved rather than deleted. Folly Mox (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Draftify. Although the article is not quite ready for mainspace, there is no policy-based reason for deletion either. WP:NOTDIC does not seem to apply, since the article is not written like a dictionary entry. What perhaps irritates the editors is the way it is presented as a fact that quantum mechanics is "weird". In the introduction of Philip Ball's book (cited in the article), 'Quantum weirdness' is actually called a trope, and Ball quite critical of portraying quantum mechanics in this fashion. To achieve a WP:NPOV, this kind of views should be included. This is not an easy subject to write an encyclopedic article about (as opposed to an essay) and draftspace should provide time for that. If, instead of draftifying, there is a consensus to redirect the article somewhere, then I suggest Introduction to quantum mechanics which matches the content of the current article quite well. See the second paragraph in the introduction of that article, and compare the list in Quantum weirdness to the section titles. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was created in Oct 2022 so I think technically it is too late to draftify (WP:AFDTODRAFT). Also, we have a "moving target" page here. The one AfD'd was WP:DICTDEF; that as of 24 May is IMO WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Of course rules can be broken and the article draftified. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing this out. I've somewhat reluctantly changed my vote to weak keep, as I don't find it completely implausible that an article discussing the alleged counter-intuitiveness of QM could be written from the available sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:27, 27 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 11:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Society Sons of the American Colonists

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

Could not find any independent, reliable sources covering this group. Toadspike (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing comes up in a WP:BEFORE search and article cites only the subject's own sources. Notability is not WP:INHERITED from National Society Daughters of the American Colonists. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:59, 13 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 11:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth Dodecaphonics

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

No significant coverage found. Toadspike (talk) 09:58, 12 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 no consensus‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 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 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.

      The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."

      The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."

    2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.

      The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."

    3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.

      The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."

    4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.

      The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
    1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
    2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
    It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
    1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.

      The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.

      "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.

      "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."

    2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.

      The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"

    Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:

  1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
  2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
  3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
  4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: You said:
Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT
I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad choice of words on my part. I will admit that as it does not literally say that. I am going off what it says here "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)" - I take that (and it has been fairly consistent in NCORP AfD discussions) to mean the company must be the main topic.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your own quotation specifies an exception if the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself – NCORP, far from requiring something must be "the main topic" of the article in question, explicitly notes the opposite: an article with a different main topic still demonstrates notability if it devotes "significant attention" to the topic under scrutiny. – Teratix ₵ 04:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is assuming the software is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's been more than adequately demonstrated by the sources. – Teratix ₵ 04:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 12 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 keep per WP:CSK #3: no accurate deletion rationale has been provided‎. (non-admin closure) Remsense诉 08:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Mao Zedong

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

Except for Mao Zedong, no other celebrity has his early life clearly written in the main article and has to open a separate article Coddlebean (talk) 09:26, 12 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 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo

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

The company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find anything like a suitable source to prove notability, and there are none among the feeble refs in the article. The thing looks like a confection worked up by a paid editor or employee of the company, all fluff and no substance. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 19 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 Electronic stability control#Regulation. Keep arguments need to explain more clearly why they feel it meets GNG, not simply say that the article meets it. Most failed to do that. There is some consensus to remove this article. When there is not consensus within that on whether to delete or redirect, it is prudent to go with the less destructive option. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [29] [30] [31]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or WP:ATD Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards#Crash avoidance both of which cover the subject. There are literally hundreds of these individual regulations, evidenced with the above Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Title 49 has around 35 regulations under "Crash avoidance", "Crashworthiness" with approximately 27 regulations, "Post-crash survivability" with five regulations, "Miscellaneous" with five regulations, "Other regulations relating to transportation" with approximately 54 "parts". Per The slippery slope is creating hundreds of dictionary type entries with mainly primary sourcing, at the expense of the parent articles. Per Reywas92 Individual regulations rarely need their own articles. The actual concept is supposed to be that there is "significant coverage" in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a "whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", referred to as a permastub. Just because Wikipedia allegedly has unlimited space does not mean every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. At a point, if an individual subject grows large enough then a split should be discussed. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of individual regulations is not excessively large. Hundreds of regulations is nothing compared to the 6 million articles we already have, or the hundreds of millions of topics that probably satisfy GNG. In any event, no one is arguing that all the regulations should have an article. We are only arguing that the regulations that satisfy GNG should have articles. And right now we are only arguing that this one regulation satisfies GNG, which means that right now we are only arguing for exactly one article. The slippery slope fallacy is not a reason for deletion or merger. In this case, the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects. The article does not violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY in its present form. It is not a definition or a dictionary entry. In any event, the article can be expanded far beyond a definition. The sourcing is not primary. Reywas92 is not a policy or guideline. There is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The article is not half a paragraph or a definition, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. The article is not a permastub, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. No one has argued that every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. We have argued that topics that satisfy GNG are presumed to merit an article. Insisting on waiting until the parent article actually reaches 8,000 words is bound to result in the article becoming seriously unbalanced (WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). That is one of the reasons that we don't try to stuff and stuff and stuff lots of notable topics into a single article. James500 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The number of individual regulations is not excessively large" Maybe not U.S. motor vehicles regulations, but internationally among all subjects there are – hundreds of thousand of regulations do not need articles. "capable of being expanded". So is the main article. There's simply no need to have this separate page at this point, regardless of your hypothetical of who would write articles on individual regulations. The sources you added are highly technical papers that I do not believe are particularly conducive for an article here. The article could easily have a "Testing procedures" section as well. "article becoming seriously unbalanced" There is no indication that this will happen and we can still split before that point. Reywas92Talk 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The total number of regulations on all subjects worldwide is irrelevant: not all regulations are equal. The USA is a large country with a correspondingly large number of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle safety is one of more important subjects on which regulations are made (because of the risk to life and property). US motor vehicle safety regulations are likely to receive more coverage than regulations from smaller countries on less important subjects. For example, a commencement order from Tuvalu (population 11,900) is not going receive anything remotely like the kind of coverage that US motor vehicle safety regulations are going to receive. The correct approach is to create standalone articles on those regulations that actually satisfy GNG. There is no evidence that an excessive number of regulations satisfy GNG. (There is no evidence that the number of regulations that do actually satisfy GNG is actually "hundreds of thousands" or even remotely close to that.) In fact, the number of regulations that satisfy GNG is, by definition, the number that is not excessive for our purposes. The point is that no one is arguing for a standalone article on every regulation in the world, we are only arguing for articles on the regulations that satisfy GNG. I think the three articles that I linked to above, and the rest of the 270 sources in Google Scholar, are conducive to an article on this regulation. James500 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So write it. The vast majority of those sources are brief mentions of the regulation or sine with dwell test, which are perfectly conducive for inclusion in the main article for appropriate context of development and testing of electronic stability control. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per JoelleJay below, based on quality of sourcing. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Electronic_stability_control#Regulation: where it is already covered in as much detail as is encyclopedically warranted. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted. Simply claiming that something is "unencyclopedic" is one of the arguments to avoid listed in the essay WP:ATA. James500 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a section of the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states the following: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I invite you to reconsider the accuracy of your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has argued that more detail should be included "solely because it is true or useful". More detail can be included without the article ceasing to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". James500 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted which is not a correct statement, as written it could be justification for articles of infinite length. And all you've managed to do thus far is add one sentence about a "sine with dwell test" (whatever on earth that even means). What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) are sources that give significant coverage to the regulation. What more is there to be said about this regulation? If it can't be expanded beyond a stub it clearly should be redirected to Electronic stability control#regulation per WP:NOPAGE (and that's even generously assuming the regulation is notable, which has yet to be demonstrated either). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are twisting my words. The statement "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted" does not mean what you claim it means. As far as NOTEVERYTHING is concerned, it is a correct statement because that policy does not forbid the inclusion of "more detail" that is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I did not say "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". If I had meant to say "even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" I would have said so in express words. There is no policy, guideline or consensus that forbids "more detail" only because it is more detail. James500 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already supplied you with sources that satisfy GNG including [32] [33] [34] and others. What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) is any explanation of why the coverage in these sources is allegedly not significant, or why the additional information they contain about this regulation should allegedly not be added to the article. James500 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you had actually read those sources, you would know what the Sine with Dwell test is. James500 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, no problem.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Tens of thousands of engineering papers reference the technical standards that their study subjects must meet; this is routine and does not mean each standard warrants a standalone article. Further, a ResearchGate preprint (not RS) and a technical paper by a company with clear financial involvement with FMVSS regulations do not count towards GNG. We cannot be basing our coverage of federal regulations on what the commercial entities being regulated say about them, that is not going to be NPOV. The most relevant content is already present on the suggested page where it is better contextualized. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 29 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. The arguments to delete are a lot stronger than those to keep, with the one exception of Culllen's suggestion that this be pruned to a list of notable publications; and even there, other editors point out that such a list may duplicate existing articles. The usefulness of this list as a resource for editors is not a persuasive argument at AfD, though I would gladly provide a userspace copy for anyone who wishes to turn this into a project-space resource. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watch Tower Society publications

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

This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the deletion. If one wants a list of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, one can visit the official website. (I know that not every publication ist available there. However, the existence of secret publications like Shepherd the Flock of God is easily found on the Internet. To include this big list just because of the few secret ones is disproportionate.) Junkönig (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the publications are listed in the Watch Tower Publications Index, which is ‘on the official website’ but isn’t prominently featured, nor in a particularly helpful format, and it isn’t as straightforwardly accessible as suggested here. Only recent publications are prominently featured on the official site, and none of the early works.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence
"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands
"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."
So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It became evident at the previous AfD 9 years ago that most of the editors in the JW WikiProject group considered the page to be a useful resource. Hence my suggestion at this time to instead move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. Also, do you still have exactly the same opinions about everything as you did 9 years ago?—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, obviously people can change their opinions over time. I was just curious what exactly made you change your mind since you believed that this page should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR back then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also said in the previous AfD that the list of publications is available from the JW website. However, the official site omits the existence of some literature (e.g., the elders’ manuals). Additionally, for various reasons, some editors might be reluctant to use the JW official website. But as previously indicated, it may be better as a subpage of the WikiProject.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to create subpages at the JW WikiProject, I'm not going to try and stop you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your pointy response runs counter to my suggestion to move the page as a possible option for the AfD. As such, I have created the subpage separately.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to be pointy. I didn't say anything initially because an AfD doesn't need to happen for a WikiProject to do its thing but you kept bringing it up so I figured actually saying this would be helpful. I was literally just pointing out that you didn't need my (or anyone else's permission) to do what you wanted to do there. Maybe it would've been less likely to be misconstrued if I had stated I had no objections? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be less likely to be misconstrued if your response was consistent with the fact that I suggested moving the page into the WikiProject namespace as an outcome of the AfD. That is still the preferred option in order to retain the page history. Moving this article into the other namespace is intrinsic to the purpose of the AfD, and necessarily requires ‘permission’ here for it to be done properly.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—On the basis that the nominator has specifically stated that there is no intention to challenge the creation of the subpage in the JW WikiProject as a resource for editors, I would in that case not be opposed to deleting the copy in the article namespace. (However, it is preferable that this page be moved to the other namespace to retain the page history.)—Jeffro77 Talk 13:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to something like List of notable Watch Tower Society publications (emphasis added). An inclusion criterion requiring that the publications entered on the list are the subject of acceptable Wikipedia articles instantly transforms the list from a sprawling hodge-podge into something of encyclopedic value. Alumni lists and many other lists prone to indiscriminate growth routinely have this type of inclusion criteria, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense in the context of a page in the article namespace, but it would kind of defeat the purpose of the usefulness of the list as a resource for editors. I have therefore changed my previous '!vote' from 'Keep or move to WikiProject namespace' to only the latter. We already have Jehovah's Witnesses publications for expanded information about notable literature.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to trimming or reworking. Once we've decided that Watch Tower Society publications are notable, it's an editorial decision whether to list them, and then another editorial decision whether to spin that list out from the main article. I would buy that, if there were only a dozen or so publications, then they would all be listed in the main article. Given that there are many, I don't see a problem with splitting the list off into its own article. I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, which is what's required for NLIST (it doesn't require every item on the list to be included in said groupings). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I understand your rationale here, but I suppose my other concern is what we should do about Jehovah's Witnesses publications then? Maybe a really really selective merge between the two pages? If we do do that, it'd be useful to be clear what exactly we are merging. Or a redirect? The latter's purpose was intended to be what you describe so it doesn't make sense to have two duplicative lists. As for Watchtower Society publications as a group... secondary sources rarely go into detail. They tend to only mention a small handful of them (typically the The Watchtower, Awake!, Shepherd the Flock of God, and the New World Translation) and not be nearly anything as extensive as this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: I would like to refute what you say here: I would also be shocked if there weren't plenty of sources which discuss Watch Tower Society publications as a group, see Vyselink's comment above. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but I'm fairly certain about this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The best source I can find dealing with this subject would be this, which expresses a similar sentiment to Knox above in the first few pages and would imply that sources about JW publications as a group don't really exist. This could be used as a source for the handful of publications it mentions, though. These are:
    • The Watchtower and Awake!
    • The Secret to Family Happiness
    • Questions Young People Ask
    • Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses
    • Jehovah's Witnesses: Proclaimers of God's Kingdom
    • Reasoning from the Scriptures
    • Knowledge that Leads to Everlasting Life.
    I think that past this point it's probably best for me to step down and refrain from further discussion. I will respond to any direct inquiries if one wishes to make them but I don't want to discourage further participation from others who may have other arguments. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'd ask how anyone writing in-depth about the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses would avoid doing a literature review of Watch Tower Society publications, covering many of them as a group? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: People writing in-depth about the Witnesses aren't doing literature reviews as far as I can tell. I've spent a lot of time improving the JW topic area and replacing citations to primary sources with secondary ones. For my work on the Jehovah's Witnesses article itself, this has meant citing George Chryssides repeatedly. He rarely goes beyond reviewing literature outside of the Watchtower and Awake!. Essentially everyone I've ever read who studies the Witnesses takes that approach, occasionally referencing other publications where necessary. But it's always a very small handful and nothing like this list. If I had to guess why, I would say it's because you don't need to look at every JW publication to learn about their beliefs. They're largely duplicative to each other, content-wise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the info, Clovermoss (here and on my usertalk). While I'm surprised there aren't more literature reviews of JW publications, it's not something I can see myself doing a deep dive into to properly support my keep !vote in the near future. Content to strike my !vote and defer to what you've found. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am most swayed by Clovermoss's arguments. I considered !voting to move to WP space, but upon further consideration, it seems inappropriate to preserve an index of sources that are pretty much guaranteed to be primary and unreliable for any material they cover. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 28 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 Userify‎. There was agreement that the article should be removed from mainspace, but consensus formed around making selections from the article available to Teratix (talk · contribs) for incorporation into his analytics article. I have moved the article to User:Teratix/AFL_Tables, please drop a line on my talk page when you wish it to be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Tables

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

Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."
(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)
As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a view to creating a redirect to the statistics article once Teratix has moved their draft to mainspace (or it is otherwise created). It is regrettable that such an important RS doesn't meet GNG or WEBCRIT but there is simply no SIGCOV. Aspirex - I think a Template:Anchor would do the trick. And there are ~12,000 transclusions of Template:AFL Tables that could conceivably link there!
Triptothecottage (talk) 04:26, 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! 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per TarnishedPath. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 19 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 Ultraman Taiga characters. Owen× ☎ 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Tregear

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to cast votes, but if the consensus brings to delete, I would like to suggest an alternative by redirecting Ultraman Tregear to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. I can compress and salvage whatever remains from this page to their appropriate articles. Zero stylinx (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the suggestion of redirection? Please remember not to bludgeon an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus after the previous two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:27, 12 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia national football team

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

Silesia is not a country, so it cannot be this. Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here, and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia.
The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question.
Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 26 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! 00:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep could be improved, but the topic is notable - can easily tell by looking at German and Polish language articles, though the Polish one is under sourced by English standards. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:25, 12 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Munir (cricketer)

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination, but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think by referring to the prior AFD, AA is implying that their rationale there still applies: 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep read the last AFD, fully concur with the keep voters there. Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about the relisting while taking no sides: On the one hand, the sock suggestion is serious. On the other hand, all information as of this relisting comes only from a single source: CricketArchive. Even if the self-proclaimed "most comprehensive, searchable and trusted cricket database in the world" turns out to be valid and reliable, a notable individual should pop up in other sources as well. If other valid sources worth adding exist, great. If not, that may pose a problem. It would be nice for this not to end in another "no consensus" again so soon after the last one. I'm saying this here because it seems a bit long for a formal relisting comment. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the last AFD (should not have been renominated so soon and I question how the nom came across it) and my rationale there. We need to use common sense. Unless someone can prove that some source from the era in Pakistan was searched in, then one cannot claim that this fails GNG – from my comment at the last AFD: it does seem the best option to be on the side of [common sense] for someone who seems ... to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport. It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. I also question how four valid "keeps" plus one "delete from a sock" – which should be given no weight – equals "relist"... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and as of today the IP has not been blocked. Consensus changes and one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy. [User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the IP has not been blocked does not mean the almost certain sock should be given full weight. Common sense is absolutely a policy. Also, if you think my concerns about the nom are unfounded, would you tell me exactly how you came across this article, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AOBF. I also wasn't referring to that vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What were you referring to, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I guess I missed the "one of" part from "one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy" – though I think the !vote implied that the rationale of keeping per common sense at the last AFD still applied, as I said above. Still think AA's !vote should be given weight. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: CricketArchive is a directory, not a secondary source. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a flimsy argument at the best of times, but for a BLP, it's a non-argument. Without independent secondary sources providing SIGCOV for this BLP, we don't really have any options. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Full two relists seems appropriate given the relatively recent, prior no consensus outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CricketArchive is a stats directory; every single one of the sources cited for this BLP is a prose-less table of primary data and therefore is unacceptable per N, OR, and BLP (Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.) . Per NSPORT, the burden is on those wanting to keep to establish there is high likelihood of the subject meeting GNG; to do that, NSPORT requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article. No one has demonstrated such a source exists in the 4+ weeks + 60 days this subject has been in focus. IAR is meant to be employed in exceptional circumstances, not for literally every athlete meeting some participation criterion who "might" have offline sources, which is how it is regularly being used by certain keep !voters. If playing some number of first-class domestic matches -- which are not the top tier of cricket -- was a reasonable threshold for presuming GNG we would have guidelines stating as much rather than a guideline explicitly stating that sufficient coverage is not expected for that level of play: Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket,[a] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.
At some point the repeated invocation of deprecated notability guidelines disguised as IAR becomes disruptive. !Votes that are devoid of any P&G basis -- and especially ones that actively defy P&Gs -- should not just be automatically given weight, much less elevated to the same weight as P&G-based !votes, any time the !voter mentions the magic phrase "IAR". That completely defeats the purpose of consensus policy stating Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s funny that JoelleJay suggests that Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight, but seems to forget that WP:IAR in fact IS A POLICY, and the fundamental policy behind one of Wikipedia’s five pillars. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions (emphasis mine). Having an article on a person who played 64 matches at the highest domestic level can easily be considered one of these exceptions. Frank Anchor 22:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your claim is that IAR, which is supposed to be just as exceptional at AfD as it is everywhere else, must be applied to everyone playing some arbitrary number of matches at the highest domestic level (which would be 23, not 64) in Pakistan, despite 1) participation-based criteria explicitly being deprecated by global consensus; 2) the requirement for a SIGCOV source cited in all sportsperson bios, regardless of subject location or time period, receiving overwhelming global support; 3) the guidelines written by the cricket project itself explicitly stating playing at this level requires proof of coverage to even warrant the same presumption of GNG coverage existing afforded to Test cricketers; 4) NO ONE finding a single hint of a source in either the first AfD or this one; 5) NO ONE demonstrating why we can presume 23 first-class matches in Pakistan corresponds to SIGCOV; and 6) zero evidence being presented to explain why this page in particular, consisting exclusively of some unremarkable blandly-prosified stats that AA chose to emphasize and synthesize based on his interpretation of multiple sources of primary data, is so essential to Wikipedia that our POLICY of Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. and our POLICY that BLPs only rely on primary sources when they have already been discussed by secondary sources (Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.) and our POLICY that The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies can be overridden because some editors have decided that per IAR PoLiCY we can completely ignore Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies.
Please tell me where Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. says consensus in a particular case can suspend multiple guidelines, let alone multiple policies, and be so utterly non-specific to the attributes of the actual subject that this precise reasoning for a "one-time suspension" could be (and will be) deployed for literally dozens of other subjects. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I never stated or implied Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. Nor has any other keep !voter implied this. Also, IAR is not a guideline or editors' consensus but rather a policy. So your WP:WALLOFTEXT leading to the argument that content policies can't be superseded by local consensus or guidelines, while correct, is irrelevant in this application. Frank Anchor 19:37, 28 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 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election

2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to 2027 when we have actual sources discussing the election. Soni (talk) 07:39, 12 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. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 11:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election

2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to 2027 when we have actual sources discussing the election.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries for a similar recent AFD Soni (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now noticed a series of articles under the Template:Next Indian elections. I was not aware of the remaining articles, and the standard to call them "Next". I'm not now unsure if there's a broader consensus at play; if not, one should be established. Either will make deleting all early "Next articles" easier, or we could add talk page notes to not nominate any of them for deletion. Soni (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the template also got tagged for deletion separately, here's all the next election articles from the template; these may need revisiting if this AFD closes as Delete - Next Assam Legislative Assembly election, Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election
The articles this probably does not affect are -
Next Bihar Legislative Assembly election and Next Delhi Legislative Assembly election (probably in 2025), Next Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election (probably in 2026). All of them already have RS discussing them Soni (talk) 12:29, 17 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of constituencies of Gujarat

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

There is no specific list for the parliamentary constituencies in Gujarat, only the list for the legislative assembly constituencies in Gujarat exists. Thus disambiguation page is not needed. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 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! 23:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Shield

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. PROD previously contested by the now-banned Neelix with "try Google News search" - I did, and I found either nothing or unrelated topics * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2013-02 ✗ PROD ← 2012-02 ✗ G10 ← 2011-01 ✗ A7
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it's been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only information found was user-generated content; other hits were irrelevant (e.g. Spectrum's security service, which goes by the same name). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There seem to be some newer software packages that use this name, but there is nothing about this particular incarnation. I can't see anything we'd use, even what's now used for sourcing are mentions only. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 12 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 23:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Defender

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-01 ✗ PROD
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 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) 05:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only see how-to remove guides and forum posts on goods. Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG in any shape or form. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:44, 12 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 keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HijackThis

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability. Previous AfD was kept due to people sharing their own testimonials of how it helped them, which is just not how notability works. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2006-11 (closed as ✓ Keep)
Related discussions: 2010-08 Merijn Bellekom (closed as redirect to HijackThis) ← 2006-12 Wssecure (closed as ✗ delete) ← 2005-07 Help2Go Detective (closed as MERGE and REDIRECT)
Logs: 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 May 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) 05:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has had clear historical significance and has been site of lots of reviews (passes WP:NSOFT criterion 3): [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:58, 12 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anumta Qureshi

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Lollywood newbie Anumta Qureshi lights up internet with new bold photos". 24 News HD. July 29, 2022.
  • Could you share some reputable sources that can confirm she held significant roles? I'd prefer not to rely on sources known for publishing sensational clickbait to garner traffic. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*::information Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Enough, Saqib. More of this casting aspersions will result in a block. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I've retracted my comment. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz, I think Saqib did this in response to one of my comments, so I apologize for any role I had in provoking this. I've replied to him clarifying what my advice was (i.e. talk more generally, and don't single out editors). Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:24, 15 May 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) 05:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article are name mentions, promo, interviews, nothing meeting WP:SIRS, BEFORE found similar, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I was here, I took a look at this article and the sourcing is... poor... to put it lightly. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:17, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe)

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

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Mutta tribe definitely exists, i've been able to find some mentions of them on JSTOR and Google Scholar. Samoht27 (talk) 23:05, 30 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) 05:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources on the page and a simple search did not show result on a Mutta tribe. I did find a Google book that talks about Muttadari System of Bhagatha tribe but that is different than the tribe on the page. Some more sources about Muttas in Australia. I did not find any source that would give an option to draftify the page for improvement. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't pass general notability guidelines. Based Kashmiri TALK 10:06, 19 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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vida Loka II

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 27 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) 05:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 12 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 keep‎. No other editors agree with the Delete analysis of the sources, that they are MILL covererage. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGBS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 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! 04:45, 28 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) 05:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, The new sources seem to be enough to say that it at the very least was notable enough in it’s early history to justify keeping it, but due to it being from a very specific point, I’m have to keep it at semi-weak. Danubeball (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, I decided to say that this station probably does have the coverage to continue being on Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The coverage from the 1990s added by Sammi meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG, nothing in the article or found in BEFORE shows anything meeting WP:SIRS. BEFORE found promo, ads, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Technical data, fails WP:SIRS 1. "Facility Technical Data for WGBS-LD". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission.
Mill news about new programming, fails WP:SIRS 2. ^ Harville, Bobbie (November 10, 1994). "Inspirational TV: Genesis TV 7 brings new line of family shows". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. Y6. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about station changing signal 3. ^ Knemeyer, Nelda L. (April 27, 1995). "Genesis TV7 changing signal, adding new markets". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. N7. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about station struggles 4. ^ Jump up to:a b Nicholson, David (May 14, 1998). "Station strruggling [sic] to stay on cable lineup: Hampton owners confer with NAACP". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. C4. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Mill news about lineup change 5. ^ Nicholson, David (October 10, 1998). "WPEN burned by Cox decision to change lineup". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. p. D1. Retrieved April 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
FCC database record 6. ^ "Transfers #170659". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission. November 22, 2021.
Database record, fails WP:SIRS 7. ^ RabbitEars TV Query for WGBS
 // Timothy :: talk  18:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I understand that the article may well never grow much beyond where it is now, but I do think that sources 3-5 are sufficient squeak by on significant coverage, which I think was the only issue here. I disagree that these are promo/ad pieces; they read as normal coverage of a regional station to me. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:35, 20 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. I'm sorry but we need policy-based reasons to consider when deciding whether to Keep or Delete an article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Kabobo

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. The only reason this musician got coverage from the media (both RS and non-RS) is because of his death, which falls between WP:BLP1E (recently died) or WP:BIO1E. It’s all about his death and nothing else. Nothing to establish notability on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep this article.The reason is because this person was very notable when he was living, its unfortunate that little information has been written about him in the internet era, but he is really notable in Ghana, his death is not the reason why we have much publication about him, but rather it's his contributions he made to the Ghanaian music industry,kindly keep the article as we continue to make improvement to the article.08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Jwale2 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 12 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Pretorius

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 21 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) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing enough sustained coverage to justify GNG, including in the links above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 28 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! 06:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am satisfied the subject meets SPORTSPERSON with at least one article which directly details the subject (Rugbyfan22's news24.com source). The rest, while all routine sports business coverage (rosters, games), supports notability. This is WAAY more sourcing than most sportspeople I come across in these processes. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 14 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! 23:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of IT Training

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources could be found either under the name "Institute of IT Training" or its apparent new name "Learning & Performance Institute". I know it's not relevant to notability, but the article reads like an advertisement and is borderline WP:G11 despite having 63 revisions over 14 years. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A09|(talk) 10:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 12 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 Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces of Peru. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ENAPU

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Article on a small company formed in 1970 with just "it exists" type info. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I am currently unable to review this nomination individually, but in the event that the deadline passes before I am able to do so, I would like to request that the page be redirected to Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces of Peru as a section which includes enough coverage of this and similar entities can be created. AlejandroFC (talk) 20:07, 30 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! 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 12 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 Metropolitano (Lima). Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirón de la Unión (Metropolitano)

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

This bus stop is not notable. The sources only give passing coverage at best. Should be redirected to Metropolitano (Lima). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 28 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! 06:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While this is certainly not a policy-based reason to delete, just take a look at the photo of the stop in the infobox--it should be obvious that this is not a notable stop in and of itself. No real sources to be found, and the eswiki article doesn't provide any helpful sources, either. The street itself, however, does appear to be notable (the street is what's covered in most of the sources if you do a search), and that could also be a possible redirect/(small) merge target. Bestagon ⬡ 01:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 12 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 no consensus‎. This has already gotten relisted twice to generate more discussion and clear consensus. No discussion has been generated. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bell (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 12 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AHRC New York City

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

WP:NORG and WP:GNG. No independent sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search. Daask (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:SIGCOV. Google scholar yields a number of scholarly sources that are paywalled. In particular, there's a book "State Association for Retarded Children and New York State Government" which is not available online. Archive.org also has a lot of hits but many of them are unavailable for borrowing. I was able to find at least two multi-paragraph treatments of the article subject (plus the Autism one which is brief). It gets a lot of mentions on archive - there's probably more significant coverage out there.
Oblivy (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have to agree per se especially with this source. Its true that non-profit corps doesn't usually get notable except with PR, etc. (some of them I mean). However, this came from a origin, a history and even if it is one boo that is verifiable, let the article be kept for further improvements. The matter is that WP:NEXIST. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:46, 18 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! 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge window

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

Essentially a WP:DICDEF that has been insufficiently sourced for over 8 years, and the only "source" provided is a forum post. If this concept is at all notable, then it can just be a one-sentence mention in software development process. ZimZalaBim talk 14:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 22:49, 12 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 11:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Stapelberg

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Three sentences here was the best I found. JTtheOG (talk) 07:02, 12 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. Since this title hasn't been used before, I find the case for SALTing it to be weak. However, I will keep the page on my watchlist, and act if need. Owen× ☎ 08:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kourage Beatz

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

First off, this is a hoax. It has been recreated by different accounts and most recently speedy deleted as Tochi Bright Clement by Vanderwaalforces. The sock case of this user is still ongoing here. This should be Deleted and Salt. There's no evidence of notability, the reliable sources listed never mentioned this subject except for the press release sources and user generated sources. @T.C.G. [talk] 05:17, 12 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 merge‎ to 2012 New South Wales local elections. I found the Keep (="Oppose") views to be largely not based on P&G. Owen× ☎ 08:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 New South Wales mayoral elections

2012 New South Wales mayoral elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. I have not found significant coverage of this topic. Also fails WP:NOTDB; including all of the results for all of the mayoral elections would make this page massive. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Including each mayoral result (about 50 in total) would only make the page about the same size as Results of the 2022 Australian federal election in New South Wales or 2021 New South Wales mayoral elections, hardly "massive" by Wiki standards Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third entry in WP:CSC provides a good metric for when a list gets into WP:NOTDB territory. That guideline states that "[s]hort, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" may be appropriate. However, such lists "should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)". The list is already 12k of wikitext from 2 entries; 50 entries would far exceed that limit. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Auspol wiki has been notoriously poor at recording local elections despite a wealth of information about them being available, and recording all results would see the page be as large if not smaller than most other auspol results pages. NSW is also the largest state and its mayors are generally very notable & attract a lot of media attention. Goodebening (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The page clearly states how the mayoral elections are part of the local elections, they are notable enough to split the page for results It would be messier to embed these results in the "List of mayors of [LGA]" if they weren't on this page AmNowEurovision (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per consistency with other mayoral elections. I don't really see a point in merging this page but keeping all of the other mayoral ones separate. Additionally, this page is clearly large enough to warrant an article in its own right; merging would only make parsing through these articles more tedious. Loytra (talk) 11:01, 16 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! 03:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kenny (rugby league)

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than routine transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are a few more articles on him signing for Salford - Total RL, BBC Sport - basically the same as the Sky Sports article, nothing of note. For Swinton there is very little - this one from March 2017 is as good as it gets: [44], after that just passing mentions or Thatto Heath match reports in the local paper. EdwardUK (talk) 20:51, 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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time. BD2412 T 02:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora, Washington

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

This was a declined PROD. The third source (forte) is just a list of post offices, and doesn't provide proof of population center since many post offices were in rural areas, and had names that weren't always the same as the place. GNIS (source 1) is unreliable for classification of towns. The second source provides 3 refs for this "town" [45] [46] [47]. Those sources don't mention a town of Cora, but a post office called Cora. Further research shows that the Cora post office serviced the Upper Big Bottom area of Lewis county [48](see pg 253). A newspaper article from 2002 further stated that it was a post office (look down toward the bottom of the first column) [49] James.folsom (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Looking at google maps, there is still quite a few houses located at the location, so it would be considered an "unincorporated community", it is also part of the "Mary’s Corner to Upper Naches Valley" Tour.[1] There is also a bridge a the location named Cora Bridge. (link to view bridge: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cora+Bridge/@46.5348379,-121.7968308,748m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x5496da37cca18657:0xbecd0da45ab1a054!8m2!3d46.5348342!4d-121.7942559!16s%2Fg%2F1tx4p20y?entry=ttu) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Revisiting Washington — Cora". revisitwa.org. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:59, 19 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Kizito

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:58, 19 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 11:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham, Inc.

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

Fails WP:CORP. Found only one independent source with in-depth coverage: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/gothaminc. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 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! 04:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:27, 12 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 08:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fish market (Nouakchott)

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

The Nouakchott fish market, though often highlighted in travel guides covering the city, doesn't possess the sufficient secondary coverage, distinctive traits, or historical importance required for a Wikipedia article. The potential for substantial expansion beyond a rudimentary description is minimal. Mooonswimmer 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hudson, Peter (1990). "The fish market". Travels in Mauritania. London: Virgin Books. ISBN 978-1-85227-127-5. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      Chapter 5 of the book begins on page 57 and is called "The fish market". The Google Snippet view of the book notes: "The fish market. I had been in the habit now and again of going to the fish market on the beach outside Nouakchott. I would take one of the shared taxis out there, small green Renaults seemingly held together more by the determination of their drivers than by anything else. ... Immediately a fierce wind would hit the side of the taxi, veering it across the road to just miss a pick-up truck returning from the fish market with twenty-five people standing hugged together in the back, which fortunately had been on a westward lurch itself at the same moment, and accordingly we did not crash. ..."

    2. Learoussy, Hana Youssef; Tfeil, H.; Dartige, Ali Yahya; Aarab, Lotfi (2020). "Empirical analysis of halieutic products marketing system in Nouakchott". Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Studies. Vol. 1, no. 1. Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University. pp. 37–52. ISSN 2605-7565. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article is also available here. The abstract notes: "This paper examines the marketing system for fish products at the Nouakchott fish market."

      The journal article notes: "The Nouakchott fish market is the largest market for halieutic products and one of the focal points for fishermen landing on the west coast of the capital. ... The choice of the Nouakchott fish market as a study area has been adopted one by its geographical position which is located near the center of the capital, and other by, the seat of the majority and the largest factories of processing of fishing products (wholesalers). ... There is at market level an external facility consisting of bench dedicated to retailers and people responsible for scaling fish, and a building (headquarters of semi-wholesalers) consisting of storage rooms products in large enough quantity. In the same zone, there are 12 wholesalers (private fish processing factories), these factories are private establishments that process, package and store halieutic products before exporting them. ... Table 1 describe the different species inventoried by the survey and marketed in Nouakchott fish market (during the investigationthe species names were presented in French, mostly in Wolof language because it’s most known between merchants cause of the dominance of this ethnic group between fisher)."

    3. "Une délégation de la Banque Mondiale se rend au marché aux poissons de Nouakchott" [A delegation from the World Bank went to the Nouakchott fish market] (in French). Mauritanian News Agency. 2020-02-24. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "Une délégation de la Banque Mondiale, présidée par Mme Deborah L. Wetzel, directrice de l’intégration régionale pour l’Afrique, le Moyen-Orient et l’Afrique du Nord, s’est rendue lundi, au marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, où elle s’est rendue dans les hangars d’étal des produits et à la plage de débarquement des pirogues de pêche traditionnelle. ... Dans le cadre du soutien des infrastructures du secteur de la pêche, une enceinte d’une longueur de 3,5 km et composée d’une grande entrée et de 5 voies de sortie a été réalisée autour de l’aire maritime du marché de poissons de Nouakchott. ... Le programme a également financé la consolidation de l’énergie électrique du marché, au moyen de l’installation de 5 stations et d’un réseau d’éclairage public, un réseau d’adduction en eau et la construction de 300 habitations pour les habitants résidant au marché et qui sont au nombre de 8.000 personnes."

      From Google Translate: "A delegation from the World Bank, chaired by Ms. Deborah L. Wetzel, director of regional integration for Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, visited the Nouakchott fish market on Monday, where she visited the product stalls and the landing beach for traditional fishing canoes. ... As part of supporting infrastructure for the fishing sector, a 3.5 km long enclosure consisting of a large entrance and 5 exit routes was built around the maritime area of the fish market. from Nouakchott. The program also financed the consolidation of the market's electrical energy, through the installation of 5 stations and a public lighting network, a water supply network and the construction of 300 homes for residents. residing at the market and numbering 8,000 people."

    4. "Mauritanie: la pénurie de poisson s'aggrave à Nouakchott" [Mauritania: fish shortage worsens in Nouakchott] (in French). Radio France Internationale. 2019-08-23. Archived from the original on 2020-02-22. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "Le principal marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, généralement très animé, est affecté par la baisse de ses activités de pêche. Des centaines de pirogues sont immobilisées sur le rivage depuis la Tabaski, qui a occasionné le départ massif des pécheurs mauritaniens et sénégalais, partis dans leurs familles pour la fête de l’Aïd el-Kébir. En nombre réduit, les pécheurs restés en activité ne peuvent pas assurer l’approvisionnement régulier du marché."

      From Google Translate: "The main fish market in Nouakchott, usually very lively, is affected by the decline in its fishing activities. Hundreds of canoes have been immobilized on the shore since Tabaski, which caused the massive departure of Mauritanian and Senegalese fishermen, who left to return to their families for the Eid el-Kébir celebration. In reduced numbers, the fishermen who remain active cannot ensure regular supplies to the market."

    5. Mills, Greg; Herbst, Jeffrey; Obasanjo, Olusegun; Davis, Dickie (2017). Making Africa Work: A Handbook for Economic Success. London: Hurst & Company. p. 246. ISBN 978-1-84904-873-6. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Nouakchott's fish market at the Plage des Pêcheurs (the fishermen's beach) is a place of great energy. Teams of men, some in oilskins, most barefoot, heave colourfully decorated pirogues up the beach. Others store away outboard engines and pack handmade nets. Boys and girls sell drinks and food, and donkey carts lug bags and boxes of fish. The concrete tables in the marketplace are piled with fish, the floor littered with discarded heads and entrails, while traders seal cooler boxes for the refrigerated trucks parked outside."

    6. Pitcher, Gemma (2007) [1977]. Lonely Planet Africa (11 ed.). Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. p. 424. ISBN 978-1-74104-482-9. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Don't ever think of leaving the city without a visit to the extremely colourful fish market (Port de Pêche), about 5km from the centre. You'll see hundreds of teams of men dragging in heavy hand-knotted fishing nets on the beach and small boys hurrying back and forth with trays of fish. The best time is between 4pm and 6pm, when the fishing boats return - unforgettable!"

    7. Ham, Anthony (2013). West Africa (8 ed.). Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. p. 239. ISBN 978-1-74179-797-8. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Although it's not a highlight of the country, Nouakchott is sleepily idiosyncratic and you could do worse than spend an afternoon at the gloriously frantic fish market (one of the busiest in West Africa), ..."

    8. Phillips, Matt (2007). The Africa Book: A Journey Through Every Country in the Continent. Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-1-74104-602-1. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes on page 50: "Nouakchott, the capital, is a discombobulating city that reflects the geographical duality of the country. Though it's only five kilometres inland from the Atlantic, it's more a city of the interior than of the coast — yet it boasts the most active fish market in West Africa."

      The book notes on page 51: "Nouakchott's fish market is the most colourful in West Africa."

    9. Ould Ahmed Salem, Zekeria (2009). "Les écueils du "partenariat": l'Union européenne et les accords de pêche avec l'Afrique" [The pitfalls of "partnership": The European Union and the fisheries agreements with Africa]. Politique Africaine N-116 : Gouverner la mer. Etats, pirates, sociétés [African Policy N-116: Governing the Sea. States, Pirates, Companies] (in French). Éditions Karthala. p. 40. ISBN 978-2-8111-0327-9. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The book notes: "Du reste, certaines des réalisations visées ont déjà été accomplies: le marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, par exemple, a été construit par le Japon il y a plusieurs années et fonctionne normalement."

      From Google Translate: "Moreover, some of the targeted achievements have already been accomplished: the Nouakchott fish market, for example, was built by Japan several years ago and is functioning normally."

    10. Learoussy, Hana Youssef; Tfeil, Hasni; Dartige, Aly Yahya; Aarab, Lotfi (2022). "Histamine content in fresh and frozen pelagic species from the Mauritanian Atlantic Coast". Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture. doi:10.9755/ejfa.2022.v34.i8.2920. ProQuest 2731816705.

      The article notes: "Hundred and eight frozen and fresh pelagic of scombroid and non-scombroid species were collected from the Nouakchott fish market (Mauritanian Atlantic coast) in different period of 2020 and 2021. ... No significant variation in histamine levels between scombroid and non-scombroid fish species was obtained; thereby, the study showed that fish product commercialized at the Nouakchott fish market have a good quality and safe for human consumption. ... Samples were purchased from the Nouakchott fish market, which is the landing site of artisanal fishing practitioners (18°05'35'N; 16°01'34'W)."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the fish market in Nouakchott to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:09, 14 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Gowen

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

No sources on the article, only a single promary external link Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:49, 12 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 Cars characters. Owen× ☎ 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Hudson

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

Having a hard time finding any valuable sources about this character per BEFORE. Most of it were just talking about its mysterious death. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:09, 12 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. With just a Weak Keep, I think I can close this discussion as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Lenarduzzi

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this rugby player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:58, 12 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 keep‎. While the participating editors here might not have addressed the nominator's concern there is a clear consensus to Keep this article and, probably what might be more important, no support at all for deletion of this article. It may not have sources from after 2023 but the participating editors here have concluded that the sources are good enough. If it were more of a borderline situation, I'd relist this discussion again but opinion seems nearly unanimous except for the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion

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

WP:NOTNEWS - no reliable sources covering the article subject after 2023. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many RS to establish notability. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 11. This was NAC-closed as "SNOW" early, despite not meeting the general criteria for SNOW. I encourage the AfD nominator (also the DRV appellant) to reply to some of the 'keep' opinions above, addressing their concerns from a P&G standpoint and discussing SUSTAINED as it may apply here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and WP:NUNIT, obviously notable, and per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per GNG and WP:NUNIT
It doesn't fit WP:SUSTAINED of GNG. NUNIT covers military units, and if you read article content, all of it is reported "by Russian sources", so it looks more like a media phenomena, not a real military formation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:01, 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 redirect‎ to List of caves in Nepal. ✗plicit 00:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gupteswor Cave, Parbat

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources with only 10 Google search results. Fails WP:GNG. Mia Mahey (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, that's a different cave. It just happens to be a name that Shaivite Hindus are likely to independently come up with when they find a cave that they're surprised they didn't find earlier and/or houses a notable rock formation that can be declared a Shiva Lingam. It could mean Cave of Lord Shiva in his form as the god of things that are hidden (or perhaps, Cave of the hidden Lord Shiva). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:23, 19 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. Complex/Rational 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Yellow Kitchen Photo

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

Doubtful lasting significance. Bedivere (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, cant find any mention of either the photo or the photographer after February 2023. F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:36, 13 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 Tonga national rugby union players. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Felemi

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Tongan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:42, 12 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 01:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNKJ-TV

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

A recent review of FCC records, available literature, and the Kentucky New Era indicates that WNKJ-TV never broadcast, even though a permit was awarded. The FCC lists the permit as deleted May 7, 1984. We do not maintain articles, except in exceptional circumstances, on TV station permits that were not constructed, which applies to WNKJ-TV and the second attempt at the allocation, WKKT-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:39, 12 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 Naval Large Tugboat. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Barkerville

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

Article says absolutely nothing about the subject besides its name. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:21, 19 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 Naval Large Tugboat. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Haro

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

Article says absolutely nothing about the subject besides identifying its namesake. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 19 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 01:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhum Auda

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. The current archived reference seems to only be a single sentence database entry, and a WP:BEFORE search revealed only similarly trivial mentions/database entries.

As an aside, I believe that this is the first article I have nominated for deletion, so please let me know if I have missed something here. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 01:14, 12 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 Delta Goodrem. ✗plicit 01:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunkerdown Sessions

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

Does not appear to be notable. Basically just a list of songs performed. This should be a paragraph in Delta Goodrem at most. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:02, 12 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-AMG G 65

Mercedes-AMG G 65 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think the article is not needed. G class is a perfectly good page, and this is a minor variant. Saad Mirza (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Category:Mercedes-Benz G-Class. There are nine articles involved, but the others are not up for deletion. This one is sourced and informative. Why delete one and keep the others? Mercedes is globally known, and a top-of-the-line brand as auto brands go. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no sourced information on this model in the main G-Class page, which is already extremely long. It makes a lot sense to leave this so people can read about this variant, without having to scroll through that page to find a brief summary. In fact the G-class has so many variants over its history, having smaller article like this that is actually about one design is much more straightforward. The main article has really become about the decades long history of the G-class now. A75 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am surprised there is no interest in merging the content with sources, as there is nothing on the main page right now, but a brief unsourced summary. I highly recommend preserving the content, its one of only a handful of V-12 suv in history. A75 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_12&oldid=1223560410"