Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ltbdl (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 16 May 2024 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anyone lived in a pretty how town.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 15 May 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone lived in a pretty how town

Anyone lived in a pretty how town (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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly well-known poem by a definitely notable author... AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh (politician)

Kevin Baugh (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)

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat Which was considered too short? Because both of the ones I listed are quite long, and I don't see either mentioned in this nomination. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice is a short article that's basically a travel piece about the writer taking a trip to Molossia, and just kind of features Kevin Baugh as a minor walk-on character with the writer herself being a much more central subject. That's not a great GNG builder. And it's a source that's already in the article, which means it's one of the four sources that are being talked about when I talked about the four sources in the article in my nomination statement regardless of whether I called it out by name or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. I don't believe the sources from Lamona are enough to get this article over the hump. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly this has headed in the delete direction so far. However, more specific reasons behind the !votes might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: President of the Republic of Molossia, a self-proclaimed micronation that is not formally recognised by any world government. I don't have to talk too much. Primarily doesnt meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Should I be missing WP:NPOL. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I mistakenly closed this AFD without realizing that I participated in it. I'm relisting this for discussion after restoring the page, as it feels like the appropriate thing to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Murphy

Miles Murphy (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 general notability guideline. all i could find was a namedrop, another namedrop, yet another namedrop, another, and so on. ltbdl (talk) 13:40, 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. ✗plicit 14:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Cup

Slavic Cup (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)

Unreferenced, fails notability. If played as part of the European Rugby League Championship, a redirect to could also be an option. Mn1548 (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems reasonable, otherwise a redirect to Rugby League European Championship B could be a better match. I can find sources for three of the match results, but no indication that the competition is notable. An archive copy of the RLEF site [8] shows it had an article for 2016 Slavic Cup but the link is dead, the competitions page [9] verifies the result, but in the European Rugby League match reports for 2007 and 2010 neither refer to it as the Slavic Cup. EdwardUK (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no reference to the competition being called the "Slavic Cup" (or a separate competition at all) then page needs deleting as it is effectively made up. Mn1548 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, and the results are already included on the Czech and Serbian national team articles. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:12, 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 keep‎. With the nom, who was the only Delete view here, switching to Keep, there's no point in keeping this open any longer. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Rugby League Cup

Serbian Rugby League Cup (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)

Unreferenced, fails notabilty Mn1548 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alternative merge and redirect to Serbian Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My preference however is to delete, given the state of the article, and lack of information on the competition format, and lack of context of how it fits into the Serbian season. Mn1548 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and Serbia. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some sources available in English, European Rugby League has match reports for the finals from 2014 to 2017 and 2021, also a preview of the 2021 final which gives a bit of background history. These could be enough to establish notability. The Serbian RL website (in Serbian) also has lists of winners and of finals, but some data is missing, and there is nothing about an international cup. Due to the lack of match details, such as team lists and scorers, the article could be reformatted as a simple wikitable based on what can be verified. EdwardUK (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou, that page looks alot nicer. 😊 Mn1548 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New opinion Thanks to EdwardUK I think there are sufficient sources to keep the article. Mn1548 (talk) 14:58, 17 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! 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect – Per @Mn1548. Svartner (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all content has citations and there appear to be enough sources to indicate notability. EdwardUK (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Rugby League Festival

Scarborough Rugby League Festival (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)

Unreferenced, fails notability Mn1548 (talk) 13:03, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash (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)

Accident doesn't demonstrate needed notability for an article. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Whilst the event does have coverage (minimal), the majority of them are in french with all of them being short stories. I haven't been able to find any coverage post-2005 involving this accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Yet again another Antonov accident that doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS, an accident with 11 fatalities is not an everyday occurance. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an event doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean it automatically gets a keep. No lasting effects were demonstrated from the accident. It has been 18 years since the accident and the accident has not demonstrated any (long-term) impacts. The event does not have significant nor reliable coverage.
Per WP:EVENTCRIT:
  1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Event does not fulfill this criteria.
  2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). No widespread impact or coverage in diverse sources with no analysis of the accident.
  3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Event has limited coverage.
  4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nothing inherently notable about this accident even if tragic.
Post-2005, I haven't been able to find any coverage regarding this accident thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an accident like this is indefinetly going to fail the 10-year test that many deletion authors go by, no accident has continued coverage over 19 years. Lolzer3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure no accident will have continued coverage for over 19 years but an accident should at least be mentioned/ talked about for at least a year especially for an accident with that many fatalities. All news sources are primary sources which means it is impossible to source reliable secondary sources. All news sources only state the circumstances of the accident without any analysis of the accident failing WP:INDEPTH.
The event fails the general notability guidelines as it has no significant coverage and no reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeable here, i can only find a singular source covering it 6 days later, linked below, there is an in depth summary in 2005 in aviation so the general deletion of the article itself wouldnt be a problem because the information is still pertained in the summary.
[10] (the mentioned link) Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability issue needs more attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:24, 24 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! 18:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of continued or widespread coverage that would assist in meeting EVENTCRIT. No evidence of meeting GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mention it in a list of aircraft crashes instead. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:21, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of God Church

Heart of God 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)

Not only does this article currently serve as little more than free advertising for HOG, but also the sourcing is really threadbare (90% self-published/promotional sources) and I could find nothing to show that this organisation meets GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi King of Lettuce, I hear your considerations. Most parts of this article was written some years back by multiple editors, reading it now I do agree that it could be edited to sound more impartial. Perhaps an edit instead of a deletion. As for the sources, it would be difficult to conclude that the sourcing is threadbare. A majority of the citations in the article are from reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as Singapore’s longest running and most widely circulated daily newspaper. Jchang457 (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately most (all) of these citations do not establish notability. If, for instance, there was an ST piece which had HOG as the main subject, that would be a different story. Numerous trivial mentions do not "stack up" to establish significant coverage. No doubt this "church" is famous enough but we shouldn't conflate fame with notability either. While I'm also trying my best to assume good faith, your only edits have been to this page (the same can be said for the article's creator)--if you have any undisclosed affiliations with HOG, you should probably disclose them and refrain from further editing the page. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 08:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article has a lot of promotional cruft in it that needs cleanup, but I think its notability can be reliably established. Here are three sources that pass the bar for independent, reliable, secondary, significant coverage under WP:NORG: Straits Times, Christianity Today, and Channel News Asia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above, particularly the Christianity Today piece, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is what we mean when we say "clean up is not deletion." Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:06, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four 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. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources provided are about the ratings which can be a blurb in each Final Four article. However, media sections regarding which station, play-by-play, and color commentator is not necessarily notable to collegiate basketball (men's or women's). Conyo14 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 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. Star Mississippi 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WNBA Finals broadcasters

List of WNBA Finals 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. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Entirely unsourced but a single one that is a TV listing, not asserting notability either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main article for the WNBA Finals also lists the television networks to broadcast the event in its Results section, but not the names of the commentators themselves. So the commentators could be added or merged to the main WNBA Finals articles as a secondary option. Otherwise, the list could be cleaned up or given additional context behind the media rights holders, such as NBC, who was the initial main WNBA television partner when it launched in 1997 as well as Lifetime, who was an early cable television partner. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had a check through the sources: as ESPN neld the rights, they are considered WP:PRIMARY as is WNBA. Some of these are about the game with the broadcasting being a tiny part, some are broadcasting schedules, some are announcements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 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. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent clients

Comparison of BitTorrent clients (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 is entirely or nearly so primary sourced with no significant independent coverage comparing different BitTorrent clients. (This listicle—which barely does any direct comparison—is the best source I can find.) (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CLTs don't need notability (only the included elements do). Pretty much all of the things compared here are reasonable; there have been no debates about whether a feature here should be removed, and in my opinion they all look fine. The article has also been pretty stable, so I don't think there's much of a maintenance burden. (The included software in the list are also all articles and should meet notability, so I don't think NOTDIRECTORY-esque arguments apply either) Thus, I don't think Dynluge's argument applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP: NLIST applies here. The assertion that only the included elements of a list need to be notable isn't true, because notability is never transitive. The arguments about the stability and maintenance cost of the article aren't relevant and skirt the core issue of notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the relevant guideline, but torrent clients as a whole definitely have significant coverage. PCMag and TorrentFreak list them like once a year. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to specific sources and add them to the article. Claiming that two websites could possibly provide coverage on them isn't sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[16] [17] [18] and [19] are just examples of lists of them. You also have [20], which extensively compared 2004's BitTorrent clients to a proposed version, and [21], a methodology proposal to use on BitTorrent clients. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my last comment, please add these sources to the article. Otherwise, someone may nominate the article for deletion again, which would be a massive timesink. It doesn't have to be substantial. A sentence or two summarizing each source would be sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think the lists have much use, maybe I could indeed find some use in the latter two. I'll try to read up this weekend. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles need to meet notability guidelines in order to be kept, and this article doesn't meet WP: NLIST. The sources in the article don't discuss BitTorrent clients generally, and neither does the article in the nomination. I'm happy to reverse this vote if someone comes forth with compelling evidence that this article meets WP: NLIST (or could meet WP: NLIST with some improvement).
HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how it would meet WP:NLIST but any option for merging can be entertained. Shankargb (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the citations I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage as per the links above. Greenman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets NLIST [22], [23], [24], [25]. Meets CLN as a Wikipedia navigation article.  // Timothy :: talk  16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We're a good 15 years from the bittorrent heyday, so an awful lot of the comparisons and lists will be gone due to linkrot, but there were tons of sources comparing this software to meet NLIST. Might be tougher to find now, but even just doing a google news search returns a bunch of comparisons and lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are counting the sort of listicle articles that Timothy linked, at minimum the article should be moved since these sources don't actually show a comparison between different clients, just listing multiple. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 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. Owen× ☎ 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stun Siva

Stun Siva (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 valid reliable sources. Fails WP:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, as no reliable sources were found after my investigation. The Times of India cannot establish notability according to WP:TOI. Additionally, citing YouTube in the article is entirely pointless when it comes to establishing notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor and unreliable sources that do not have coverage on the subject's biography. Few words on turning from stuntman to director to getting opportunities to movies he is associated with. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails WP:GNG & WP:NBIO and is full of unreliable sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have included the early life, personal life & carrer as part of Stun Siva's biography WP:BIO in the page: Stun Siva and WP:SIRS along with including articles from The Hindu & The New Indian Express newspapers & Google Books WP:SIRS, WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP as evidences for Stun Siva's life, career and achievements. Please kindly consider my points to retain the page: Stun Siva— Preceding signed comment added by Ratheef Ahammed Refuon (talk 14:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

contribs)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army (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 scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 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! 05:39, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

France national bandy team

France national bandy 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)

The only 'known' appearance is supposed to have been at the 1913 European Bandy Championships, but it is likely this competition never happened.  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Italy national bandy team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Austria-Hungary national bandy team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Belgium national bandy team already seems to have been deleted for similar reasons.

  • Comment: Redirects cannot be discussed at Articles for deletion. Either you must revert the redirection of Austria-Hungary so this can be discussed as an article, or let the redirect stay, or go to WP:RFD. In addition, the deletion rationale does not fit Italy, although I agree that the page looks questionable. Geschichte (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have readded the information about the 1913 championship tournament in the articles about Italy and Austria-Hungary now, so they may be discussed here now.  ; As we see the human society is liquid, we are all just running with the flow (talk) 13:36, 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. ✗plicit 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinebulle

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. toweli (talk) 10:58, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Charmoille

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

I have been draftifying some articles about 120 years old gymnasts with very insufficient sourcing. This one I'm sending straight to AFD. The log indicates that a WP:LUGSTUB used to occupy the article title Georges Charmoille, before being moved to Gustave. In other words, there seems to have been unreliable sources somewhere along the way regarding his first name. There could be a situation where two brothers were gymnasts, but since this new article doesn't address that discrepancy at all, I consider it completely worthless. The Gustave article currently sits at Draft:Gustave Charmoille, but Georges can't be redirected there since redirects from mainspace to draftspace aren't allowed. Therefore: just nuke this one for emphatically failing WP:SPORTCRIT and problems with WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does Wikipedia:NOLYMPICS apply here? There are a lot of Olympics books that name him as a bronze medalist in 1906. For example[26][27][28]
    This should be transcluded to the Olympics deletion sorting list. If I knew how, I'd do it myself. Oblivy (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oblivy As I mentioned above, there are serious uncertainties about who "Georges" Charmoille really is. We already have a draft for Gustave, who is recognized as the correct name for the Olympian by Olympedia, at least. Geschichte (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The two sources at Gustave are websites that lack citations for their assertions. archive.org has one hit for Gustave, seemingly about a dance performance. It has 38 hits about Georges, admittedly all post-1980. The official site lists Georges as competing but not medalling in 1908. Oblivy (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olympedia seems to say he's known by both names? Seems very likely notable if he's the WORLD champion gymnast - deletion would seem to leave him as the only champion without an article per Template:NavigationWorldChampionsArtisticGymnasticsMenHorizontalBar? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the draft at "Gustave" was also previously "Georges". I am sure we could ask the Olympedia team for their research on the matter to better know which name should be the article title - and for sources to use in it. I don't have significant time to do it, so I am neutral on whether the content of this article should be moved to the current draft article likely about the same person or not, but if it's going to take some time for clarity, it probably should. Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on its face, he meets the WP:NSPORTS requirement for medalling at an Olympic games. I recognize the possible argument that the 1906 games weren't really the Olympics (note old discussion here that did not reach a consensus) but they were considered the Olympics at the time and so the same spirit of best-in-the-world seems to apply.
    Gustave vs. Georges seems irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think one uncited claim on a website is enough to discard the many books listing him under Georges. If necessary, create a redirect from Gustave and mention the controversy (if it can be supported by RS) on this page. Oblivy (talk) 13:17, 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! 09:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep although there doesn't seem much to say. That the first name is uncertain seems to me to be irrelevant, it is entirely possible he used both names or one was his common name and the other his official name. JMWt (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary: the uncertainty about the first name pertains to the very root of the WP:V issue: who was this person? It's not up to us to speculate on which name was what, we need reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having trouble understanding the verifiability issue. We have a number of record books with the Georges name in them. And the official Olympic website says Georges as the principal name.
    On the other hand, we have the secondary name on the Olympics site and a website associating that name with him. Anything else? Is there a reliable source that is clearly him and gives Gustave as the principal name? If someone added a sentence or two discussing name controversy, wouldn't the full picture be disclosed? Oblivy (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of sourcng... I tried a search in the BNF newspaper archives, this was all that came up [29] second to last paragraph in the last column on the right. A person with the same name died in a torpedo attack. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CannaCruz

CannaCruz (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 there is anything particularly notable about this small business, although I recognise this is an interesting area of commercial activity. Newhaven lad (talk) 09:59, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurrealDB

SurrealDB (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)

An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SurrealDB Github stars demonstrating rapid growth
  • Keep - clearly a notable database as per this "github stars" metric demonstrating developer/popularity growth, putting it amongst the likes of MongoDB. It's company has been also extensively covered by TechCrunch.
    No issue with the article being improved/edited to remove promotional material, but your statement regarding the "technical features" is false, as a developer, I am unaware of many databases offering this level of multi-modality. At worst, this is merely WP:NOTJUSTYET and should be drafted instead of deleted. Mr Vili talk 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, currently the company has nothing to gain by "selling" it on Wikipedia, the database is open sourced.
    However, the company does plan to release a cloud offering in the future but until then - I see no issue in having this page as it provides valuable information for developers looking to learn more about SurrealDB. It's likely this topic will continue to increase in notability. Mr Vili talk 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view. Briggs 360 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter, WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of WP:PRODUCT, that's where WP:NSOFT links to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.
Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read WP:RS first. Citing something like this [30] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... don't think I've edited the page, AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:
ORGCRIT assess table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

No Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material – Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no No Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV No Inherits ORGIND failure
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17. Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail No First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No No WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions No Funding announcement
"SurrealDB launch marks monumental milestone in the world of data management". UK Tech News. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No Literally a press release No Launch announcement
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Leaning no No No
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs. Short circuit No Blogs aren't considered RS Yes At first glance
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19. No Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement No Same as above No
Citations to their own website No
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No Interview with no secondary content No No No
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17. probably not, but not assessed No No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES No No
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19.

(Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)

Dubious No ... Why is this even in here?
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No This is a press release No No No
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17. No No ... No No
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19. No Sponsored Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source No
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9. Yes Yes At least this one is an RS No
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken). – Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here Yes Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick – Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here Yes 3.2 is fine —
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?". No Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6. Yes No Passing mention
I can't see anything that clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new source which appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Could you add it to the table. @Alpha3031 Mr Vili talk 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smells like GenAI CLOP of a press release to me @Mr vili, are you sure you want to submit that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 Could you please add https://dbdb.io/db/surrealdb to your assessment, I will be adding this to the article Mr Vili talk 04:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am curious, why can't the dozens of courses, docs and high variety of SurrealDB guides that are unaffiliated with SurrealDB be used as independent, reliable, secondary significant sources of coverage? From a quick google, there's at least dozens of sites talking about SurrealDB from a developer/integrations perspective?
Sources like [31] [32] Mr Vili talk 04:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think our evaluation of such sources are sufficiently divergent that it would not be useful for me to put it in the table. Instead, I think I am going to kick it over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the discussion Mr Vili talk 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete for now because the sources don't look reliable enough. Like actual news articles. But I will check tomorrow or the day after to make sure. Freedun (yippity yap) 10:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) UPE sock, unknown master, blocked by Ponyo Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is leaning on the side of deletion, I would prefer this page to be Draftified, as I expect this article to eventually become notable after the SurrealDB commercial launch, which should generate some more reliable and significant coverage Mr Vili talk 06:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur with Alpha3031's assessment of the sources identified for this subject. That we're even considering this, an "official government organization of the Government of Lumina" ([33]), as a reliable source is a rather damning sign of non-notability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol what a joke Freedun (yippity yap) 03:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, thanks to Alpha's source table and unconvincing arguments to keep. Toadspike [Talk] 09:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Student Exchange, Ontario

International Student Exchange, Ontario (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:NCORP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:52, 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. ✗plicit 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Benkő

Kristian Benkő (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 is the case with several players from Hungarian football around this time, he had a short career in the NBI with no significant coverage that can be found about it. Little is known about his career after 2015, when the HLSZ profile ends. He did score many goals on one of Sweden's lower tiers, which is hardly significant, neither is his signing for a team on the 7th tier. Geschichte (talk) 09:22, 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! 05:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stc Bahrain

AfDs for this article:
Stc Bahrain (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 NORG; article lists standard business activities, nothing noteworthy. BEFORE shows no substantial RS. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:35, 16 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! 05:38, 23 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! 22:05, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osirica

Osirica (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)

Purported masonic order that is briefly mentioned in some afrocentric books from George G. M. James, Asa Hilliard and Yosef Ben-Jochannan. The concept is spelt as either 'Osirica' and 'Osiriaca'. Although tagged as a possible hoax, it doesn't seem to be one. The idea exists, though it's not notable enough and the works it appears in are rejected by most historians. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In addition to the (probably not RS) books mentioned above this order is also discussed in C.H. Vail's "Ancient Mysteries and Modern Masonry" and "African-American Artists and Art Students: A Morphological Study in the Urban Black Aesthetic." which is a Penn State dissertation by M.N. DePillars. This is enough to meet the GNG even though these sources aren't currently used in the article. Central and Adams (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mind specifying the page numbers? I've managed to find online copies of both sources, but I can't find where the topic is mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Central and Adams. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:18, 10 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! 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it documents a notable historical and cultural organization that significantly contributes to the preservation and promotion of ancient Egyptian heritage and African identity. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about Osirica's unique initiatives and influence, supported by reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance.--Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? The article talks about a historic masonic order, not a cultural organisation promoting ancient Egyptian heritage. It also has no sources, so where are these "reliable sources that affirm its impact and relevance" you speak of? Sgubaldo (talk) 11:56, 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 keep‎. I see more discussions on how to improve this article that policy-based arguments to Keep it. But that does demonstrate a possible interest by participants on improving this article to meet the points of the noimination and there is a rough consensus to Keep. Good luck with bringing it up to meet Wikipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematical theories

List of mathematical theories (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:INDISCRIMINATE: This list seems aimed to list all articles having "theory" in their title. It present at the same level some wide areas of mathematics (set theory) and some very specialized method (Iwasawa theory). So, it does not contain any relevant encyclopedic content. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nominator is saying that WP:LSC is not satisfied in a meaningful way. Having "theory" included in the title was probably good enough in 2004, when the list page was first created. The list is hardly complete: sieve theory isn't there, for example. While mathematicians recognise as "theory" any coherent area with enough definitions, results and characteristic ideas, this kind of theory is nothing like a scientific theory. So the list may be of little or no help to non-mathematicians. I would suggest first a division by subject headings, such as "theories in topology". I mean, this is potentially a useful list, just as a list of problems or a list of theorems would be, but there should be more explanation and apparatus. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For having this article, we must have a sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory; the unsourced three lines of Mathematical theory are far to be sufficients. Moreover, in mathematics, some other words are used with a similar meaning, such as "geometry", "algebra", "calculus", and "analysis". For example, projective geometry means "projective-space theory"; commutative algebra stands for "commutative-ring theory", to be compared with ring theory, which deals with non-necessarily commutative rings; integral calculus stand for "theory of integrals"; real analysis stands for "theory of real functions". So, without a reliably sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory, this article is pure original synthesis. D.Lazard (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a reasonable argument, but I would like to see it on Talk:List of mathematical theories because there is plenty to say. To use your examples, axiomatic set theory is a number of choices of axiomatic theory, while Iwasawa theory was originally "Iwasawa's analogue of the Jacobian", which John Coates renamed, and over the course of half a century became a major subfield of algebraic number theory, which is not an axiomatic theory so much as the study of algebraic number fields. To be really helpful, this sort of information, including the genesis of a theory, should be tabulated. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator. But it would be ok as a category. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Charles Matthews. Informative article. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:58, 13 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! 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename, per those above. This would also benefit from some prefatory text describing what qualifies a topic as suitable for inclusion in the list. BD2412 T 13:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this page as a valuable resource - maybe it would be better renamed or changed to a category or whatever, but the lack of organization in the higher math fields can be extremely confusing (especially for people who are math hobbyists rather than university mathematicians). We need more resources like this, not fewer. So maybe it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is a good resource, so keep per WP:IAR. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 15:04, 22 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 Leinster Chess Leagues, to which the other pages will redirect. Noteworthy and verifiable content from the latter can be incorporated into the former at editorial discretion‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Chess Leagues

Leinster Chess Leagues (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 Leinster Chess Leagues article, and the articles I am combining in my nomination below that represent to tropies of the different leagues for the main article, fail the test of independent notability for each article and further, these articles are large WP:NOTDATABASE violations and full of WP:OR. This content would be better suited on the website of the organization and not Wikipedia as the pages often boil down to league rules and not secondary independent coverage.

Also nomintated for deletion:

Armstrong Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heidenfeld Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ennis Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O'Hanlon Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BEA Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O'Sullivan Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Branagan Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, Organizations, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have written a reply in the Talk page attached to this article. If you cannot read that reply I will copy it here. With thanks, sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. You should copy your reply here yourself. A closing admin may not (and is not necessarily expected to) search for comments placed outside the AfD discussion thread. You could consider leaving out the parts, of your comment, which are unrelated to the concerns raised in the AfD nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JohnPDLoughran are you associated at all with the Leinster Chess Leagues or any of their associated divisions? microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Marcus, copying my reply here as directed. Please excuse me as I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was confused as to where to post it. Some of the help files are confusing and mention the Talk area as a way to respond. Can I ask, should I prepend this reply with something like {{MicrobiologyMarcus}}? Here is my edited reply and answer to your query.
    I was shocked to see that you were recommending the deletion of a large number of articles relating to chess in Ireland. These are valuable resources not only of current but also of historic interest, albeit to a small population of chess players. The Leinster Chess Leagues page links the different articles including one on the Armstrong Cup which I read with interest. It started in 1888 and may be one of the oldest such competitions in the world. The information in these articles is supported by two independent Irish chess history websites which are not affiliated to the Leinster Leagues. They quote many independent sources of information including newspaper articles, one written in 1888. If you delete these articles you will delete a valuable resource. Because the chess playing population is so small it is difficult to source more independent references, although I am continuing to work on this with collaborators, and I would be glad of advice on ways to improve this. Needless to say I am new to publishing in an encyclopaedia. One of the articles which first spurred my interest was the article on Chess in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
    Regarding my links with the Leinster Chess Union. Firstly I am a player on a team that competes in the leagues, and currently the chairperson of Skerries Chess Club. I have no official membership of the LCU. Our club pays them a small fee to participate in the leagues each year. While it is true that Skerries did win the BEA Cup one year, it was before I was a member, so I had no personal interest in writing that first article. I added the article on the Leinster Chess Leagues after that simply to link various articles on each league together, and to avoid duplication of material within each league article. The reason I wrote the article on the BEA Cup was that we were given it by accident. Because it was a cup which had been donated in 1972 and passed from club to club since then and miraculously survived I felt it was worthy of note, so I did quite a lot of research, still ongoing, to discover the winners each season and record them in the article as well as taking a picture of this, in my opinion, priceless artefact, before getting its base repaired. I am of course open to suggestions as to how to improve the articles (BEA Cup or Leagues article) but I would be deeply disappointed to see these articles disappear, even moreso if their deletion was to have a knock on effect of causing the deletion of other valuable articles, which I had no hand in writing, on the other Leauges: Armstrong etc. With thanks, yours sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The two independent sources in the article are WP:BLOGS and are therefore not reliable. I was able to find a few brief news items in the Irish Independent: [35] [36], but it doesn't seem like quite enough on its own to demonstrate notability for the leagues, much less for the individual divisions. I would either redirect everything to Irish Chess Union#Team competitions or otherwise redirect/merge the divisions into the Leinster Chess Leagues article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw that the blogs cited old newspapers. If these sources can be confirmed, the individual divisions might very well be notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Given that there are several titles here to consider, my own recommendation is to:
  • Delete O'Sullivan Cup. This article, on the seventh (childrens?) tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient reliable sources to even support its text. Not to mind a claim to notability. Under any applicable criteria. (The article itself states that there aren't sufficient sources to establish what happened in relatively recent runnings of the competition. I mean, we're relying on this random picture to "guess" that the people (children?) pictured might have come third in 2015? Seriously?)
  • Delete BEA Cup. This article, on the fifth tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient sources to support its text. The author (within the text) states that there aren't even sources to establish who won the competition on any given year. That we reliant upon "reading the engravings off a cup" (and using that as a basis for content AND justification a stand-alone article) is a very clear indication that WP:SIGCOV is not met. By a significant margin. The thing (the cup) cannot be a reference for itself or represent coverage of itself. It's just backwards and bizarre.
  • Redirect Armstrong Cup, Heidenfeld Trophy and Ennis Shield. And maybe O'Hanlon Cup. Either to Leinster Chess Leagues (if that title is kept). Or to Irish_Chess_Union#Team competitions (if not). Similar to the above, I have significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the sources and content in those articles. And do not see any justification for the project being a WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST repo for previous winners of these amateur regional chess competitions. However, there is some limited coverage - to just about justify a redirect as an WP:ATD. And to mention the competitions WP:WITHIN the target article. For example, the Armstrong Cup is mentioned (almost always in passing and always/only in regional newspapers), in places like this, this and this. Which could justify covering it in either the Leinster Chess Leagues or Irish Chess Union articles. And perhaps leaving a redirect.
  • Weak keep Leinster Chess Leagues (or redirect to Irish_Chess_Union#Competitions). While I'm not swayed by the creator's arguments ("I'm shocked", "It's useful", "supported by 2x special interest websites"), there is a small smattering of limited coverage in some local sources. Like this, this and this or this. If kept, as a standalone title, the article needs significant work however.
My 2x cents anyway. FWIW. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source assessment with many, many thanks to @Guliolopez for collecting a list of sources. I want to preface this by saying I am trying to be fair and impartial and stave off concerns that I am attacking a particular chess league or its members and, should the evidence arrive that any or all of the articles I nominated are WP:Notable, I will gladly change my vote. Please let me know, I would be happy to add to the following table. As it stands, I still believe the articles are a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE and would need to be reworked, but I am a big believer in WP:THREE. With that said:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:MicrobiologyMarcus
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Garden squad win promotion". Irish Independent. 4 April 2012. Yes Yes No coverage about a team winning a match to advance to the Ennis Shield, a part of Leinster Chess league, does not surpass trivial coverage of either of those subjects. ✘ No
"Chess Club". Irish Independent. 11 March 2009. Yes Yes ? I would evaluate this as significant coverage of the tournament/event, I don't now if I would consider that coverage to be of the league itself, or if coverage of this extent would be inherited to the organization, such to meet WP:NCORP ? Unknown
"Chess club wins promotion to division two after dramatic final round of matches". Irish Independent. 14 June 2023. Yes Yes No as the first, coverage is of a club with trivial mentions of Leinster Chess League and Ennis Shield ✘ No
"It's checkmate for local club at Leinster Finals". Irish Independent. 11 May 2011. Yes Yes ? I would say this may meet SIGCOV of Leinster Chess Championships, which again is not the leagues. The extend of the coverage of that in the article is The cup was first competed for as far back as 1912 and has been won by a distinguished list of top Irish chess players over the years. The rest is, as before, coverage of the tournament/event with the same inheritance concerns. ? Unknown
"Chess club move into history books". Irish Independent. 24 April 2003. Yes Yes No subject of the coverage is again a club with passing trivial mentions of Heidenfeld trophy and Armstrong Cup ✘ No
"Chess mates descend on Bray". Irish Independent. 17 March 2010. Yes Yes ? strongest argument for SIGCOV of the tournamentevent articles in my opinion, coverage of the 203-word article is split equally among the event and then between the season structure of Leinster Chess Union League ("The league begins in September every year and lasts until March.") and the history of Armstrong Cup ("...new owners of the infamous Armstrong Cup, which was first presented in the 1888-1889 league, therefore making it one of the oldest sporting competitions in Ireland.") ? Unknown
"Chess club has come a long way over 25 years". Irish Independent. 3 August 2005. No interview with a member club member Yes ? this is definetly SIGCOV of a club with probably acceptable mentions of Leinster Leagues ("...in the Leinster Leagues that run from September to March each year.") ✘ No
"Chess Club finally secure Ennis Shield". Irish Independent. 8 May 2002. Yes Yes No coverage of a club with mentions of the Ennis Shield, same inheritance concerns with all tournament/event articles, but even weaker argument here as the article itself isn't about the event. ✘ No
"Your weekly sporting club notes". Irish Independent. 3 October 2006. Yes Yes No trivial coverage of the tournament/event Heidenfeld Shield mentioned, nothing in depth about subject or organization ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would gladly add to the above table if sources are provided, or if you believe my assessment of any of the above are wrong, I would be happy to discuss. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the sources and analysis done to date in the table, I feel the like strongest !keep argument would be to have a Leinster Chess Union League as that seems to be the most frequently used identifier of the WP:NCORP, but I think this would come down to how strong the passing mentions are of the leagues in the event coverage above, and whether the coverage of the event is WP:Inherited to the Chess Union League itself or not, and whether the coverage satisfies as significant; I'm leaning no, based on my reading of WP:SIGCOV:

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

but I would understand where this might be interpreted differently here. Given that, then all the other articles could be redirects (see WP:CHEAP) and the ones which are sourced by only event coverage could have their own sections on the main article. I think that would be the strongest possible argument for keep, however, given the current references. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A chess blog website claims that newspapers such as the Irish Times and Irish Press have written some sort of coverage about the various leagues decades ago, e.g. for the Branagan Cup. I have no idea what this coverage looks like, whether it's also trivial, etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. With respect to WP:OFFLINE, I can't help but feel as if these were present and properly cited in the article, they would be suitable, but to mass copy and paste them into an article from their collection on the organisation's website feels less-than-inline with WP:V. Given the context of the page, I would suspect someone has gone back (probably very labouriously) to compile the records and statistics of the page, but I doubt they are significant coverage of the organisation itself in such a manner to establish WP:NCORP. They would, however, be suitable to cite the (probably WP:NOTDATABASE violation that is the laundry) list of past winners, in such a manner to satisfy WP:OR concerns—that is, the ones that cite news articles and not tweets. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:40, 2 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! 23:26, 8 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! 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep/merge my sense of the source analysis is we have enough coverage for the topic to have an article. I'm not sure which article title is best. We do have reason to believe there are offline sources too. For now I'd say keep Leinster Chess Leagues and merge the rest (a couple sentences at most for all but the Armstrong Cup) into it. I'm happy to take an expansive view of this article having coverage count that covers those various topics... Hobit (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main page, merge and redirect cups, stubify to verifiable facts: As the nom, I think I'm the only hold questioning notability. For consensus, I would concede notability for the main league given the breadth of coverage, in spite of my SIGCOV concerns above. I think altogether these pages should be merged to the main article, the cup pages redirected, and the articles signifcantly reduced to simply contain facts and not the long NOTDATABASE violations. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:29, 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 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! 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Lucia Degruttola

Skye Lucia Degruttola (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 actress, Fails NACTOR and GNG - Her role in Grantchester is only recurring and unfortunately I've not found anything substantial online (all are one-bit mentions), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:33, 9 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! 06:03, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cotton Bowl Classic broadcasters

List of Cotton Bowl Classic 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. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 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! 06:02, 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sun Bowl broadcasters

List of Sun Bowl 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. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 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! 05:59, 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. Strong arguments on both sides, with no rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters

List of Orange Bowl 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. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you pay attention to that? Of course not.
    Please keep it civil. Zanahary (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 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! 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of now, there are at least 70 different references, and almost 60 just recently added in regards to not only CBS' earliest television coverage of the Orange Bowl, but their coverage in the 1990s. There also are now references/sources that have been added for NBC's television coverage from the 1960s on through the early 1990s and Fox's coverage during the late 2000s. Sources for ABC's during the late '90s and first portion of the 2000s and ESPN's coverage from the 2010s on through the present day just need to added as well as sources for the radio coverage. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    I had a check: some focuses heavily on the games with the coverage being a side piece, some are WP:PRIMARY, some are announcments or talk about the announcers, some are 404. Like Wikipedia, you know that IMDB does not count as a reliable source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list was almost entirely unsourced when it was nominated at AfD. In just a couple days of effort, some 70 sources (of varying quality) have been added. Combine the ongoing sourcing effort with the fact that this was for nearly a century one of the big three college football games (Rose, Orange, Sugar), I lean to keeping. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that added sources can be further reviewed. Also, please no personal comments about contributors and accusations about motivations that are obviously unsupported. Focus on policy, sources and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have reviewed the sources and I'll chalk it up to this, IMDb is not a reliable source, press releases are WP:ROUTINE mentions, WP:NYPOST, and finally, there are some sources that are reliable, but do not provide the significant coverage that are necessary to sustain such a grouping. Therefore, it is within the topic of WP:LISTN, that my !vote remains. Conyo14 (talk) 07:06, 31 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! 05:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Mashwani

Azhar Mashwani (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 evidently falls short of meeting WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't appear to satisfy the basic WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a SPA InamAleem990 (talk · contribs) and subsequently, the BLP was moved from the draft NS to the main NS. Much of the press coverage he received occurred during his detention, which may not be enduring enough to establish WP:N. Also see Draft:Azhar Qazi Mashwani. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. This, this, this, this, this indicates that the subjected person is notable in Pakistan as his kidnapping issue is widely covered by Pakistani media. If not a notable one, why too much outrage over his kidnapping issue? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So as I mentioned in my nom. above, a significant portion of the press coverage he received stemmed from his detention/kidnapping but this is not be substantial enough to establish WP:N. Describing himself as a social media activist, it's understandable that his detention would attract some media attention. However, does this attention render him notable enough for a Wikipedia BLP? Likely not. Furthermore, considering that this BLP was created by SPA - possibly by the subject themselves and was created in a questionable manner by moving an unapproved draft to the main NS, we shouldn't consider its inclusion based solely on insufficient press coverage that fails to meet even basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation by SPA is another issue. You must take it to WP: SPI as you have accused the page creator as SPA. Being rational, I don't find any issue to entertain this AfD. Excuse me if I missed somewhere. Fair is fair. So we should come to the rational AfD discussion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage you're referring to was published in March 2023, coinciding with the subject's detention. According to our policy, individuals known solely in connection with a single event typically don't merit an BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 05:58, 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. ✗plicit 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Miller

AfDs for this article:
Richard A. Miller (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)

Half the sources don't even make references to Miller, however there is this sources which does count towards WP:GNG (and was the only one I was able to find). GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Oklahoma. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Miller's biggest claim to notability is his appointment to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, a five member appointed state agency that is required to approve pardons. I'm not convinced either way whether that position meets WP:NPOL, but in a state that is doing more executions than most others the people in charge of determining whether to pardon those to be executed have some degree of notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:47, 2 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) 06:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don’t see the argument here or why it’s open for debate. He clearly does not meet WP:Notable guidelines and does not merit his own article. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what is behind this article creator's interest in the parole board, but I see nothing here beyond regular government agency work. I haven't dug into it but I would not be surprised if other related articles also fail GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TJ The Frenchie

TJ The Frenchie (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 pains me greatly to be taking an article about such an obviously very good boy to AfD, but based on my search, he does not meet WP:GNG. The only editorial coverage I came across was from Kent Life, a local newspaper. JSFarman (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could not find independent and reliable SIGCOV about the subject. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:52, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh

Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (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)

Declined prod. Unreferenced for 17 years and fails GNG. Would reconsider if someone found coverage in Hindi or Marathi. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first of all, what WP:BEFORE was performed here? There is certainly sufficient material available in English to establish notability. Take for example,
    • Hindustan Times, "Apart from a rise in wages, the union also demanded the scrapping of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, a law that allowed only one trade union – Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) – to function. For long, industrial workers had accused RMMS of being hand in glove with owners. "
    • Economic and Political Weekly, "...Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which has enjoyed the right of being the sole bargaining agent for all textile workers in Bombay, [...]"
    • Indian Express, "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS),the recognised union of mill workers."
    • The Western Political Quarterly (1958) "...governments for their existence. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh. (RMMS) of Bombay City serves as the major exception to this dual classification and thus constitutes a third type of textile union . In comparison with the “ weak areas " the RMMS is thoroughly entrenched in its legal "representative " status and enjoys a significant degree of independence from political ties ."
    • Economic Times, "The Hindoostan Spinning and Weaving Mills cleared the last tranche of its dues amounting to Rs 3 crore payable to workers belonging to the company’s Mahalaxmi unit. The mill has 3 units in Mumbai at Mahalaxmi, Dadar and Prabhadevi. Following an agreement signed with the official union the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) in ‘02, around 2,000 workers opted for VRS."
    • India Today, "But Salunke is steadfast in his support for firebrand union leader Datta Samant, the one man most responsible for the unprecedented strike. "We are prepared to go back to work even if our monetary demands are not conceded," he says. "But the Government must recognise Samant's union as the legitimate one, and kick the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) out of our lives."
    • DNA, "The Congress party had nurtured its “chamcha” union, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), and mill owners colluded with it to engineer ... [...] the Khatau saga that had “all the ingredients of a ‘Mollywood’ blockbuster, replete with guns, gangland killings and the subversion of unions."
    • Rediff, "In November 2000, a final agreement on a voluntary retirement scheme was arrived at between the Indian National Trade Unions Congress-affiliated Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and the managements of the Standard Mill (Prabhadevi) and New China Mill (Sewri). Naik and 3,550 others took VRS but got the money only after two years"
    • Hindustan Times, "Ahir, who began his career as a trade union leader, once led the powerful Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), the only recognised union of ..."
    • Economic Times, "While the officially-recognised Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) is supporting the land development plans, the Left-leaning unions have ..."
    • The Indian Labour Year Book (1948), ""The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, handled 218 cases during the year 1948 and realised Rs. 90,911 as compensation. Both the unions have opened special branches to attend all matters relating the claims and to render assistance to all workers whether members of the Union or not", p. 347 indicates a membership of 20,462.
    • The Politics of Labor in a Global Age: Continuity and Change in Late, "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (National Mill Workers' Union). Under the corporatist Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946, a single trade union is ..."
    • Outcaste Bombay: City Making and the Politics of the Poor, "... Bombay Industrial Dispute Act of 1946. The RMMS thus became an important presence in the lives of the workers by the end of the 1940s."
    • The Power of Place: Contentious Politics in Twentieth-Century Shanghai and Bombay, "... Bombay shut down and 250,000 workers (full-time and badli) went out on strike. The Maharashtra government declared the strike illegal. Labor officials and mill owners refused to discuss terms with any union other than the RMMS."
    • Organising Labour in Globalising Asia, "... RMMS is the most extreme example of this phenomenon in Bombay.7 The power of the RMMS was first created by recognition under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, but was boosted by legislation restricting the closure of mills that ..."
    • The Emergence of an Industrial Labor Force in India, "... RMMS is shaped by its legal status under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act ( 1946 ) . The view is frequently put forth by government , labor , and management officials in Bombay that the RMMS would even collapse without this ..."
    • A Study of the Labor Movement and Industrial Relations in the Cotton Textile Industry in Bombay, India, "... ( R. M. M. S. ) , Bombay -- the name the organization bears today . The Sangh started a determined effort to remove the Red Flag organization from its position of leader of the Bombay textile workers . Its prestige was greatly enhanced by ..."
    • Bombay Brokers, "... Bombay mill workers to lead them in a conflict between the Bombay Millowners Association and the union: the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which had represented the mill workers for decades. This led to a complete shutdown of the ..."
    • Workers Education in Asia, "THE WORKERS ' EDUCATION ACTIVITIES OF THE RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH ( RMMS ) , BOMBAY ( INTUC ) ( a ) Aims and objectives of workers ' education pogrammes for 130,000 members of RMMS ( INTUC ) are as follows : ( i ) To prepare ..."
    • India Today, "... ( RMMS ) , which repre- sents the city's over one- lakh textile mill workers ... "
    • Labour and Unions in Asia and Africa: Contemporary Issues, "discrimination against non-RMMS workers , and arbitrary dismissals . It is these phenomena that gave ... RMMS began to lose its autocratic control over the workers . The alliance between ..."
    • Also here on a scheme for illegal resale of subsidized apartments... perhaps can explain adverts like this one?
  • All, in all, I think there is sufficient material available to conclude that RMMS is a notable organization and that there is material for the sourcing and expansion of the article. --Soman (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr. Soman's sources. The article must be expanded though, it contains nothing. MrMkG (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would have draftified it rather than taking it to Afd. GrabUp - Talk 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grabup: That's not an option for articles older than 90 days without consensus from an AfD discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh, Thanks for the information. GrabUp - Talk 01:35, 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 delete‎ without prejudice against early recreation once sources materialize, as is often the case when approaching elections. The Keep !voters did not raise a valid argument, and appear canvassed. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Western Australian local elections

AfDs for this article:
2025 Western Australian local 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)

This article was previously deleted in November 2023. My rationale last time was "There have been no reforms to local government since then which might merit mentioning in this article. It is far too early for people to announce their candidacies." This is still the case. This article was created far too soon. Steelkamp (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - it was mentioned last deletion discussion that there was no confirmed date, that has now been fixed and reliable sources added
I see no good reason why an upcoming election should not have a page once the previous election (in this case 2023) is finished
Next Australian federal election was created a couple weeks after the 2022 election, 2025 Western Australian state election was created in very early 2023, 2026 Victorian state election was created in 2023, etc
There's only about a year-and-a-half left until these elections
See also WP:FUTUREEVENT Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Federal elections and state elections are vastly more important than local government elections. Besides, federal elections and state elections usually have something tangible to write about soon after the previous election. That is not the case with this article, where its basically saying what the date is, and repeating a bunch of stuff from the 2023 local government election article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But at what point would you want the page created? As I said we are only about a year-and-a-half out, we know the date and coverage will eventually pop up as well
This page existing as it is with a bit of background info harms no-one Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 10:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: this isn't ready for mainspace. All sources in the article bar one are primary sources and the one source that isn't primary (The Mandarin) doesn't mention when the election is and is about changes being made ahead of elections which occurred in October 2023. None of the other material is covered in an article which I would expect of the name "2025 Western Australian local elections". In short this is lacking in coverage in secondary sources. However this will happen in over a year, so best to push to draft for the time being where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. TarnishedPathtalk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Election is less than two years away and as arandomalt mentioned, coverage will come soon AmNowEurovision (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is standard practice for the next election to have a page created after the prior one is completed, even if there haven't been many significant developments. Additional coverage will follow soon enough. Goodebening (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: the sparseness of the article ia good indicator that it is much to early to have this in mainspace. Similar discussion of premature election coverage have appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that these articles (including the 2023 article) meet the WP:GNG. Local council elections in WA remain largely discrete events and there is very little coverage of them as a "set of elections" – which is to be expected when councils are almost uniformly nonpartisan and the majority of them have residents numbering in the hundreds. Only a handful of candidates would be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. The article on the 2023 elections relies on primary sources for election results and then a scattering of "controversy" articles on individual candidates; I can't see the 2025 article progressing beyond this because there just isn't the coverage to expand it. ITBF (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local elections, including Western Australian local elections, are notable enough for a statewide page and given the close proximity of the 2025 elections this page should stay Nottashaa432 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't help but notice that most editors arguing to Keep are low edit or new accounts. Not sure how to factor that into a closure but I'd like to see more participation from regular AFD participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this would assist in closing this discussion but for the record if the vote opposing deletion doesn't get up I would prefer draftify as suggested by @Teraplane and @TarnishedPath Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) rather than total deletion 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be a keep regardless the number of keep votes because the keep rational is extremely weak. TarnishedPathtalk 00:46, 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 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.

This looks like a subject that could have an article on Wikipedia but with no editors arguing to Keep this version, there is really no other option here but Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robustness (morphology)

Robustness (morphology) (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 mean the general notability policy and lacks overall reliable sources. It may also constitute original research, and violates our policy at WP:What Wikipedia is not, as the article looks like WP:DICT. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 04:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be just a definition. Can't find any relevant articles about robustness as a concept. Mgp28 (talk) 20:47, 22 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. Editors can create a Redirect if they believe it is appropriate but the consensus here is to Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friedenau SC Excelsior Berlin

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

Completely unsourced at the moment. The official website is dead at the moment (for me). WP:NTEAM points to WP:GNG. Significant coverage and no reliable sources (or sources at all) not established. Moved to draft twice by Wikishovel and Dan arndt, but creator has moved back to mainspace twice without substantial improvements. Not mentioned on Berlin-Liga. The corresponding German article (Sport-Excelsior Friedenau) has different information about founding, activity, kits, and other details.

Three options:

Side note: many of the team articles from Founding Clubs of the DFB have similar issues. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, lacks any independent sources required to establish notability. As indicated by the nominator the article's creator refuses to leave it as a draft, where improvements could be made. Also redirecting serves no real purpose as most of the articles included in the list fail WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly something fishy going on, as Friedenau SC Excelsior Berlin was purportedly founded in 1920, at the same time being a founder of the DFB 20 years earlier. The German Wikipedia article has some history from the 1890s and states that little is known about the club after 1900. I can't confirm their playing in the Berlin-Liga, so fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It is difficult to assume good faith... Svartner (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Yes there's a whole raft of these unreferenced minor German club articles by same editor. I managed to source TSV Grolland sufficient to avoid a move back to draft, but tire quickly of sourcing unsourced stubs cranked out at speed. Couldn't find any RS for this one, and draft is for articles that can be improved, not indefinite parking for unsourceable articles. Wikishovel (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can lock it to draft space, what's silly is, is that MintyFresh201 was using what was technically wikipedia as a citation! Big no there. If sourced correctly I wouldn't mind the article. But in it's current state I can't disagree with the nomination for deletion. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator), just an update, I started an SPI. Pinging commentors above, Dan_arndt, Geschichte, Svartner, Wikishovel, Govvy. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 00:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (author) Honestly, after reviewing the comments here and on my talk page, I also agree that the article Friedenau SC Excelsior Berlin should be deleted.
MintyFresh201 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. A football club from amateur league with significant coverage that is difficult to find. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to comment that the topic itself seems like it could be notable, looking at German sources. If this is deleted, I have no problem if it's properly sourced and restored. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Founding Clubs of the DFB. GiantSnowman 15:29, 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 redirect‎ to Münchener Freiheit (band). Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deuces Wild (band)

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

Unsourced since 2009, and for a seemingly valid reason — a quick internet search revealed more results for a "Deuces Wild" tour done by a completely separate musical group than this band. One of its members, Stefan Zauner, already does not seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards.

The article already briefly discusses the subject's relative inactivity with its one album and two singles, neither of which were apparently successful. To me, this does not signify any importance or inherent notability as per WP:BAND while its understandable lack of coverage clearly fails WP:GNG. AviCapt (talk to me!) 03:52, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (2014 TV series)

Sirens (2014 TV series) (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 USA Network TV show that fails WP:GNG. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 00:07, 9 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! 03:42, 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 merge‎ to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide 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)

Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 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 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Breen (human rights activist)

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

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 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 03:34, 9 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! 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization. Only edits theyve made. And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right? Appears to be undisclosed COI. Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First? Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 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! 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My strong delete wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC
  • Delete: It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar. It reads like a business card for his services. I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 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. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L. Coleman

Gary L. Coleman (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:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 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 03:34, 9 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! 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we can’t build an article on album credits and I don’t see in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: His website and the various music streaming sites, are all I can find. I'd agree with the PROD decision, this is not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillfields

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

No evidence of meeting any criterion under WP:NMUSIC or of meeting GNG. Available sources are mostly self-published or trivial mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:139.184.129.181 placed the following text incorrectly under my nomination: "Wikipedia states however that " Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion." From me: This is not a nomination for speedy deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only coverage I can find is the single paragraph live review in Drowned In Sound (referenced in the article). No RS reviews of any of their releases that I can find. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • bit of a shame you can't seem to read the Spanish articles included in the reference sections, where it states clearly the notability of the LP release in the context of the time it was released. It can't be all about charts and fame, this page is about rescuing music. If renowned DJ like Gideon Coe plays their music on BBC Radio 2 and BBC Radio 6, I'd assume it is a relevant artist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angandi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion. If it is closed as a Soft Deletion, it will just be restored the next day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails notability criteria of WP:BAND and almost all references just contain passing mentions or simply listings of the band. InDimensional (talk) 16:09, 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! 02:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City Connection

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

Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 16 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! 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 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 no consensus‎. There were weak arguments coming from both the Keep and Delete perspectives, hence the No consensus closure. But I'm persuaded by comments by Reywas92. It's important not to consider this list article in isolation and compare it to regular articles but to consider whether this articlee is just as valid and well-constructed as similar list articles on other subjects. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of long marriages

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

This article fails WP:NLIST and WP:SELCRIT. I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound. It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE's two criteria.

This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines. Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV, I don't think it has succeeded. It's still essentially a list of longest marriages. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial at best. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I came to this article due to a meme screenshot about it on Instagram, so it at least has proven relevancy even if it fails to adhere to other guidelines. -Louisana (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is "relevancy" of the article a criterion? If you mean notability, it's about the topic, not the article, and isn't determined by Instagram memes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will just note for now that it's perfectly normal to set a threshold for inclusion that keeps the list to a reasonable size. No source is needed to justify the 80-year threshold. I mean, there's nothing at List of largest power stations in the United States that sets 1,500 MW "as an appropriate lower bound". Reywas92Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, article is useful to have and is well sourced as it has 191 sources. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sources must discuss the concept of long marriages otherwise it is WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what OR means... Nothing in this article was just made up or synthesized by WP editors, it's entirely besed on sources. You can argue that compiling information from all these sources isn't notable because most of them are about individual marriages, many just being routine local news recognizing a couple rather than of the broader topic, but I see no original research or unsupported analysis. Reywas92Talk 02:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does appear to meet SELCRIT (unambiguous, objective, and reliably sourced). Objectively, 80 years is a long time to be married, let alone alive, and as such is a reasonable boundary to regulate size. The fact that these marriages are even being reported solely due to their length trumps the OR argument;the 80 number rightly keeps the list trimmed and not excessivly long and unnavigatable. Per Rewas92, Common sense and consensus should agree with that assessment; similar to Paris being the capital of France. I'm not seeing it as original research; it definitely appears well-sourced and backed up.DrewieStewie (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep, we do have sources remarking how unusually long certain marriages can be out of the marriages in a given large region, e.g. longest-married Dutch couple, longest-married Utahn couple, longest-married British couple, so on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:06, 22 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! 03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - my problem with this type of content is that it is only generated by collating trivia from many sources. Sources which have not all been examined as to their reliability. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. I was going to say "keep" until I read the related article's deletion rationale. If editors can't "find reliable sources that track the list's topic" then it can't have a list. There is also nothing special for the gives 80 year cut-off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, lots and lots and lots of lists have an arbitrary cut-off for size and User:Knowledgekid87's last sentence has no basis in guidelines or precedent as a justification for deletion. List of largest stars has a arbitrary cut off in the first table of 700 solar radii; List of largest snakes has an arbitrary cut-off of 50 pounds; I contribute to List of photovoltaic power stations, whose arbitrary cut-off has increased from 200 to 300 to 400 MW as more items are added. There's also no requirement in guidelines or precendent that a topic must be tracked in a different reliable source. None of the sources for List of the verified shortest people are a tracker that presents the exact same information, nor are any in List of people with the most children, List of oldest living state leaders, the FL List of largest cruise ships or List of heaviest land mammals, List of longest-serving mayors in the United States etc. etc. "Collating trivia from many sources" is simply not forbidden. I don't love this list which is why I didn't vote when I made comments above, but I also don't like bad arguments. Reywas92Talk 19:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reywas92: Couple thoughts. First, if you don't love the list and want to articulate an argument for deletion outside SELCRIT, I'm all ears. Second, I'm drafting off SELCRIT's line "Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" (my emphasis). I don't work with lists often and am not familiar with the history behind that wording, but with some additional searching it seems like that line could be ambiguous. You can find other editors wrestling with it in this discussion. If my reading of the line doesn't reflect how things actually work in practice, let's go make it less ambiguous. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long marriages are of enduring historical significance and of great importance just like other lists that are mentioned above are as well. User:Suncheon Boy
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehak Malik

Mehak Malik (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 satisfy WP:NBIO nor WP:NMODEL. Entirely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:05, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Zueva

Daria Zueva (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)

Significance for WP:BIO is not visible. Typically, articles in other language sections were made by the same participant with the only interest in Wikipedia in the form of creating articles about this person.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 01:45, 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! 03:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zingisa April

Zingisa April (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) 01:36, 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 redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Saudi Arabia. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najd FC

Najd FC (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 NORG. Unsourced article, nothing found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent sources. Found name mentions, routine sports mill news, listings, nothing that meets WP:SIRS.  // Timothy :: talk  01:21, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Saturday Primetime on ABC results

List of NBA Saturday Primetime on ABC results (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 fails GNG and WP:NLIST; there is no evidence that the results of games on the NBA Saturday Primetime on ABC series "[have] been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Nor does this list serve a valid navigational purpose; the individual games are not notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of (even interesting) information. Obviously a lot of work went into this page, but unfortunately I don't see any notability interest that warrants keeping it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:18, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Sunday Showcase on ABC results

List of NBA Sunday Showcase on ABC results (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 fails GNG and WP:NLIST; there is no evidence that the results of games on the NBA Sunday Showcase "[have] been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Nor does this list serve a valid navigational purpose; the individual games are not notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of (even interesting) information. Obviously a lot of work went into this page, but unfortunately I don't see any notability interest that warrants keeping it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:17, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman

AfDs for this article:
Sindhuja Rajaraman (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)

Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:

1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.

2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html

3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.

No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Comics and animation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion is not an option as it was JUST at a previous AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 explicitly allowed the renom. Suggest a focus on content and not process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: For my part I'm not seeing anything recent or meeting RS about this subject, and I'm not satisfied with the applied or presented sources meeting WP:BLP. Reading the DRV leads me to believe there is not much community support for keeping (as the side comments in this process might lead one to believe). BusterD (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the previous AfD found coverage spanning a period from 2011 to 2019. 8 years is too long of an "event" to invoke WP:BLP1E and the nature of the "event" in this case is not well defined. The fact that there has not been significant coverage since 2019 is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The nominator has a strong rationale as also illustrated in prev AfD. Issues of churnalism/promo remain in sources. Current GoogleSearch brings out heavy PR stuff. Would refrain form making any personal comments about the subject. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 18:20, 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 redirect‎ to List of largest stars. ✗plicit 00:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UW Aquilae

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

Does not meet WP:NASTRO and therefore not WP:GNG; hardly any coverage in reliable sources. Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't redirect to List of largest known stars as that page is a redirect. At least when I edit Wikipedia, redirects show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect to List of largest stars because the name changed recently. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 11:29, 25 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.

1905 (film)

1905 (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)

This film was canceled before it even began filming (like happens to many other films). This article does not meet the threshold for notability stated in WP:NFF. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The failure of the production received a lot of significant coverage from reliable independent media. A redirect to the article about the director should be considered anyway. Absolutely opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) (added 4 sources, there are more).[reply]
    You mean that it received the same one paragraph about the production being canceled because the company being bankrupt. All valid information on the non-exiting Prenom H article or as you say, a one line mention on Kiyoshi Kurosawa's page (which it already is). Gonnym (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I understand your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge into the page for either Kiyoshi Kurosawa or Tony Leung Chiu-wai. It looks like there was a short flurry of coverage about the film and its cancellation, but I don't see where there's been any true long-term coverage about this. The best I could find was this, which only gave it kind of a brief mention. The thing with cancelled productions is that the guidelines is looking for quite a lot of coverage. Even the infamous Superman Lives wasn't deemed to be notable enough for its own article. I think this could be covered in a few sentences on either Kurosawa or Leung's articles at most. Perhaps an "impact" section at Senkaku Islands dispute, if doable? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A decent example of what an article about notable cancelled film would look like sources-wise would be Akira (planned film). That's a cancelled film that's been kicking around for decades and still gets some coverage now and again, despite it being in near permanent development hell. It also survived two AfDs, although I'll note that the last one was divided on whether or not it should have its own article. Something like this film, where there's more or less just a handful of coverage, just isn't enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG, NFILM, nothing in article or found in BEFORE meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, keep votes provide no sources or guidelines to eval. Ping me if sources are found.  // Timothy :: talk  15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added FOUR sources addressing the production and I am not sure how one could consider them unreliable nor insignificant.
  1. Japan Today in an article titled "Atsuko Maeda's film canceled after studio goes bust due to Senkaku dispute" stated, Shooting of the film "1905," starring former AKB48 member Atsuko Maeda has been canceled after its production and distribution company filed for bankruptcy, it has been revealed.The period movie was set to star Chinese actor Tony Leung Chiu Wai, 50, Japanese actor Shota Matsuda, 27, and Maeda, 21, who was making her first movie since she "graduated" from AKB48 last summer. It was to be directed by famed horror director Kiyoshi Kurosawa.According to a Sports Nippon report, movie production and distribution house Prenom-H Co filed for bankruptcy after shooting costs rocketed. The added costs were said to be incurred as a result of the Senkaku island dispute between Japan and China. The movie was a Japan-China joint production, with 90% of the movie's dialogue spoken in Chinese dialects.Credit research company Teikoku Databank Ltd said that Prenom-H Co has received authorization to start bankruptcy proceedings from the Tokyo District Court. Prenom-H is believed to have liabilities amounting to around 643 million yen.The large-scale action production was centered around Yokohama in 1905. Filming was scheduled for both Japan and Taiwan and the movie was pencilled for release in Japan this fall.
  2. The Hollywood Reporter in an article whose subheading is "The Japanese shingle has filed for bankruptcy amid debt related to action film "1905," which actor Tony Leung pulled out of due to the territorial spat." wrote, Distributor Prenom-H began bankruptcy proceedings in the Tokyo District Court with debts of $7 million (643 million yen) on Feb. 21, following the problems with filmmaker Kiyoshi Kurosawa‘s 1905. The project ran into trouble after Hong Kong star Tony Leungpulled out of the production last September, at the height of the China-Japan row over the Senkaku-Diayou Islands.Leung had been criticized in China for appearing in the film, which was set in Yokohama, Japan, in the year of the title, but had been scheduled to shoot in Taiwan. Financing for the Japan-China co-production was also reportedly disrupted by the political tensions between the two countries, leaving the project in limbo.
  3. Variety in an article whose subheading is "Production delays on '1905' tips distrib over edge" wrote, Production difficulties on Japan-Hong Kong period actioner “1905,” which had been tipped for a major fest bow, has hastened the demise of its Japanese distrib Prenom H. The ongoing dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands, which touched off massive protests in China last year, has stalled the pic’s shoot, which started in November. Star Tony Leung has reportedly bailed on the project, pushing back the release and putting a crimp on financing. Starring Shota Matsuda and Atsuko Maeda, and helmed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the pic was set to bow in Japan in October, with Prenom H and Shochiku co-distribbing.
  4. The Guardian in an article about the effect of the Senkaku dispute on film wrote, The big budget Sino-Japanese co-production 1905 also appears to be another victim of the ongoing dispute over the islands. Starring Hong Kong's Tony Leung, and directed by Japan's Kiyoshi Kurosawa, the period action-drama was due to start filming in Taiwan in November but has now been postponed. Leung was due to play a loan shark who ventures from Guangdong province in China to Yokohama in Japan to recover debts from a band of anti-Manchu government revolutionaries.
Feel free to also open and read the existing sources on the page, and to check the other existing sources covering the production and its notable failure.
For example, a ONE-CLICK search gives, among other things:
  1. https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/tony-leung-and-j-horror-master-kiyoshi-kurosawa-team-for-upcoming-japanese-chinese-period-drama-1905-106255/
  2. https://news.yahoo.com/news/style/tony-leung-1905-indefinitely-161527817.html
  3. https://variety.com/2012/film/news/tony-leung-to-star-in-1905-1118059020/
  4. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2012/09/10/tony-leung-to-star-in-1905-hk-thesp-has-first-lead-role-in-a-japanese-pic/
Plenty of other articles about 1905 exist.
Oh, and of course, the "guideline to eval" should be WP:NFF ("Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.") and/or WP:GNG ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), if that is really the issue in the keep vote(s) (there's only mine) mentioned in the one delete !vote above. .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film, none of the above as SIGCOV about the film, they are passing mentions of the film while addressing other subjects. SIGCOV requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject - the film. None of the sources above meets this requirement. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the titles of the articles or their subheadings, then read them, thank you. Stating that they are not "SIGCOV" and only contain "passing mentions" of the film is not accurate, I am sorry. The rest of your reply is contradictory, sorry again. Disputes and problems are common and derail productions all the time, there is not indication the ones that impacted this are anything notable that merits an article....hhm, yes, there is an indication and it's precisely the coverage addressing the failure of the production directly and in depth in numerous (again, more exist, as I am sure your BEFORE has shown you) articles in very reliable media. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing ReaderofthePack's comment first, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Tony Leung, and Atsuko Maeda were all leadings figures in the film, so it is unreasonable to merge the article into any one of them while neglecting the others. The examples raised, Superman Lives and Akira (planned film), are not comparable in this case. Superman Lives was only in the early stages of development, not even with a confirmed leading cast. Akira is not exactly a cancelled film, but rather stuck in development hell and production waiting to resume due to Waititi's current commitments. A recent example with a more similar context that comes to my mind is Scoob! Holiday Haunt, which also underwent pre-production but was scrapped partially due to the production company's financial issues. Scoob! Holiday Haunt still has its article retained.
Addressing Timothy's claims, I was puzzled by your statement that "articles about the studio or their financial problems are not articles about the film" and calling the above sources "passing mentions of the film". I agree with Mushy Yank's skepticism about whether you have read the sources listed above. The Indiewire and Variety sources (published in 2012) announced the film's release and provided in-depth coverage of the plot, cast, crew, and development process. Meanwhile, The Japan Times, The Guardian, and Yahoo! News (Cinema Online) sources focused on the film sparking political controversies related to the Senkaku Islands dispute and Tony Leung being labeled a traitor by the Chinese. These five sources have nothing to do with the cancellation of the film, while they are all sufficient to establish the film's notability.
In addition to the subjects discussed, I have found numerous related Chinese and Japanese sources. There are sources with in-depth coverage of Tony Leung, Atsuko Maeda, and Shota Matsuda's characters (see Elle[58]). There are also sources covering pre-production, such as reporting on Kurosawa's site visit to Taiwan for film locations (See China Times[59]), on Maeda's preparation for her character (See Wen Wei Po[60]), and on Kurosawa's plan to continue filming despite Leung's departure (See Hong Kong Economic Times[61]). Regarding the film's legacy, there are recurring mentions even though it was cancelled. When Kurosawa's cross-border project Daguerrotype entered the Golden Horse Film Festival in 2016, he was asked about 1905 in interviews and expressed the possibility of continuing the film (see Sina[62] and Liberty Times[63]). Maeda also made comments on the project in 2016 and expressed interest in reprising her role (See Natalie[64]). The language of the sources should not affect its reliability, in fact, it may even be better than English sources in this case, as the film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production.
Let's review what we have at the moment. We have in-depth coverage of the film's early development, its announcement, pre-production details such as plot, filming plans, and character descriptions, political controversies related to the Senkaku dispute, the bankruptcy of the production company, the film's cancellation, and continuous subsequent mentions about the film's potential revival. Simply put, the sources listed above amount to a dozen, and there are more available on the internet. Therefore, I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF, as the film's pre-production has demonstrated significance and clearly fulfills WP:GNG already.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with @Mushy Yank and others who believe that the coverage is sufficient to pass the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see plenty of superficial coverage about the production difficulties, and exactly one sentence about the plot of the film. I'm not sure how that can be viewed as "significant coverage" of a movie. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OwenX: What are you even talking about? The twelve sources I quoted are absolutely UNRELATED to the production difficulties. All of them are either before the production enters controversies, or after the production was scrapped. The Elle source was also entirely about the characters' biography, and multiple sources covered the proposed plot. So I also do not understand which "exactly one sentence" about the plot you saw. I am not sure how you cast the vote without even bothering to click into the sources others provided in the discussion and ignoring the argument that has long proceeded from whether there are sufficient sources, but whether it fulfills WP:FFEXCEPTIONS, which has nothing to do with the reason why the film is scrapped or how much about the film details have SIGCOV in sources, but whether the pre-production or legacy demonstrated significance and has notability. The twelve sources I provided already have SIGCOV on these two aspects, so I still don't see a reasonable basis for deletion up until this point in this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's take an example: the China Times source you provided is about a different film - Daguerrotype, and only mentions 1905 in a side note: In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor. That's it. Is that what you call "SIGCOV"? Owen× ☎ 09:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OwenX: What's the point of taking the one source with the least coverage to argue that all sources do not have SIGCOV? Yes, the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources are all not centered around the film. Because as I mentioned, this was to show how the film continuously demonstrated significance even after production was scrapped, and I have explicitly mentioned that some are from interviews of Kurosawa's other cross-border project Daguerrotype. It was to prove that the legacy of the film had significance, which settles WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. (I believe you are well aware that not all sources cited in an article must have significant coverage on the subject, and not all sources count toward notability. So I have zero clues why you chose the China Times source as "the one example" other than trying to pick the one with the least coverage to confuse others.) What you were claiming is that the sources only have passing mentions about "the production difficulties" and "the plot". Then you should focus on sources related to these topics. So what about the Indiewire source? The Variety source? The Chicago Tribune source? The Elle source? The Wen Wei Po source? Or the sources about other aspects of the film, like the political controversies in The Japan Times source, The Guardian source, and the Yahoo! News sources? Did none of them provide SIGCOV? And what about the ones that Mushy Yank listed out (the The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Japan Today sources)? It's sophistry to pick the one source with the least coverage and use that to argue that none of the sources have SIGCOV, while ignoring all the other sources that do demonstrate. Makes no sense to me at all. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but you claimed that all 12 sources provided significant coverage about the film. Did you not read the sources, or were you being dishonest? Owen× ☎ 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OwenX: You are just proving my point that your argument is sophistry. Please take a look at WP:SIGCOV. An article with SIGCOV doesn't necessarily have to focus on the main topic of the article, it only means that as long as it is not a trivial mention and addresses the topic in detail. Let's put aside whether one of the three paragraphs in the article focusing on 1905 is considered trivial or significant, even though I personally don't consider it trivial. One, it is totally fine even if the article is from an interview of the director regarding another project. Two, I was mentioning that these twelve sources were all providing significant coverage on other aspects of the film, instead of just "production difficulties" or "the plot". That's why I was telling you that all of these twelve sources provided SIGCOV regarding two specific topics - pre-production and legacy. So of course you can only find little of what you were expecting there, because you were not addressing the right topics of the sources. Besides, you were neglecting the other aspects of the film which also demonstrate its notability that the sources provided SIGCOV on. You are being even more hypocritical by explicitly naming the one source with the least coverage (length/words) about the film, and trying to attack my statement on the sources providing SIGCOV, neglecting the fact that I clearly cited this to prove FFEXCEPTIONS. At this point, I think everyone reading this discussion can tell who is being dishonest and hypocritical, and who has a valid point. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, are you claiming that In addition, the movie 1905 he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai (Wai Tsai) as the leading actor is more than a trivial mention of the film, or was your original claim that all 12 sources provide SIGCOV a lie? At this point, you have two options: (1) admit that your original assertion was incorrect, and amend it, at which point we can address your amended statement; or (2) dig your heels in deeper, and make it clear to anyone reading this that you are not above twisting the truth to push your agenda. Owen× ☎ 10:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OwenX: This is ridiculously hilarious. Alternatively, I think I have already proven to you that your assertions were wrong with my previous reply. One, the China Times source does not just have a passing mention of the film, but has a whole paragraph about it. You tried to conceal this fact with your wrongful translation (see below), and I do not agree that one out of three paragraphs of an interview is considered trivial. (especially the film was already scrapped years ago and the interview was basing on another project) Two, there is nothing wrong with citing an interview of the director in another project according to SIGCOV, so your attempts to refute the China Times, Sina, Liberty Times, and Natalie sources simply because they are interviews of Daguerrotype were wrong. Three, SIGCOV only requires the sources to address the subject topic in detail. It doesn't cover what you expect, simply because you have put the focus elsewhere. I don't see any of the twelve sources I cited failing to cover the pre-production and legacy aspects with SIGCOV. I really don't understand where your confidence came from to continue accusing me of lying, when you seem to be the liar in this case, especially with the misleading translation you provided with the China Times source. Also, I was wondering what is my "amended statement", as I have been holding on to the same one all the time, which is that I don't see why WP:FFEXCEPTIONS should not be applied in this case to override WP:NFF. By the way, this is not even my article. I am just a random passer-by. What's in it for me to be dishonest? Or what agenda could I possibly have? Assuming bad faith much? Or perhaps the real issue is that you were triggered when someone pointed out that your statements contained untrue and misleading elements. And now you are trying to turn the tables with your strawman arguments (still ridiculed by your "this one source with the least coverage mentions so few about the film, so the all other sources you cited, or the sources other users cited must also be the same") and accuse me of being the one who is dishonest, in an attempt to make yourself look more credible. This is my final reply and I will let the closing admin decide. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, although I can read Chinese, I used Google Translate to run the China Times source. There is a whole paragraph about 1905, which reads In addition, the movie "1905" he was preparing in the past originally had Tony Leung Chiu-wai as the leading actor. He also came to Taiwan to scout the location, but was unable to start filming for some reason. He said regretfully: "I really want to come to Taiwan to film, of course. I also hope to find Tony Leung to act." Which argument is actually misleading here? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prince of Erebor you've made your case, please allow others to weigh in and be mindful of Bludgeoning the discussion. Star Mississippi 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Star Mississippi: I was confused when you said I was bludgeoning, and I just realized there were sock puppets kept on closing the discussion. I have already stated that I will let the closing admin decide. (I was just editing some typos and bolding my arguments further, as I was dissatisfied with someone who was lying accusing me of lying instead in the discussion.) I did not bludgeon. (Not implying anything or anyone specific. But it is childish if someone is trying to accuse a veteran editor on zhwiki with ten thousand edits of sockpuppetry. A simple SPI can easily prove my innocence.) (Edit: Those sockpuppets seem to belong to User:Ivanvectra. I apologize if my previous comment offended anyone. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    to be clear, I know you're not a sockpuppet. You're an established editor and there's no reason for an SPI involving you. That's a bored troll disrupting AfD over the last week. The timing of the semi to stop from playing whack a sock was coincidental. Opinions may differ on bludgeoning, but I'm glad you'll leave it to a closing admin. Star Mississippi 13:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a section to Kiyoshi Kurosawa. Although other big names were attached to the production in acting capacities, the film was Kuosawa's project, and it is not uncommon for Wikipedia to associate and list unrealized products with the director. Of course, nothing prevents it from being mentioned in other articles by reference to the section. BD2412 T 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The discussion is recently reopened on 00:04, 6 June 2024‎ per another Wikipedian's request. Since I consistently faced personal attacks and my argument had been constantly twisted, I hereby briefly summarise my stance and rationales once again for the closer or anyone else who may be concerned. Everything I mentioned below can be found above:
I have quoted twelve reliable sources (including five English sources found by Mushy Yank, and seven Chinese and Japanese sources that I found, as I can read those languages and the subject film is a Mandarin-language Japanese production) that provided significant coverage on the film's pre-production details, the political controversy surrounding it, the departure of a lead actor Tony Leung, and future recurring mentions of the film's potential revivals, which I consider to be part of its legacy. These sources are all from well-established media outlets. The English ones include Variety and The Guardian, the Chinese ones are from Wen Wei Po and Hong Kong Economic Times, and the Japanese source is from Natalie. All of these sources address the film directly and in detail, and I believe the extensive coverage on pre-production and legacy fulfills the criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:FFEXCEPTIONS. Therefore, I believe this article should be kept.
My initial argument is straightforward, and all the sources I presented are verifiable. One source, the China Times, was specifically discussed, as it appears to cover the subject film the least and was excerpted from an interview of the director on another project. To rebut this, I actually posted a full translated version of the source (previously falsefully trimmed down). It spans a full paragraph, while the whole article only has three paragraphs, therefore I did not agree that it should be considered trivial. Still, I agree that this source, along with the Sina and Liberty Times sources, are a bit shorter in length since they are interviews of the director on another project. However, according to WP:SIGCOV, it is also acceptable for the subject to not be the main topic of the source as long as it is addressed directly and in detail. All twelve of the sources I listed fulfilled this criteria and are not passing or run-out-of-mill mentions. I have presented these arguments above twice, but was never addressed. No thorough analysis or substantive arguments basing on the other sources I listed out were raised. Therefore, I respectfully retain my stance of Keep in this relisting, as I believe the film has well fulfilled the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NFFEXCEPTIONS. I will not summarise or address the opinions of Mushy Yank, Readerofthepack, Timothy, OwenX, DCsansei, and BD2412 to avoid further disputes or being accused of making strawman arguments.
And respectfully, I find it very exhausting to be assumed bad faith even after this discussion (per talk page of the original closer), merely due to my expression of disagreements with a Wikipedian. While I agree that my word choices may not have been especially mild either, I am uncomfortable of being repeatedly called out for being "dishonest" or accused of "pushing my agenda" to keep my "pet page". Also, just to keep record, I think two sentences I replied in the discussion on the original closer's talk page perfectly sums up the scenario. Did you really review all the sources presented in the discussion thoroughly before you cast your Delete !vote, so you would realise that plenty of the sources are unrelated to production difficulties? Is that also an act of dishonesty? Up till this point, I still see no addresses on why was the sources I cited about pre-production and legacy were mistakenly summarized as covering the production itself (and the subsequent doubts on whether the sources had indeed been reviewed), nor why was the source I clearly mentioned was to prove the film has legacy and fulfill FFEXCEPTIONS, was falsefully trimmed down and quoted to prove that it touches nothing about the film's production details. I guess everyone reading this discussion call tell who is really being dishonest and taking disagreements too personally. That is all I have to comment. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

noted in the history but doesn't appear on the logs. Just don't want it to get lost. Courtesy @OwenX: Star Mississippi 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not showing as overdue, but definitely is so there's a log issue. Hoping this works this time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:NFF. It’s a textbook case. Coverage is only that it was to be made and was cancelled. There is no significant coverage to meet the GNG. There is no significant material, because there is no film. There is nothing to merge anywhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although WP:NFF states “films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles,” in the case of the movie 1905, WP:FFEXCEPTIONS applies. The topic of the film's planning and pre-production has generated multiple, non-trivial news stories. That coverage is, in my opinion, enough to satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. AstridMitch (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th percentile speed

85th percentile speed (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 do not think this concept merits its own article, and believe it is adequately covered at Speed limit#Maximum speed limits, which actually goes more into depth than this standalone article (which is nothing more than a dictionary definition). This article should be redirected to that section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 85th percentile speed is a policy decision that was perhaps in the past considered a minor component of Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. However it is now being covered by reliable sources as a large component of Transportation safety in the United States, with criticism directed solely at the 85th percentile rule (as opposed to high speed limits in general) and laws being written to eliminate the rule (but not high speed limits). The rule has significant coverage and meets GNG.
Subject deserves its own article to track the development of 85th percentile rule usage and decline, as covered by reliable sources. Just like Parking mandates is a different article from Parking.
PK-WIKI (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a civil engineer, I agree it needs its own article. 71.115.83.120 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a civil engineer, I disagree. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess article changes. It's also become more complicated now that there are two Merge target article suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article isn't going to get any bigger than it is now, merging would be appropriate. If we're going to start adding maps that track where in the world this rule is used, and follow along with reform efforts, a standalone article is appropriate. I don't mind merging and then re-splitting later if the section in question gets too long.
I'll also note that a third article covers the same topic, V85 speed. That should be merged into this article if kept, or its merge target if not. -- Beland (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Speed limit per voorts. Speed limit is a suitable merge target; in essence this information is a partial answer to the question "how are speed limits chosen?" which is a logical topic for that article. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:16, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Bartlett (racing driver)

John Bartlett (racing driver) (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 not demonstrated. I find a couple of passing references to Bartlett in reliable sources, but nothing substantial. See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.
Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.  
Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.
I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.
As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.
Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.
I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.
I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone (Redacted). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.
John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@77.101.199.59: Hi John. Do you know whether you have been covered in-depth in independent sources? E.g. stories focusing about you in newspapers, racing magazines, etc.? If so, let us know and that could be able to rescue the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there will be lots of stuff but I'd have to search through boxes and I'm about to leave tomorrow for Birmingham for a protest outside the offices of the CCRC on Friday (we're hoping it might hit the headlines)!
I do remember putting a Post of a German magazine on my Facebook page a few years ago (probably 2014/15) that did a feature of some sort about me but I have no idea what it said, as it was all in German, but it did have various photos of my Team. I have enough trouble with english as I'm very dyslexic!
I will defiantly have Le Mans year books for 84/85/86/87 (the years we ran) but I'll have to find them, probably in the roof!
I do know Penthouse Magazine (who were sponsoring us that year) ran a full a 2 page article on us in 1987. I suspect it was published in the July or Aug edition, as Le Mans would have been June. I'll see if I can at least find the German article for a start but it probably won't be until I get back. Thanks, John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should have been "definitely", not defiantly!!!
Anyway, I've found it, but still no idea what it says. It was 'RTL GP magazine' and I put it on my facebook page on 3rd Feb 2015. On the front cover it mentions Features on Lamborghini, De Tomaso and Bardon, a car we ran in 85/86/87 in WSPC. The Bardon was the Group C car I developed in 1996. The name was a mix of BAR (me) and DON (Robin Donovan). Robin was one of my regular co-drivers and is listed on Wikipedia.
I have just re posted the magazine on my Facebook page as a memory.
Hope this helps but I'm going to be away until next week now (longer if I'm arrested)!
John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the message below to BeanieFan11 last night but I don't know if you also got to see that message? I will now be away until next week but I have added my direct contact info below. John
My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.
Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.
Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.
I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.
As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.
Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.
I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.
I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone ([REDACTED]). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.
John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read your message. I'll see if I look into the German article / Facebook post soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To closer: request relisting to allow for more time to research. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Beanie's request, and as there is currently no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at WP:Requests_for_undeletion#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - propose closure of this AfD so that the normal BLP process can continue elsewhere on the talkpage and WP:BLPN per WP:BIOSELF JMWt (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've posted some potential sources on the article talk page. Porterjoh (talk) 15:17, 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 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! 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Downtown Master Plan

Sudbury Downtown Master Plan (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 downtown redevelopment proposal, not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Things like this might be valid article topics if they're well-referenced, but are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- but except for one "article" (really just a reprint of a press release) in Canadian Architect magazine, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by the city and content self-published by the Ontario Association of Architects.
And since we already have articles about Tom Davies Square, the Art Gallery of Sudbury and the Sudbury Arena — basically every noteworthy building involved here — those can already cover off virtually any content we would actually need about this. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a master plan is never notable in itself - but its accomplishments might be notable. Therefore, any notable redevelopment that may come from the master plan should be incorporated in the history section of Greater Sudbury once it has been completed and reported on in secondary reliable sources. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:13, 22 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. I don't think all of those previous AFDs listed were on this same article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwein

AfDs for this article:
Schwein (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)

Relisting as previous nomination did not attract any comment and soft deletion was not applicable. Non-notable band that only lasted one year; no sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should stay up. Per v, point 6, the group consists of several independently notable musicians. Weiqwbo (talk) 14:13, 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) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – KMFDM's parallel project, I believe it has enough notability. Svartner (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete: While it is composed of notable bands, I am unable to find any significant coverage of this band or the albums. Almost all of the mentions I can find of it are just in interviews with Raymond Watts. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The entire article is an inference that notability is inherited (by participation in other bands). Nothing applied, presented, or found which meets direct detailing in reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Notability matters, we don't want to bloat the individual artists' pages.
    The band operated mainly in Japan, or at least only performed live there so the problem with finding sources is that they would be in Japanese magazines of that time (more than twenty years ago). Which are one) hard to find nowadays, two) expensive to acquire when found, and, I suppose, three) wikipedia would knock them as sources since most of them would be featuring interviews with the band members and wikipedia considers this self-promotion (in my opinion that's not entirely relevant, if the publication is in a reputable magazine, it should count, since a reputable magazine wouldn't print about randos even if the randos paid. But what am I doing using logic here.)
    Some scans of magazines can be found here:
    https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/58976.html
    https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/58387.html
    https://tigerpal.dreamwidth.org/9790.html
    Scans are probably the closest we can get to the magazines but we have to acknowledge that fans are more likely to want to preserve the musicians' own words over those of random reporters. Weiqwbo (talk) 20:57, 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. ✗plicit 00:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Nassolo

Samantha Nassolo (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)

An orphan article. A search for sources yielded just 1 hit in google news. Being the founder of "Miss Lira Beauty Pageant" is not really a claim for notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random run of the mill nightclub owner who happened to do some work for some small scale beauty pageant. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_16&oldid=1224139228"