Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 22

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryan barnes 1963 (talk | contribs) at 05:28, 22 May 2024 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Cheetah.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 21 May 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:CSK #1, absence of delete rationale. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Cheetah

Chester Cheetah (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)

Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite of the nominator not showing any rationale for deletion, I do see some rationales why it is because first; seems to not have a reception section, second; most of the sources are just information and unreliable sources which have nothing to do with the WP:SIGCOV however, there is some reliable and reasonable sources like 7, 11, and 16. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:20, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Stew

Computer Stew (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 of the article doesn't appear to be notable. The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com. Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999, a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
    Sources
    1. "New This Week". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-10-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      This is a 142-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "So it’s a delight to discover this regurgitatively innovative daily show, in which John Hargrave (an editor at computer-trade site ZDNet) and Jay Stevens (contributing solely via speakerphone) present a feast of gag-inducing gags. ... Despite some audio glitches and a bulky download, Stew shows that a lot of fun can be had with a little technology — and a strong stomach."

    2. Hartigan, Patti (1999-10-01). "Geeks go for guffaws: "Computer Stew" puts high-tech, lowbrow humor on the Net". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      This is a 784-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "The show comes in byte-size servings of about three minutes per segment. Short videos are appearing on the Internet, as entrepreneurs and Hollywood types are falling over one another trying to discover what kind of entertainment content is going to make a killing on line. And like it or not, there's nothing else quite like "Computer Stew" out there."

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Paws

Redemption Paws (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)

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.
These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. SilverserenC 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A flawed nomination is not a reason for a procedural close once a valid Delete !vote has been voiced. Please address the sourcing to determine if this meets our guidelines. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:06, 30 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Sharip Othman

Muhamad Sharip Othman (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 could not find out if this person passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, not to mention the page contains some pretty shady and unsourced information. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 14:50, 15 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! 05:16, 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 soft delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tural Yusifov

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng

Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng (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:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:39, 15 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! 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Brief coverage with only four hits in Gnews, but nothing extensive that would help meet notability. Sourcing in the article isn't useful, 3 and 4 are red per Cite Highlighter, with 5 being marginal. On the whole, we don't have notability for this artist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 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 merge‎ to Arab Canadians. There is consensus that the information should be preserved, but not as a standalone Star Mississippi 13:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Canadian identity

Arab Canadian identity (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)

Follow-up to the deletion of:

All written by the same user that have also been deleted for the same reasons, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Arab Canadian" or "Arab-Canadian (identity)" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 15 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! 05:13, 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. Rough consensus is split between Keep and Merge, with little support for an outright deletion. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka

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

Yet another Russian invasion of Ukraine content fork. This one is quite particular in the sense that it is made up. There was no fighting in Mala Tokmachka during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine launched this operation to liberate areas south of the line of contact and reach the Azov Sea. Mala Tokmachka was north of the line of contact.

What this article does is group a series of engagements that took place in one of the four fronts of the counteroffensive (the one towards Vasylivka, the Robotyne one in this case, the one towards Berdiansk and the Bakhmut one) under one supposed title. This article is original research. No sources talk of a "Battle of Mala Tokmachka". Splitting content from 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive is also not justified. The aforementioned Robotyne front in which these engagements took place was in fact the one that saw the heaviest fighting during the counteroffensive, specially during the latest stages. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mala Tokmachka is one of many towns that saw heavy fighting although not enough to deserve it's own article. Jebiguess (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please let me explain why rather than just a short comment
1. Multiple sources talk about a battle around Mala Tokmachka as well as armor and personnel losses from the engagement.
2. This battle was the reason as to why Ukrainian commanders switched tactics during the counteroffensive.
3. Like I said earlier, articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic.
4. Multiple offensives throughout history and that have articles on wikipedia have battles that took place in them.
5. Content is NOT being split from the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. The purpose of this article is to specifically go over what happened at Mala Tokmachka and how the result of this battle led to Ukrainian commanders changing their tactics. Ukrainian Wikipedia has already done this for other battles during the counteroffensive. Salfanto (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Battle is notable for the employment of Western supllied weaponry like M2 Bradley and Leopards 2A6s. Also Rabotyno should have an article. That town was the centre of all the Ucrainian advance during the 2023 Summer offensive.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion or merge to 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. There is no named "Battle of Mala Tokmachka" in reliable sources, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to invent battles where reliable sources have not previously defined them. None of the sources refer to these events collectively, so it is disingenous to portray this series of assaults and clashes as a battle lasting from 7-30 June. Only the early assaults seem notable in any way, but not notable enough for a standalone article at this point. There may be some valuable analysis in the aftermath section here - a place can be found for it somewhere on the counteroffensive page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How could this article become more notable? Any help is much appreciated Salfanto (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not notable in and of themselves; articles cover notable people or notable events. I don't know how you would demonstrate that there was a notable event called the Battle of Mala Tokmachka. For example, you have recently added content about Mykola Melnyk, whom you refer to as a veteran of this battle. But I can't find Mala Tokmachka mentioned once in either the Censor.Net article or the David Axe article. Perhaps this battle is more widely reported on under a different name? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian called it "Mala Tokmachka assault" in this article
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/14/ukraine-failed-assault-near-mala-tokmachka-raises-counteroffensive-challenges Salfanto (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a review of the sources: assault (or attack, etc.) seems to be a more frequent word than battle in the sources. And events past 9 June would not appear to be part of the same event. So the question seems to come down to whether or not this series of assaults between 7-9 June, where much of the Western armor was lost, warrants its own article, or if it would be more appropriate as a part of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large employment and large loss for the first time of Western-provided equipment was notable and heavily reported on at the time. EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it heavily reported as a military engagement that took place within a determined area and timespan? Can you provide sources suggesting this? Super Ψ Dro 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is properly described, there are sources, it just needs to be expanded and developed. The article is needed and there should be more of them, because there were many battles during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, and they do not have any articles, but are only briefly and insufficiently described without division into battles. Unlike the counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson, which have such articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs)
I don't really see a necessity of splitting the article into separate battles. And the Kherson counteroffensive does not have any battle articles in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is battle of Davydiv Brid only in Kherson counteroffensive but there is. 79.186.59.115 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive there are the Battle of Kupiansk and the Second battle of Lyman Salfanto (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that the events in Davydiv Brid took place in May-June 2022 while the Ukrainian operations in Kherson are usually understood to have begun in August, so this may be something of a mischaracterization. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address notability based on sources, as defined by our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:12, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 4

Interior Design Masters series 4 (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)

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 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! 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 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.
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! 05:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Shameem Farhad

Kazi Shameem Farhad (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 possibly involve a COI. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:11, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabiha Mehzabin Oishee

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

There are no claims to notability, and nothing in the sources suggests subject passes WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:10, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 3

Interior Design Masters series 3 (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, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 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! 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:14, 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.
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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

AfDs for this article:
Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (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:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here for the record that I am in agreement with the proposed draftification. The article may not require deletion anymore. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zerotalk 12:36, 15 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! 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seems unlikely to achieve consensus, but with this much discussion, let's give it a try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zerotalk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zerotalk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where this book is focusing on this subject? The summary of this book that I have found tells it is rather talking about Rajput#Culture and ethos.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is scattered throughout the book. Note the emphasis on political marriage and marriage alliance — this was not just a matter of some people marrying each other. For example, on p80-81 we have "Political marriages soon came to play a significant role in the establishment of the Mughal rule. Akbar wanted to use political marriage alliances as an important means for building and consolidating local support. In fact, Akbar’s conception of the Rajput role in his expanding empire was responsible for a number of matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs, and he made at least 40 political marriages for himself, his three sons, and his eldest grandson. Ultimately the emperor made marriage alliances for himself and sons with almost all major Rajput chiefs." And on page 80, "the first Rajputs to make marriage alliances with the Mughal dynasty were seeking support for their efforts to gain or retain land. Raja Bharmal Kachwaha, involved in a long and bitter contest with a brother for the control of Amber and Mertiya Rathore, Jagmal Viramdevot, was similarly struggling with his brother Jagmal for Merta, both married their daughters to the young emperor in 1562–3 respectively." And the drama surrounding marriage alliances is exemplified by a quotation on page 79: "The Mugals demanded the hand of princess of Roopnagar, a junior branch of the Marwar house. But she rejected the proposal offering herself to Rana Raj Singh in return for her protection. The priest deemed it as an honour at being the messenger of her wishes. The Rana then appeared before Roopnager and took her away to his capital. This led to a war between Mewar and the Mughals." On page 84, "Marriage alliances were also entered into as a face saving device in order to bring an end to prolonged hostilities over land." On page 141, "When the Rathores of Marwar rose to prominence in the mid-fifteenth century, marriage alliances with them were keenly sought after." That's all taken from random pages and is more than enough to demonstrate not only the relevance of this book but also the notability of the topic. Zerotalk 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be discussing a broader topic, which is not just "Rajput Mughal" marriage alliance but more than that. Will you support moving the title to something like Political marriages in India? That would certainly clear up things and allow meaningful expansion and removal of WP:SYNTH from the present version.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have preferences as to how the topic is divided into articles. It can be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Meanwhile it would be counterproductive to delete the part of the story that this article tells. Zerotalk 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book also appears citable and contains a fair amount of relevant information. In particular it could help to move the article away from being a boring list. Zerotalk 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NXcrypto, if you have evidence, please file a case at WP:SPI. But AFDs are not an appropriate place to cast aspersions and make undocumented accusations against another editor. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editor must be talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HinduKshatrana. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above proposal to draftify as laid out by ArvindPalaskar seems good. I am not opposed to it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Simply searching "Rajput" and "marriage" in the sources cited, like so [7] [8] [9] (page 19), produces strong evidence that this subject is covered in reliable, scholarly sources, was very significant to world history, and is not some made-up POV-pushing SYNTH. In addition, the delete !votes have been particularly weak, consisting of inaccurate vague waves at policy, very poorly-reasoned arguments that do not take into account any of the evidence provided, and several accusations of policy violations which have not yet been substantiated. Toadspike [Talk] 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I almost closed this discussion, but decided to weigh in with a comment instead. My reading is that the topic is covered pretty substantially in reliable sources and it seems like an appropriate topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am not seeing this as pushing a POV (being unfamiliar with the politics, so I may be naive), nor do I see this as being original research. In any case, the POV issues if there are any could be addressed via editing. I don't see much need to draftify the article; if there is interest in improving the article's tone or POV, I think that can be done without moving to the draft space. Malinaccier (talk) 14:57, 7 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. Please add the sources you found in your participation in this discussion into the article so there is not a return trip to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Syafi'i

Abdullah Syafi'i (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 NBIO. Sources in article (blogspot) and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:GNG is met. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NPOSSIBLE). Clicking on the Find sources: news and books links above shows that sustained coverage of Abdullah Syafi'i exists across many independent reliable sources. I have checked some of the non-English news sources using Google translate. Collectively they add up to significant coverage. The sustained coverage is also an indicator of notability (WP:SUSTAINED).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that on 17 May 2024 WC gudang inspirasi redrafted the article using better sources.[10]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 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! 05:07, 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! 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Subject is notable even though most sources are not in English. Some sources I could find online were Tribunnews here states about how the subject was shot and martyred with his wife. Another here and so on here. This gives a preview that subject passes GNG. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:38, 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)

Imperium (film 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)

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 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! 03:36, 29 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! 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if you don't have WP:NAVPOPS installed, it's not usually convenient to look up those settings. Innocent mistakes never bother me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I'm not sure whether it should be kept and converted to an article (e.g., adding paragraphs and sources), kept as a WP:SETINDEX, or converted to a WP:DAB page. But I don't think overall that we solve any problems by deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)

The Vets (company) (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 company that does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP. Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 15 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! 05:04, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badal Sesher Pakhi

Badal Sesher Pakhi (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. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage found other than the announcement of the series. ABP Bengali provides some coverage, as does Etvbharat, but I'm not sure about Etv’s reliability. Both of them are just announcements of the series; no other coverage found. Grabup (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of coverage available. See for example Hindustan Times. ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well, for what it's worth. --Soman (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hindustan Times article only talks about marriage and doesn't provide any information regarding the series at all. Additionally, when you said "ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well," you should know that Republic World is also a major outlet, but it is considered unreliable. Similarly, there is no consensus that ETV and ABP are reliable sources at WP:ICTFSOURCES, but I personally think that ABP should be considered reliable but I question ETV's reliability. GrabUp - Talk 11:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Sun_Bangla#Currently_broadcast. Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. Sources are poor with not enough coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 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! 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:16, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus that the newly located sources satisfy notability standards for schools. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy

Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy (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. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文（习作） [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN 1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP [zh].

      Colourful Language (Exercises) is a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. According to this description from Google Translate, "Colourful Language (Exercises) was officially launched in January 2015, with academic guidance provided by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. The magazine is closely linked to the reform of basic education curriculum and strives to provide suitable resources and platforms for middle school Chinese teachers to meet the needs of teachers for daily teaching and improvement of professional qualities."

      The abstract notes: "本期的＂大眼睛看世界＂,小编将和大家一起走进香港一所名校——香港华人基督教联会真道书院。真道书院位于香港调景岭湾畔,学校分小学和中学部,与其他学校不同,真道书院学生没有统一的校服。小学部学生在中文课上使用的是内地出版的小学语文课本,他们觉得教材文字优美,内容包含了古今中外的文化特色,和浓厚的道德教育元素，很符合小学语文教育的需要。"

      From Google Translate: "In this issue of "Seeing the World with Big Eyes", the editor will go with you to a famous school in Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Union Logos Academy is located on the shores of Tiu Keng Ling Bay in Hong Kong. The school is divided into primary and secondary schools. Unlike other schools, students at Union Logos Academy do not have uniforms. Students in the primary school use primary school Chinese textbooks published in the Mainland in their Chinese classes. They feel that the textbooks are beautifully written, contain cultural characteristics of ancient and modern times, Chinese and foreign cultures, and have strong moral education elements, which are in line with the needs of primary school Chinese education. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing a school-based curriculum and uses some Chinese and art textbooks from the Mainland."

    2. Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "2002年創校的真道年資較其他直資學校淺，被定為新派直資學校，卻是全港唯一採用「十一年一貫」課程模式的學校，分兩年基礎階段、五年拓展階段及四年通達階段，以十一年完成小學及中學課程。 ... 在小學首兩年基礎階段，真道期望學生打穩知識基礎，學好自理、自學及自省能力。學校着力建構校本課程，採用部分內地中文及美術科教材"

      From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy has a younger school years than other DSS schools and is designated as a new DSS school. However, it is the only school in Hong Kong that adopts the "11-year consistent" curriculum model, which is divided into two years of basic stage and five years of expansion stage. and the four-year mastery stage, which takes eleven years to complete the primary and secondary school courses. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing school-based curriculum and adopts some mainland Chinese and art textbooks."

    3. A, Yin 阿言 (2024-02-01). "專訪｜香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 多元體驗式學習培育未來領袖" [Exclusive Interview｜Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy's diversified experiential learning cultivates future leaders] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "學校著重學生全方位發展，學生從小學便培育體、美特質，提供多項興趣班予學生選擇，如跳繩、跆拳道、琵琶及烏克麗麗等。另外，為培養學生閱讀習慣，自小學階段設有閱讀時間，同學在操場集合一同閱讀，從小學階段養成自己探索知識的習慣。中學則設有 DEAR Time（Drop Everything And Read），讓學生暫時放下功課及其他事務，專心閱讀。學校更會舉辦不同活動，如閱讀馬拉松、圖書日、書展等讓同學接觸不同類型的書籍，鼓勵學生閱讀。"

      From Google Translate: "The school focuses on the all-round development of students. Students develop physical and aesthetic qualities from elementary school, and provides students with a variety of interest classes to choose from, such as rope skipping, taekwondo, pipa and ukulele. In addition, in order to cultivate students' reading habits, reading time is set up from the primary school level. Students gather in the playground to read together, and develop the habit of exploring knowledge by themselves from the primary school level. Middle schools have DEAR Time (Drop Everything And Read), which allows students to temporarily put aside their homework and other matters and concentrate on reading. The school also organizes different activities, such as reading marathons, book days, book fairs, etc., to expose students to different types of books and encourage students to read."

    4. Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2021-06-02). "【直資中學】一條龍11年完成小學中學課程　真道書院雙軌制曾出產IB狀元" [[Direct Subsidy Scheme Secondary School] One-stop primary school and middle school courses completed in 11 years. Union Logos Academy’s dual-track system has produced IB top scorers]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院屬中小學直資一條龍學校，也是全港唯一以11年完成小學及中學課程的學校。真道書院既提供中學文憑試課程（DSE），同時開辦國際文憑課程（IB），學生在公開試成績優異，過去亦曾誕生IB狀元。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a one-stop school under direct subsidy for primary and secondary schools. It is also the only school in Hong Kong that completes primary and secondary school courses in 11 years. Union Logos Academy not only provides the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) course, but also offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) course. Students have achieved excellent results in public examinations, and IB top scorers have also been born in the past."

    5. Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "位於將軍澳區直資學校的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，即提供本地文憑試（DSE）課程，同時開辦國際文憑（IB）課程，多年來深受家長歡迎。真道書院小一面試有兩輪，第一輪是小朋友自行面試，若成功通過會進入第二輪面試，家長也會獲邀出席，TOPick邀請了為女兒報考7間直私小學的港媽梁太，拆解真道書院小一面試第一階段考核的内容。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, located in the direct subsidy school in Tseung Kwan O District, provides local Diploma Examination (DSE) courses and also offers International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. It has been popular among parents for many years. There are two rounds of primary one interviews at Union Logos Academy. The first round is for children to interview on their own. If they successfully pass, they will enter the second round of interviews. Parents will also be invited to attend. TOPick invited Mrs. Leung, a mother from Hong Kong who applied for her daughter to seven direct private primary schools to dismante the contents of the first stage of the primary school interview at Union Logos Academy."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (traditional Chinese: 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院; simplified Chinese: 香港华人基督教联会真道书院)) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk  12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These sources aren't doing what they're purported to be. Source 1 appears to be the equivalent of a WP:TRADES publication. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are brief listings of multiple school options, no significant coverage. (Moreover, 4 and 5 are on the Hong Kong Economic Times' "TOPick" subsite, which appears to be a advertorial Daily Mail-style infotainment site, not a reliable source.) Source 3 is described as an "interview," which is a primary source and thus not eligible to validate notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University, is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school.

    The third source contains sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. The fourth source discusses other schools but provides significant coverage of this school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

    For the fifth source, I linked to the wrong article for the same reason discussed above. I've fixed the link. The fifth article is about the school's interview process and is significant coverage.

    I consider TOPick to be a reliable source. According to this information from a Telum panel discussion with the Hong Kong Economic Times Group about TOPick:

    Editorial team

    Around 30 journalists and editors, each contributing five stories daily.

    An independent editorial and video team oversees each sector.

    Editorial focus

    80 per cent on parenting and health, 20 per cent on entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle.

    Parenting: general parenting news and education information through a section called 「Band 1 學堂」, which features information on kindergarten, primary and secondary school, elite education and overseas study.

    The publication has journalists, editors, and an independent editorial team. It is not an "advertorial" site. It aims to inform its readers about parenting and education topics. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 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! 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. See my comments on the sources above; I do not believe they are sufficiently reliable nor offer enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dclemens1971 assessment. I don't believe the additional sources found help with notability. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am surprised that reliable sources from a Chinese academic journal and Hong Kong newspapers are considered insufficient to establish notability. Sources likely these previously have been sufficient to establish notability for schools, which must meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and not Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which "establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article".

    An alternative to deletion is to merge to Tiu Keng Leng#Education, where this school is located. School articles should be merged, not deleted, when there is a suitable alternative to deletion.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.

    Cunard (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So are you now !voting for merge not keep? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first.

    The first source I found casts an unflattering light on the school as it says that 20% of the teachers resigned owing to being overworked. Here is the source:

    1. "真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p. A12.

      The article notes: "在電視節目《殘酷一叮》三連霸的「莫生」莫凱謙現正就讀的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，今年將有五分一教師共九人離職，有教師指離職原因是因為工作辛苦。"

      From Google Translate: "One-fifth of the teachers from Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, where Mok Kai-him, who won three consecutive championships in the TV program "Cruel One", is currently studying, will resign this year. Some teachers said that the reason for resigning was because of the hard work."

      The article notes: "○二年創校的真道書院是一間直資一條龍學校，中小學共用約五十名教師，當中有近兩成共九名教師，在今學年完結後離任。"

      From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy is a direct subsidy one-stop school with a total of about 50 teachers in primary and secondary schools. Among them, nearly 20%, a total of nine teachers, resigned after the end of this school year."

    I will keep searching for sources and when I'm done, I will post the rest of the sources here. I will do this within the next few hours. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I explained above why I didn't search for these sources earlier. I have found numerous additional sources about the school. I omitted the numerous positive articles and have focused on the negative articles since there were concerns earlier about the sources being "marketing" or "promotion". I think these sources should be sufficient to establish notability. If they are not, I could continue my search for sources since these are only some of the hundreds of results about the school that I found. Here are the additional sources.
    1. The Sun article about 20% of the school's teachers resigning for being overworked 2005
    2. Articles about the school's primary school students being disallowed in 2008 from participating in a competition because of how its academic system is different from other schools':
      Sources
      1. Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽 學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. A9.

        The article notes: "西貢區的香港華人基督教聯會真道學院第六年辦學，一直採用「兩年基礎階段+五年拓展階段+四年通達階段」的十一年中小學一條龍教學制度，不同於現行「六年小學+五年中學”十一年中小學教育。若依年齡劃分，現時真道二百二十一位就讀「拓階四」的學生是傳統的「小六生」，不過該階段學生接受政府中學資助，○七/○八年中學概覽內也劃分他們為「中一生」。"

        From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Council Zhendao College in Sai Kung District is in its sixth year of operation. It has been using an eleven-year one-stop teaching system for primary and secondary schools of "two years of basic stage + five years of expansion stage + four years of mastery stage", which is different from the current "six-year" "Primary school + five years of secondary school" eleven years of primary and secondary education. If divided by age, the current 221 students of Zhendao who are studying in "Top Level 4" are traditional "Primary 6 students". However, students at this stage receive government secondary school subsidies and are also classified in the 2007/08 Secondary School Profile. They are "middle life"."

      2. "真道「小學生」被禁參賽風波" [Controversy over Logos Academy's "primary school students" being banned from participating in the competition]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-26. p. F1.

        The article notes: "以十一年中小學學制為賣點的將軍澳香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，想不到其與別不同的學制，引起一場小學生停賽風波。第六年在該校就讀的拓展階段四年級(DS4)學生，尷尬地處於中小學的中間點，學界體育聯會西貢區小學分會認為，DS4學生既接受中學資助，應被界定為中學生，故此禁止參加本學年剩餘的小學際與區際比賽。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O, which sells its eleven-year primary and secondary education system, unexpectedly caused a controversy among primary school students due to its different academic system. The expansion stage fourth grade (DS4) students who study in the school for the sixth year are awkwardly in the middle point between primary and secondary schools. The Sai Kung District Primary School Branch of the School Sports Federation believes that DS4 students should be defined as secondary school students since they receive secondary school subsidies. They are prohibited from participating in inter-elementary and inter-district competitions for the remainder of the school year."

      3. "直資校參加學界賽腰斬" [DSS schools lose half of their participation in school competition]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-25. p. A20.

        The article notes: "本港學制日益多元化，不再局限於傳統中小學之分，惟學界體育比賽制度僵化，繼續以中小學劃分，令到一間直資名校的近百名十一歲學生，因其所讀的課程等同於中學課程，被拒與傳統學制同樣十一歲的小六學生比賽，學生參賽資格即時被腰斬，學子無辜，慘成官僚制度下，政治鬥爭的犧牲品。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong’s academic system is increasingly diversified and is no longer limited to traditional primary and secondary schools. However, the school sports competition system is rigid and continues to be divided into primary and secondary schools. This has caused nearly a hundred 11-year-old students from a prestigious direct subsidy school to be divided. The courses he studied were equivalent to middle school courses, and he was refused to compete with the 11-year-old Primary 6 students in the traditional school system. The student's qualifications were immediately cut in half. The innocent student became a victim of political struggles under the bureaucracy."

    3. The school was harshly criticised in 2010 by Hong Kong's Audit Commission for administrative misconduct regarding property purchases and tuition fees. This led to hearings by the Legislative Council Accounts Committee. It led to at least one hundred articles covering the fallout which spanned at least several months. Here are a few of those sources:
      Sources
      1. "德信售校章利潤1.5倍 教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p. A7.

        The article notes: "立法會帳目委員會昨天就直資學校的監管舉行最後一場聆訊，重點討論三所直資學校的違規行徑，包括運用七千萬元投資的德望學校、用一千萬元購買三個該物業的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，"

        From Google Translate: "The Legislative Council Accounts Committee held the last hearing on the supervision of DSS schools yesterday, focusing on the irregularities of three DSS schools, including the Good Hope School, which used HK$70 million of investment, the Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which used HK$10 million to purchase three properties ..."

        The article notes: "議員何秀蘭質疑，真道書院有否將盈餘儲備作投資或購買物業，減少學校現金流，以用作申請加學費理由。教育局首席助理秘書長李煜輝表示，該校○八╱○九及○九╱一○兩學年均有加費，但局方發現於○九年八月三十一日的現金流有七千多萬元，連同物業和基金股票等，已超過局方規定的儲備上限，由於盈餘過高，局方已拒絕其一○╱一一學年加學費的申請。局方稱，核准學校加費不單是考慮學校現金流，亦有其他因素。局長孫明揚補充，校方加費須得到家長同意，校方亦要遞交發展計劃，由局方釐定學校是否可以存有大量盈餘。"

        From Google Translate: "Councillor Cyd Ho questioned whether Logos Academy had used its surplus reserves for investment or property purchases to reduce the school’s cash flow, which could be used as a reason to apply for a tuition increase. Li Yuhui, Chief Assistant Secretary of the Education Bureau, said that the school had increased fees in both the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 academic years, but the bureau found that the cash flow on August 31, 2009 was more than 70 million yuan, together with properties and fund stocks, which exceeded the reserve limit stipulated by the bureau. Due to the excessive surplus, the bureau has rejected its application for a tuition increase in the 2010/2011 academic year. The bureau said that approving a school to increase fees is not only based on the school's cash flow, but also on other factors. Secretary Sun Mingyang added that the school must obtain the consent of parents to increase fees, and the school must also submit a development plan, and the bureau will determine whether the school can have a large surplus."

      2. "真道放寬學費減免收入限制" [Logos Academy relaxes income limit for tuition exemption]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A12.

        The article notes: "上月審計報告重點審查的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，被揭發擁有1900 萬盈餘但學費減免條件嚴苛，又以個人名義購置單位作教師宿舍。真道學院近日已作多方改善，昨日3 名校董連同校長，與400 名家長會面，提出5項措施回應，包括放寬申請家庭的學費減免收入限制，鼓勵清貧學生報讀。"

        From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of last month’s audit report, was revealed to have a surplus of HK$19 million but had strict conditions for tuition exemptions and purchased units in individual names as teachers’ dormitories. Logos Academy has made many improvements in recent days. Yesterday, three school directors and the principal met with 400 parents and proposed five measures in response, including relaxing the income limit for tuition exemptions for applying families and encouraging poor students to apply."

      3. "真道書院開家長會 跟進審計報告指控" [Logos Academy held a parent meeting to follow up on the accusations in the audit report]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A26.

        The article notes: "遭審計報告羅列多宗「罪行」的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨天下午舉行家長會。該校多名校董出席，與約400名家長會面。"

        From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was hit with numerous “crimes” in the audit report, held a parents’ meeting yesterday afternoon. Many school directors attended and met with about 400 parents."

      4. "真道書院聘會計師核賬" [Logos Academy hires accountants to audit accounts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A14.

        The article notes: "於直資審計風暴中屢被批評多項行政失當的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨日再召開家長會，安排校董會向家長講解事件最新進展。校監陸幸泉提出多項措施「補鑊」，包括聘請羅兵咸會計師重新檢視學校帳目、釐定學校採購政策競價投標準則等，以個人名義購買的一間村屋及居屋亦將作物業轉名事宜。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which has been repeatedly criticised for multiple administrative misconducts during the direct subsidy audit storm, held another parent meeting yesterday and arranged for the school board to explain the latest developments of the incident to parents. School Superintendent Luk Xingquan proposed a number of measures to "make up for the wok", including hiring accountants Luo Bingham to re-examine the school's accounts, determining the school's procurement policy and bidding criteria, etc."

      5. "真道近2000萬助學金未批出 教局反對用作添設備 必要時接管學校" [Logos Academy's nearly 20 million scholarships have not been approved. The Education Bureau objects to using them to add equipment and take over the school if necessary.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-01. p. A4.

        The article notes: "於直資學校「審計風暴」中被重點查帳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，已被教育局書面警告須及時糾正違規買物業及助學金儲備使用率低等問題。... 接近政府的消息稱，教育局認為學費減免是為有經濟需要的學生而設，不認同用作添置設備；局方會留意校方最終如何落實改善違規工作，若成效不彰，便會由教育局常任秘書長派員進駐學校管理委員會接手校政。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of audits in the "audit storm" of direct subsidy school schools, has been given a written warning by the Education Bureau to promptly correct problems such as illegal property purchases and low utilisation of bursary reserves. ... Sources close to the government said that the Education Bureau believes that the tuition fee reduction is for students with financial needs and does not agree that it will be used to purchase equipment. The Bureau will pay attention to how the school ultimately implements the improvement of violations. If the results are not effective, the Education Bureau's permanent secretary-general will dispatch personnel to the school management committee to take over school administration."

      6. Ni, Qingjiang 倪清江; Xia, Zhili 夏志禮 (2010-11-27). "最後通牒即將到期校監校長拒轉業權　教局擬進駐真道校董會" [The ultimatum is about to expire. The school supervisor and principal refuse to transfer ownership. The Education Bureau plans to join the Logos Academy Board of Directors.]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. A5.

        The article notes: "被審計署揭23宗罪的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，挪用1,000萬元非政府資金購置3項物業，業權卻是校監和校長。教育局原來早已知悉，多番促請他們將業權轉回校方，但不獲理會，早前發出最後通牒，日內到期。若真道繼續當教育局無到，局方將派人進駐該校校董會，情形有如去年撤銷辦學權的臻美黃幹亨小學暨國中學校的翻版。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was exposed by the Audit Office for 23 crimes, misappropriated HK$10 million of non-governmental funds to purchase three properties, but the ownership was owned by the school supervisor and principal. It turned out that the Education Bureau had known about it for a long time and had repeatedly urged them to transfer the ownership back to the school, but was ignored. It had earlier issued an ultimatum that would expire within a few days. If Logos Academy continues to be in charge of the Education Bureau and there is no one, the Bureau will send people to the school board of directors, and the situation will be a replica of the Zhenmei Huangqianheng Primary School and Junior High School that revoked its schooling rights last year."

    4. "自辦刊物" [Self-organised publications]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2010-07-06. p. E6.

      The column says at the bottom that it was written by the Sing Tao Daily editor-in-chief.

      The column notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，是近年區內成立的直資中學，該校就辦了一本名為《真道人》(見圖)的刊物，介紹學校的理念和發展，至今已經出版了兩期。 真道書院出版這本《真道人》，以一本機構刊物來說，可以說不簡單，新一期的內容除了由校長講解學校取得的國際認證AdvancED外，還有其他親子專題、閱讀版等，從內容、版面設計到紙質，都顯示投入了相當的資源。從刊物的製作班底看，除了校內老師班底，還有資深教育新聞從業員郭玉蘭參與，難怪專題報道形式和深度相當接近傳媒。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a direct subsidy secondary school established in the district in recent years. The school has published a publication called "Logos People" (see picture) to introduce the school's philosophy and development. So far, it has two issues were published. Logos Academy publishes "Logos People", which is not simple for an institutional publication. In addition to the principal explaining the international certification AdvanceED obtained by the school, the new issue also includes other parent-child topics, reading editions, etc. From the content, layout design to paper quality, it shows that considerable resources have been invested. Judging from the publication's production team, in addition to the school's teacher team, Guo Yulan, a senior education news practitioner, is also involved. No wonder the format and depth of the special report are quite similar to those of the media."

    Cunard (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:55, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College

G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (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. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, primary, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  02:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. Lam, Yim-hung 林艷虹 (2022-11-24). "優才（楊殷有娣）書院 特色課程培育多元人才" [G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College's special courses cultivate diverse talents]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院（下稱優才）為直資一條龍學校，小學初小部（小一至小三）位於旺角校舍，高小部（小四至小六）及中學部（中一至中六）則設於將軍澳校舍。 ... 值得一提的是，優才以推動資優教育見稱，校名英文縮寫G.T.，G代表Gifted，即與生俱來的天賦；T是Talent，表示每一個小朋友都有獨特才華，因此提供多元特色課程來培育孩子。"

      From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (hereinafter referred to as G.T.) is a one-stop school under the Direct Subsidy Scheme. The lower primary section (Primary 1 to Primary 3) is located in the Mong Kok campus, the upper primary section (Primary 4 to Primary 6) and the secondary section (Secondary 1 to 6 ) is located at the Tseung Kwan O campus. ... It is worth mentioning that Youcai is well-known for promoting gifted education. The English abbreviation of the school name is G.T., G stands for Gifted, which is innate talent; T stands for Talent, which means that every child has unique talents, so it provides diverse Special courses to nurture children."

    2. Hui, Lok-hang 許珞珩; Cheung, Wai-ting 張瑋婷 (2022-10-24). "升小備戰｜直資優才(楊殷有娣)書院小學部　5層架構推動資優教育" [Preparing for primary school entrance｜Directly gifted G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College 5-tier structure promotes gifted education] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部共有兩個校舍，小一至小三的初小部校舍位於旺角洗衣街，高小與中學部則共用將軍澳調景嶺嶺光街校舍。學校由天才教育協會會長李業富教授於1996年創辦，多年來均實行小班教學及分組學習形式，老師會按學生的能力及長處分成小組，每班6組、每組約4人，不同科目也採用此形式上課。"

      From Google Translate: "The primary school of G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College has two school buildings. The junior school building for primary one to primary three is located on Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok. The upper primary school and the secondary school share the Ling Kwong Street school building, Tiu Keng Leng, Tseung Kwan O. The school was founded in 1996 by Professor Li Yipfu, President of the Gifted Education Association. For many years, it has implemented small class teaching and group learning. Teachers will divide students into groups according to their abilities and strengths. Each class has 6 groups with about 4 people in each group. Different subjects are also included in the school. Take this class."

    3. Hui, Melody (2023-05-09). "優才小學5.13開始報名 校長分享3大面試貼士 小朋友有一個特質最重要" [G.T. Primary School starts registration on May 13. The principal shares 3 interview tips. There is one trait that is most important for children.]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "直資一條龍小學優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部每年吸引超過3,000人報讀小一，學校推行獨特的教學模式，及深受家長喜歡小班教學，以每級5班、每班不超過26人，每年提供約130個小一學位，平均27人爭1學位，競爭非常激烈。本周六（13日）為2024／25年度小一報名日期，陳偉傑校長回覆記者查詢時，分享學校的教學特式、面試貼士及模式。優才最吸引家長的其中一個原因是一條龍學校，逾九成學生直升中一，而中學部同時開辦中學文憑試（DSE）及國際預科文憑（IB）雙軌課程，小學學生在無需面對升中選校的壓力下，可充分享受校園學習生活。"

      From Google Translate: "The primary section of the DSS one-stop primary school Youcai (Yang Yin Youdi) College attracts more than 3,000 students to apply for primary one every year. The school implements a unique teaching model and is well received by parents for its small class teaching. There are 5 classes per level and no more than 26 students per class. There are about 130 primary one places available every year, and an average of 27 people compete for one place. The competition is very fierce. This Saturday (13th) is the registration date for Primary One students in 2024/25. When responding to reporters’ inquiries, Principal Chen Weijie shared the school’s teaching style, interview tips and models. One of the reasons why Youcai is most attractive to parents is that it is a one-stop school, with more than 90% of students going directly to Form 1. The secondary school also offers dual-track courses of Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) and International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB), so primary school students do not have to face Under the pressure of choosing a school for high school, you can fully enjoy campus study life."

    4. Chan, Yik-chiu 陳奕釗. "香港學校｜優才(楊殷有娣)書院壓縮正統課程 特色教學培育優秀學生" [Hong Kong School｜G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College compresses the orthodox curriculum and cultivates outstanding students with unique teaching]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "優才(楊殷有娣)書院特別注重兩文三語、語文能力及溝通技巧。學校不單實行普教中，更讓學生學習法文、韓文、日文、意大利文及西班牙文等第三語言。... 成績方面，學校前年出了3位IB狀元，在全球3,500所IB高中學校中名列第11，香港則排名第3。2023年該校學生IB成績亦不俗：有一個45分狀元、兩個44分榜眼。而本屆69位畢業生中，該校有86%同學在Jupas獲得好成績，能入讀心儀大學及課程，"

      From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College pays special attention to biliteracy, trilingualism, language proficiency and communication skills. The school not only provides general education, but also allows students to learn third languages ​​such as French, Korean, Japanese, Italian and Spanish. ... In terms of results, the school produced three IB top scorers the year before last, ranking 11th among 3,500 IB high schools in the world, and Hong Kong ranked third. The IB results of the school's students in 2023 are also good: there is one top scorer with a score of 45, two top scorers Second place with 44 points. Among the 69 graduates this year, 86% of the school’s students obtained good results in Jupas and were able to enter the university and course of their choice."

    5. "Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools". South China Morning Post. 2009-06-13. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "Founded in 1997 as a private school and turned DSS in 2002. Merged with Chi Kit School in 2004. Multiple intelligence approach emphasising creativity, self-esteem and social responsibility. Class size: Primary 24; Secondary 24-26. School-based and activity-based curriculum. Over 50 talent classes, run by part-time tutors in small groups, offered twice a week as part of the curriculum. Regular visits to museums and other places of interest. Enhancement for gifted children. Secondary curriculum will lead to HKCEE, HKALE, and other public benchmark tests, IB Diploma may be offered in 2009. Medium of instruction: Primary: Cantonese, with English taught by native speakers. Secondary: English, except Chinese and Chinese history."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (traditional Chinese: 優才（楊殷有娣）書院; simplified Chinese: 优才（杨殷有娣）书院)) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability.  // Timothy :: talk  12:29, 15 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! 05:03, 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! 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A very decent search of sources by Cunard. I personally have some doubts on the reliability of Sundaykiss (as well as all outlets of New Media Group [zh]), but the other sources from Hong Kong Economic Journal, HK01, am730, and South China Morning Post are fine and all demonstrated notability of the school. I disagree with Timothy's claims that the sources are based on the same information and are simply for promotional purposes. For instance, the SCMP source was published in 2009, the HKEJ source was published in 2022, while the am730 source was published in 2024, so these sources are very unlikely to be based on the same source of information or sharing the same source materials. Besides, the sources are also obviously covering different topics. For instance, the SCMP source was discussing the schools of the Direct Subsidy Scheme, an educational policy in Hong Kong. The HKEJ source is about gifted education in the school. The am730 source is about the curriculum and academic results of the school in recent years. I think these few sources are quite neutral, at least hardly be considered as advertising the school or whatsoever, and obviously covering different aspects of the school. Moreover, the sources provided by Cunard are also only the tip of an iceberg, as there are in fact a lot more older sources. (For instance, a Sing Tao Daily article in 2015 about the school's public examination results[12], a TOPick article in 2018 about the school's reform policies on examinations[13], a Sky Post article in 2018 about the school's extra-curricular activities[14], a HK01 article in 2019 about the school's application and interview details[15], a Tai Kung Pao article in 2019 about the school being the first three schools to introduce the Citizenship and Social Development subject[16], etc.) Therefore, I agree that this article has well passed GNG and fulfilled the requirement of WP:NSCHOOL. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:02, 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 delete‎. Partially based on a lack of cogent response to the source analysis table and its findings. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Kings Obi

Unique Kings Obi (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 or any related SNG. Sources are either passing mention, primary or not independent of the subject. The only sources that give SIGCOV are obviously promotional paid puffs and connected to the subject. The Vanguard piece [17], and the Independent pieces [18], [19] are examples. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Subject is a notable figure in Nigeria and has enough sources to prove this. The passing mentions for were added to as an evidence to a sentence. The references about the African Creators Summit were also added to evidence the information that he is the founder of the summit Mevoelo (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 15 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! 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://tribuneonlineng.com/unique-kings-obi-makes-it-top-5-list-of-talent-managers/ No This is more or less a vanity list No Even though Nigerian Tribune is reliable per WP:NGRS, What's journalism without bylines? ~ ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/01/01/championing-collaboration-the-inspiration-behind-the-african-creators-academy/ No This is obvious from reading the piece No Even though This Day is reliable per WP:NGRS,What's journalism without bylines? No This doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV on him, rather on "The African Creators Academy" which in itself is still really not a significant coverage ✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/business/domestic/nigerian-creative-industry-launches-the-african-creators-summit/xgzd2dd No Pieces from "PULSE MIX" are usually promo puff, paid advertorials etc. No per WP:NGRS No Of course not, this is more or less a coverage on "African Creators Summit" and not Obi ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/lasisi-unveils-as-host-for-african-creators-summit/#:~:text=The%20organizers%20of%20the%20African,January%2025th%20and%2026th%2C%202024. I will not assess the independence of this source since it does not apply to Obi ~ Publication is marginally reliable per WP:NGRS, but this piece lacks a byline which renders the whole piece useless here on Wikipedia. No Just like Pulse Nigeria above ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/meet-unique-kings-obi-talent-manager-digital-marketer/ No Obvious paid advertorial, promotional puffery No Ditto Yes ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/04/08/the-future-of-the-nigerian-content-industry-a-conversation-with-unique-kings-obi/ No This is an interview published in a way that makes it read like a news piece. The headline says it all "A Conversation With Unique Kings Obi". "When asked about", "Obi points out", etc. No Ditto No This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi. ✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/content-distribution-in-the-digital-age-unique-kings-obis-approach-to-reaching-global-audiences/ No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. No This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi. ✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/top-5-talent-managers-nurturing-success-in-entertainment-industry/ No This is a duplicate publication by Nigerian Tribune that I assessed first, so, Ditto No Ditto ~ Ditto ✘ No
https://independent.ng/unique-kings-obi-paving-way-for-digital-talents-to-soar/ No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. No Promotional puffery and paid advertorial. ✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/music/211256-okiemute-ighorodje-emerges-winner-mtn-project-fame.html?tztc=1 I am not going to assess this source as it is reliable but does not apply to Obi Ditto No Ditto ✘ No
https://independent.ng/solvent-digital-moves-to-better-customer-service-relationships/ I am not going to assess this source as it does not apply to Obi Ditto No Ditto ✘ No
https://techcabal.com/2024/01/19/african-creators-summit-2024-countdown-to-africas-foremost-creative-workshop/ No Pieces by "Partner" from TechCabal" are usually sponsored/paid advertorials. In fact, this tells the whole story of all the sources used in this article. No Sponsored contents are not considered reliable No This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi. ✘ 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}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any comment to the source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thank you to Vanderwaalforces for the detailed source analysis. I looked at several, all of which were so clearly biased that they are worthless. When the sources are so promotional, it's no surprise that the article is too. Toadspike [Talk] 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  02:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. Chan, Margaret (1993-10-18). "Making studies enjoyable". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School, Po Lam Estate, Tseung Kwan O. ... This year, the school implemented an orientation programme for its 11 new teaching staff. The programme introduces the new teachers to the aims of the school; explains teaching procedures; and allows them to share their opinions and experiences after a few weeks in the new job. ... This year, the school has also introduced a new Form 1 subject called Computer Literacy. ... Since the school was founded in 1987, the quality of students has improved greatly. It accepted mostly Band 4 students in 1987, but now most students are in Band 1. ... The Christian school was founded in 1987. It is not affiliated to any particular church. ... Students are taught in Chinese and English, both sharing equal prominence. ... The school has 26 classrooms and laboratories for Integrated Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology."

    2. Ruby (2022-07-26). "西貢區中學Band1學校集結｜演藝界新星準備發光發亮" [Sai Kung District Secondary School Band 1 schools gather｜Rising stars in the entertainment industry are ready to shine]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "迦密主恩中學 迦密主恩中學是西貢區將軍澳新市鎮內第一個中學校舍，亦是第一間資助英文中學。所以它在早期已經是區內的知名band 1 英中，是區內採用英語授課歷史最悠久的學校！實力一定不會差。交流計劃及海外遊學團是他們基本的活動，固此他們的學生很早已經接觸外國文化，英文水平更是優秀。 與其他區的名校一樣，迦密主恩中學一樣著重STEM教育（科學、技術、工程及數學），學校就有STEM課程包括生物科技及3D打印技術，更有VR虛擬實景供同學發揮創意，說不定香港的將來科學家就是出自迦密主恩中學！"

      From Google Translate: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary Schooll is the first secondary school building in the new town of Tseung Kwan O, Sai Kung District, and the first aided English secondary school. Therefore, it was already a well-known band 1 English-Chinese school in the district in the early days, and it is the school with the longest history of teaching in English in the district! The strength will definitely not be bad. Exchange programs and overseas study tours are their basic activities. Therefore, their students have been exposed to foreign cultures very early, and their English proficiency is even better. Like other prestigious schools in the district, Carmel Lord's Grace Middle School also focuses on STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). The school has STEM courses including biotechnology and 3D printing technology, and also has VR virtual reality for students to express their creativity. Maybe Hong Kong’s future scientists will come from Carmel Lord’s Grace School!"

    3. "西貢將軍澳13校縮班" [Sai Kung Tseung Kwan O School 13 reduces classes]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2011-01-29. p. A13.

      The article notes: "繼北區中學自願縮班紓緩殺校壓力後，另一個「重災區」西貢及將軍澳區，13間中學昨日亦達成協議，各自縮減一班，包括名英中學迦密主恩中學"

      From Google Translate: "After the North District middle schools voluntarily reduced their classes to relieve the pressure of school killings, 13 middle schools in Sai Kung and Tseung Kwan O districts, another "hardest-hit area", also reached an agreement yesterday to reduce the number of classes by one class each, including the main school of Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School."

      The article notes: "迦密主恩中學創校24年，校舍建於八十年代，校長林瑞美指校舍只有25個課室，98年該校成為區內唯一英中，最高峯時多達31班，課室長期不敷應用 ，於是在頂樓加建一層，但新建樓層每逢雨天經常漏水，要用膠袋和喉管勉強支撐，曾試過有膠袋變成“水彈”墮下，影響正在考試的學生。 去年起該校為應付新高中學制，更要藉用旁邊小學課室上課。"

      From Google Translate: "Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School was founded 24 years ago. The school building was built in the 1980s. Principal Lin Ruimei pointed out that the school building only has 25 classrooms. In 1998, the school became the only English-medium school in the district. At its peak, there were 31 classes. The classrooms were not fully utilized for a long time, so an additional floor was built on the top floor, but the newly built floor often leaked on rainy days, and had to be barely supported by plastic bags and pipes. In one case, a plastic bag turned into a "water bomb" and fell, affecting students who were taking exams. Since last year, in order to cope with the new high school academic structure, the school has to borrow classrooms from the neighboring primary school for classes."

    4. Yun, Nga-ting 袁雅婷 (2023-02-01). "香港學校｜迦密主恩中學 全人優質基督教教育 培養品學兼優生" [Hong Kong School｜Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School, holistic high-quality Christian education, cultivating students with excellent moral character and academic performance]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "學校亦著重STEM的發展。他說，學校運用三層架構發展同學相關的興趣及能力，第一層是全校參與模式，所有同學在初中到高中階段，課程都加入STEM元素。學生一般到大學才有機會接觸生物科技，但該校已設有生物科技實驗室，讓同學在中二開始對該科目有所理解，例如有關培植細菌、找出較強殺菌清潔劑的實驗等。高中就有各項STEM活動，例如STEM Day，所有學生都會參與其中。"

      From Google Translate: "The school also focuses on the development of STEM. He said that the school uses a three-tier structure to develop students' relevant interests and abilities. The first level is a whole-school participation model. All students from junior high school to senior high school have STEM elements added to the curriculum. Students generally have the opportunity to come into contact with biotechnology only when they go to university, but the school already has a biotechnology laboratory, allowing students to begin to understand the subject in Secondary 2, such as experiments on cultivating bacteria and finding stronger antiseptic cleaners. There are various STEM activities in high schools, such as STEM Day, in which all students participate."

    5. "將軍澳迦密主恩中學擧行三屆畢業禮，温漢璋勉勵必須有信心以將軍澳為家鄉發光芒" [Tseung Kwan O's Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School held its third graduation ceremony. Wan Hon-cheung encouraged the audience to have the confidence to shine in Tseung Kwan O as their hometown.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1991-06-15. p. 6. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:08, 15 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! 05:00, 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 redirect‎ to Dilawar Malik. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laal Ishq (Pakistani TV series)

Laal Ishq (Pakistani 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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First things first—NTV is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Secondly, yes, it fails to meet WP:GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage which isn't sufficient. For example, this coverage based on interviews doesn't meet GNG because it's not independent of the subject, and this other coverage is more like a press release. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for average hits we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 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! 04:55, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angna (TV series)

Angna (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 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! 04:55, 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! 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As explained above, this series doesn't have coverage outside of the originating media organization, pretty much limiting any hope of GNG or other notability. I can't find sources about this we'd use either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 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 redirect‎ to Adeel Razzaq#Television. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dulhan (TV series)

Dulhan (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 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! 04:54, 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 redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Anthology series. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeeqat (2019 TV series)

Haqeeqat (2019 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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 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! 04:54, 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 merge‎ to The Sarah Jane Adventures. While arguments for deletion are weak, the rough consensus is that the content is better suited for the target article than for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters (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:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge? No support so far for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 29 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! 03:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I reiterate my stance that this should be kept as the best place to cover characters that are individually non-notable. I have seen no compelling reason why this list of elements of an undisputedly notable show should be redirected or deleted. No objection to combining with other character articles (or abstracting from them) to form a more traditional List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect No indication that people have discussed the characters of this show as a group, and we should not have a list of specifically minor characters for any show. Just because we can have a character list does not mean we should. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 12 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! 03:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amsvartnir

Amsvartnir (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 subject has only trivial mentions in secondary sources. The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the threshold of significant coverage for a separate article. Jontesta (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful for the nominator to evaluate the sources brought up in the discussion to see if they are acceptable to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the other encyclopedia's coverage of it more convincing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 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 redirect‎ to The Lost Princess of Oz. If editors want to create a new article incorporating some of the content here, it's all right there beneath the redirect. Just provide attribution. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Thi

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

A WP:BEFORE search presented only trivial mentions about this topic. This article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the level of significant coverage required. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Keeping, or even merging it somewhere, kind of needs to have some kind of sources outside of the actual book, and I am honestly finding absolutely nothing. Even sources/summaries about Lost Princess just kind of gloss over it as just stating its one of the odd locations they run across. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Land of Ev and the Deadly Desert are different — there are some actual sources talking about them as notable features of the Oz stories. City of Thi is a very minor location that I'm surprised to learn has an article. Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also nobody stopping anyone from undoing the redirect or moving the page to their userspace for future notability searches. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that they are different, but a huge section of that article is cited to nothing, and some of it is cited to the book itself, and we don't know how much is in the offline book. Land of Ev, too, is a more important place but it didn't feature much after Ozma of Oz, and the article is largely cited to nothing and has a lot of non-Baum content. This one by itself has a very weak do-not-delete rationale but as part of a larger article it could be OK. I don't know whether we can accept a citation to the book (it's widely done, but...)
    At some point a decision was made to deal with the characters, and it's a helpful article if people keep nominating these borderline place-in-Oz articles perhaps we can contain them in one place. Meanwhile Land of Oz keeps getting bigger. And there are plenty of places that don't get articles, like the Nome Kingdom. It's not indiscriminate, the Land of Oz as a whole and its features have been written about (I think). Oblivy (talk) 09:13, 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 keep‎. It would be great if these sources could find their way into the article itself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaean Reach

Gaean Reach (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 article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the nominator have a response to sources mentioned in the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoToMovie

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

Non-notable software. A PROD was removed in 2012. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 29 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! 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus to delete; consensus to rename to Next Tasmanian state election‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Tasmanian state election

2028 Tasmanian state election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?
    Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPathtalk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every other state/territory had their "next election" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPathtalk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants

List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants (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)

Irrelevant and random list of pageant contestants has stood unreferenced for going on a decade. (Last referenced version was November 2015). Better to start over, if someone cares to. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 29 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! 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s

NASCAR on television in the 2020s (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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:44, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s

NASCAR on television in the 2000s (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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:42, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s

NASCAR on television in the 1990s (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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:42, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s

NASCAR on television in the 1960s (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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:41, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s

NASCAR on television in the 1970s (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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:41, 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. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s

NASCAR on television in the 1980s (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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:40, 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! 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with NASCAR on television and radio: per the nom. I'm just not finding the sources covering the broadcasts from this decade as a group, and as such, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Merge as a WP:ATD, along with the rest of the articles from this 'series'. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 13 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. The lack of civility in some of the comments did not make it easier to evaluate this one. In several ways, the delete !voters and nominator make the case that this does not demonstrate notability as supported by reliable sources. For the record: It is not accurate to say that "every scientific paper charges some fee to publish." Respected journals usually do not charge publication fees. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Shishkin

Andrey Shishkin (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)

Self-proclaimed painter. No notability, no significant achievements, no reliable art criticism. Cross-wiki spam. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST Ты что, коммунист? что с тобой не так ??? << самопровозглашенный художник >> не можешь терпеть приличное искусство, настоящее, душевное искусство? ахуенный ... 98.240.113.219 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again due to lack of civil participation. This article seems to be about a painter but the discussion is more charged than one would expect for a borderline notable painter so I'm guessing there is more involved with his reputation than their artistic skills. A reminder, this is the English Wikipedia, please offer your opinions in English.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very sorry sir just his name is russian i wanted to reply like this i found it to be more pertinent
romanenko's remarks are laced with vitriol below the surface and betray a certain negative attitude, which he also expressed on ruwiki, where he was unfortunately successful in having the corresponding article deleted
@Андрей Романенко tell me that over four hundred paintings like this and reference to your work in scholarly papers is not a 'significant achievement'
how can you call him a 'self-proclaimed painter' looking at the exemplars of his work ???
i have seen on the english-speaking internet several memes using his painting Благословение ратника
this one for example https://ifunny.co/picture/how-it-feels-to-inherit-the-family-suicide-revolver-aUDIhr0PA
they're hard to find by searching, because of course the name and author of the painting are not provided
more professional websites where his work is posted
https://www.rbth.com/arts/335686-ancient-east-slavs-art
https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/41202
https://christian.art/daily-gospel-reading/luke-2-22-40-2020/
the followers of the rabbi yeshua really like his admittedly charming depiction by the avowed pagan shishkin
some private blogs
https://www.livemaster.com/topic/2998743-legends-and-stories-of-the-artist-andrey-shishkin
https://art-in-eastern-europe.blogspot.com/2016/09/andrey-shishkin.html
not enough criticism for you ? tell me again how he is a 'self-proclaimed painter'
have you painted a wall ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that someone's pictures are available in the Web at different obscure websites does not make their authors notable, neither does being mentioned in nobody knows whose blogs. No exhibtions in any known galleries, no works in museums, no art criticism in any known editions, no catalogues, no prizes, no place in professional art community, zero level of notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We have already in the article sources from academic journals.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
      This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
      The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
      The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
      The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
      The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
      Shishkin is one of the leading figures in pagan / Slavic fantasy art in Russia, a collective body of work, and he is prominently featured in these papers, which are cited in the article. So does he not meet the third criterion ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not finding significant, reliable coverage for the subject. Fails WP:ARTIST. I am not finding indications he is in any collections, or been part of any significant exhibitions. Reading what I can of the articles, it appears the references are more about the subject of paganism in art than in discussions of Shishkin's work, with the exception of Art-Vernissage, which is selling his art. An alternative might be to redirect to Russian Rodnover fine arts, but I don't see what information could be added to that article. The artist exists and paints. The biographical info was extracted from a Non-RS sale site. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGAINST The editor above (WomenArtistUpdates) is clearly biased against this article. She's part of the "Women in Red" wikiproject, which aims to change the percentage of biographical articles about men and women to "reduce systemic bias". It's obviously in her interest to reduce the number of biographical articles about men to make her "job" easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.55.216 (talk • 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 no consensus‎. I don't think a 3rd relisting would lead to a consensus. There is a basic difference of opinion here among well-intentioned editors on the quality of available sources and standards for notability that need to be met. Of course, those editors interested in pursuing a Redirect option can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. Not independently notable. It is already listed at the target, and there is not really anything that needs merging. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORG specifically says in the first paragraph, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) religions or sects, and sports teams. The appropriate guideline is thus not WP:ORGCRIT, but WP:SIGCOV, which says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Non-local sources are not required for GNG, and this article has 3 RS from local television news (CBS8 and 2 from ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV), as well as San Diego Entertainer Magazine and San Diego Business Journal, which are independent of the subject, as defined in SIGCOV. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    National attention (or even a non-local source) is NOT a requirement of SIGCOV. That's the difference between the NORG requirement and GNG. Non-profit schools can meet the notability requirement with either NORG or GNG or both. This one meets GNG.
    I also found and added one additional source announcing a full-ride scholarship opportunity from the University of San Diego. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An announcement of a scholarship is a primary source. Primary sources do not count towards GNG. Also the ABC 10 report is clearly not independent. The writer is a staff writer, but it is based entirely on an interview with the head, and ends with a fundraiser. It also has a questionable claim in it. How can someone be 300% below the poverty line? But I suppose bad maths is not an issue. The writer has a declared interest in faith based schools. The CBS8 source also has primary news/independence issues - it is a piece that is bylined "Cristo Rey San Diego High needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." It appears to be predicated on that basis. I do not see how any of this crosses the GNG threshold. If we have no national sources, local sources need to be in depth and to provide sufficient information to write an article. These sources do not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is a red herring in this thread. In response to @Grand'mere Eugene's comment that this would pass GNG with local sources, WP:NORG supersedes GNG (this is very clear at WP:ORGCRIT). And under WP:BRANCH, a local unit of a national org requires coverage in sources outside of the local area to be considered notable. The only notability this local school has is tied to the unique model of its network, which is why a redirect is best. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:NSCHOOL is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) under the section, "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" that specifies, All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. Either NORG, or GNG, or both. GNG is thus not a "red herring", but one of the ways schools may satisfy WP's notability requirement. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. See, for example: this. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the CBS8 source considered above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 21 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! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the CBS8 and SDEntertainer sources are sufficient for GNG; the arguments that this is insufficient because this is a school affiliated with a national organization are unpersuasive. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that this is not all that the discussion says is wrong with these two local news sources. Sources must be multiple, with significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable secondary sources. As above, these are not independent, aspects of them are primary sources, coverage of the school itself is limited and we are still short of multiple. Reliability has not been assessed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute your definition of "independent". Just because a TV station interviews somebody with the school doesn't mean it's not independent. And the "byline" you claim earlier is actually part of the headline. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the headline. So the article is not independent. Likewise I said rather more than just that the article was entirely off an interview with the head. The fact it ends with a fundraiser is also pertinent, and that is not the only problem identified with that source. Now you have made 100 edits to Wikipedia in your 3 days here, and nearly half of these are to AfD or RfD. You are very welcome to the discussion, but might I suggest there may be a little more to the evaluation of sources then you may yet be aware of. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that a CBS station isn't "independent" of a private school because the headline mentions the name of the school? I agree the source isn't perfect, but claims that CBS isn't "independent" of this school make me dismiss everything you say. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly I didn't say that. The concern is that the headline makes quite clear that this local news article is predicated on a call for local businesses to act as sponsors for their local school. "... needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this source, it is another local news source. "The San Diego Business Journal (SDBJ) is a weekly newspaper in San Diego, California covering local business news." - San Diego Business Journal. It is written by the paper's editor (Jay Harn), and is not clearly predicated on a funding drive. The coverage again only talks about the funding model. We really aren't getting much to say about the school beyond the funding model, and if that model were so significant, there ought to be national coverage. As a news source, reporting is a primary source, and sources should be secondary. I still believe that if the funding model itself were notable, a national news source would clinch it. Otherwise, for purely local coverage, more depth is needed about the school itself, such that an article about the school can be written. I will say I am not far from a keep here - I just don't think local reports about the funding model are enough on their own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 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 redirect‎ to Barkat Siddiqui#As a director. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Khuda

Mere Khuda (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 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 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! 02:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roadman Corner, Indiana

Roadman Corner, Indiana (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)

Here we have a puzzle, because as far as I can tell, the mappers simply made this name up when the school at this location closed. The Roadman School appears on earlier topos, and it is reasonably well-documented for a rural schoolhouse, mostly because of an attendee's recollections. As far as the "Corner" name is concerned, however, all the GHits are clickbait, and all the GBook hits are federal gazetteers. I find nothing indicating thee was ever a settlement here, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk

Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk (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)

Failed PROD, dePRODded because Google isn't through enough for a BEFORE check. Unfortunately, I don't have access to other sources, and this article isn't easily redirected. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Can somebody check Swedish media for notability? Given that the Swedish page for the article lacks sources, I'm doubtful, but it could breathe life into this article. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a tad difficult to get a good overview of sources from things released in 1999, since the archives tend to be less reliable. Nevertheless, this tour seems to have been one of the most signficant of the year. It got an award from one of the biggest Swedish newspapers, it was talked about as "the best tour" and so on. I've tried to expand the article: The singular focus on the album doesn't make sense to me, when the album was a product of an acclaimed tour. My access to sources of the time is not good enough to split them into two separate articles; they belong together. The article also lacked information about the band, which, yet again, might not work as well in a separate article, but should be briefly explained together with the tour and the album. I've expanded the article somewhat and added sources. /Julle (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Finland from the deletion sorting. Seems to have been added my mistake instead of Sweden? Don't see the Finnish connection, but please undo my edit if I'm mistaken. /Julle (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's quite some significant coverage of the tour, the article should probably be expanded to talk more about the tour/band as the main topic like Julle said, the album seems like it would work better as a section to that article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we have an assessment of available sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 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 redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Drama serials. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoor Pari

Hoor Pari (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 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 delete‎. Consensus among participants who took the trouble to carefully analyze the sources seems clear. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti

AfDs for this article:
Christian Nanetti (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 footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Complex/Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, All many the sources from a variety of newspapers/news portals above are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider The Sun reliable for anything. GiantSnowman 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, Even besides that, my other points still stand. Put together, even without the "tabloid newspapers", all the other sources from the newspapers and news portals like Gianlucadimzarzio show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your sources prior to my !vote and nothing has changed my mind since. GiantSnowman 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:46, 15 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! 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the heavily-interview-based sources noted above are enough for GNG. Tabloids and other deprecated sources obviously are unacceptable in BLPs and should be removed on-sight. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is most certainly not reliable for BLPs, which require high-quality sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s

NASCAR on television in the 2010s (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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:05, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Rohr

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

Couldn't find any reliable source on the subject. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Shinadamina (talk) 02:01, 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. There seems to be a consensus to delete or draftify the article. Given that it is unlikely anybody will come around to improve the article (given the creator's indefinite block), my sense is that draftifying the article will just result in an abandoned draft. If the creator would like a copy of the article, I would be happy to provide it at any time. Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao

V. N. Srinivasa Rao (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 that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.
In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).
But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.
Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[33] in Calamur.
If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Discarding canvassed votes and views not based on P&G, there is rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:
Salman Muqtadir (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)

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD. There's close to a consensus to delete here, but not something I'm comfortable closing as myself given the promises I made to stay out of using my admin tools for tricky content issues.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:09, 21 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. Strong arguments on both sides. But after more than five weeks, consensus failed to materialize. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Large

Cullen Large (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 Joeykai (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very easy keep. This biography clears GNG and NSPORTS by more than a lot of sports bios I've seen here. There is WP:SIGCOV in The Province, Baseball America, and Sportsnet, all of which are WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Sportsnet is owned by Rogers Communications, which also owns the Toronto Blue Jays, the organization that had Large at the time that article was written. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 27 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! 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The three sources given by Dclemens1971 are reliable, independent of the article subject, and provide significant coverage. My understanding is that Sportsnet's news staff have editorial independence from the Blue Jays themselves, despite common ownership, so I believe that source is sufficiently independent to contribute towards notability. Even if that source weren't included, we'd have two sources that meet WP:SIGCOV, which is enough to meet WP:GNG's requirement that there be multiple such RS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:31, 29 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Neil Fitzwiliam

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

No significant coverage and not enough major roles. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 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! 00:50, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_22&oldid=1225070066"