Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 26	May 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Carlton Crew

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

WP:V - Verifiability: This article contains almost no sourcing. Information present is unreliable and a lot of it seems to have been added in contravention of WP:NOR. Has been this way for 14 odd years judging by the article.

WP:ORG - Notability: The article does not meet the Notability guidelines for criminal organisations due to insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources.

Overall almost none of the information in this article is verifiable, and that is which is verifiable is not notable enough to warrant an article. I considered removing the unverified content, but that which would remain does not seem substantive enough. Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, and Australia. Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:BEFORE. Plenty of sources exist online that establish notability. I will work on improving the article in the coming days. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There seem to be plenty of sources on this group. That they aren't in the page is unrelated to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heaps of sources. Happy to wait for GMH Melbourne to improve. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list 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, 506sports is a forum and collegehoopsnet is merely an announcment of a list of commentators, the other is a blogspot post; neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Basketball, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to College Basketball on CBS Sports#Commentators with only the most notable announcers on that list. This list does not meet WP:LISTN for this wiki, but for the fandom wiki, it's fine. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources such as newspaper articles dating as far back as the early 1980s can easily be found and later added over a relatively short matter of time with the aid of Google News Archives as well as places like Awful Announcing for more "current" or up to date sources. There's also presumably, official press releases from CBS Sports itself. I would estimate, that sources can be filled up in roughly a day and a half. Also, who would fall under the criteria of being "the most notable announcers" among this particular list? Are we only referring to current announcers for CBS as of 2024, are we referring to announcers who only worked the March Madness tournament? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There are secondary sources discussing these announcers as a group particularly for March Madness, as seen with [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4] and [[5]] being found relatively quickly. I wouldn't oppose possibly reducing this to just the March Madness crews but sourcing does appear to show that the WP:LISTN is met. Again, this isn't a broadcasters schedule so I'm not sure how this is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE and I'm unsure which part of NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

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

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

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [6] [7] [8] Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Again, two years off is too far in the future, judging from the information given. In any case it should be 2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election given that it has a date. "Next election" articles are either speculative or misnamed and need to be suppressed. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 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!} 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no good references discussing this future event. It currently has no value and WP:TOOSOON. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ireland, and Scotland. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would turn it into a DAB, as Tamfang suggests. I concur with JuniperChill that it is not appropriate to keep as a dictionary-like entry, but since there are three Wikipedia pages containing the word, a DAB may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how turning it into a disambig would work since the only other pages containing the word are Fáilte Ireland and Fáilte Towers. This may be an example of partial title match, but I am not sure if people simply refer it to 'Fáilte'. JuniperChill (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair cop. I won't be too sad if the page is deleted. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 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!} 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On balance, I think it is difficult to justify this as an article as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fáilte Ireland: that article gets more page views than Fáilte Towers. After redirecting, add a {{redirect}} hatnote targeting the TV series. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect. The existence of a redirect would inhibit searching, and a DAB is no good since there's nothing but PTMs here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT), and this is English Wikipedia, not Irish – this is especially not a translating dictionary, nor a dictionary of all the world's languages. The greeting makes no sense as a redirect, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Mensah

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed the link to the Voice of America article, which seems pretty good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - no evidence of notability. One source on its own not enough. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—There's nothing here. Played for an academy and then disappeared. No WP:SIGCOV shown at all. Anwegmann (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The Voice of America article fails WP:YOUNGATH and I don't see anything else besides primary sources and passing mentions. Let'srun (talk) 21:15, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh

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

TOO Soon; lacks reliable sources; BoraVoro (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although The Business Standard and The Register are generally reliable as news organizations, both their articles are based entirely on the third source, Group-IB. The notes about sources in WP:GNG say, "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." The article effectively has a single source. And it isn't clear that Group-IB has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 10 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!} 07:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPrice Group

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

Fails WPNCORP, lacks independent reliable sources; general notability is also not indicated. BoraVoro (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: according to the reason provided by the nom. Charlie (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Match

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

Fails WPNCORP, sourcing mainly from techinasia and similar paid publications. BoraVoro (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first reference is from The Straits Times, the newspaper of record in Singapore, and the rest seem fine to me, whether or not they have a paywall. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to it and have read it. All the references to the subject are neither independent nor deep enough. Here is the typical coverage from The Straits Times, a source you mentioned: Mr Pawel Kuznicki, 29, director of P2P platform Capital Match, says: "It's more accurate to say that crowdlending is leveraging on technology to service smaller clients which banks may not be able to. BoraVoro (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "newspaper of record" might be helpful in determining whether a source is reliable, but does nothing to determine whether the content contains in-depth Independent Content and meets NCORP criteria. The "rest" seeming "fine" also doesn't have any bearing on GNG/NCORP criteria - which ones in particular (page/paragraph) contains content that meets the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage completely fails the independence standards set out by NCORP, with sources based around what the company says rather than secondary independent analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WeLab

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

Fails WPNCORP, GNG. Poor and not-independent sources BoraVoro (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cohan, Peter S. (2018). Startup Cities: Why Only a Few Cities Dominate the Global Startup Scene and What the Rest Should Do About It. New York: Apress. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4842-3392-4. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Two Hong Kong gazelles are the Uber-for-delivery-vans-service GogoVan and WeLab, which operates a personal lending platform. ... whereas WeLab's ascent appears to have been smoother sailing."
  The book notes: "WeLab's story is less dramatic but another great example of a gazelle becoming a unicorn. Cofounder and CEO Simon Loong started WeLab in 2013 after over 15 years in the banking sector. ... In 2013, he founded WeLab, a mobile lending platform that uses risk-testing technology to conduct credit assessments in seconds and enables customers to borrow money with a few taps of their smartphones. Now valued at more than $1 billion, it was Hong Kong's first tech unicorn and its WeLend leading online lending platform has sourced more than “$154 million in loan applications and 16,000 members.” By January 2016, WeLab had loaned money to 2.5 million customers, the majority in mainland China. That month WeLab raised a $160 million Series B from Khazanah Nasional Berhad, Malaysia's strategic investment fund, with participation from ING Bank and Guangdong Technology Financial Group, which is run by the Chinese government, leading to total funding of $182 million."
2. Leung, Grace L K (2019). Innovative and Creative Industries in Hong Kong: A Global City in China and Asia. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-06849-0. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "WeLab: founded in 2013, WeLab is reinventing traditional financial services by creating seamless mobile lending experiences. WeLab effectively analyzes unstructured mobile big data within seconds to make credit decisions for individual borrowers. WeLab operates Wolaidai, one of China's leading mobile lending platforms, and WeLend, Hong Kong's leading online lending platform. The company also partners with traditional financial institutions, which utilize WeLab's technology to offer Fintech-enabled solutions to their customers. WeLab did 6 rounds of funding exercises and raised a total of US$425 million. Her investors include CK Hutchison's TOM Group, Malaysian sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad, ING Bank, Sequoia Capital and Chinese provincial government fund: Guangdong Technology Financial Group. In 2016, WeLab was ranked in a KPMG-sponsored report as one of the top 100 Fintech companies in the world – sixth in China and 33rd globally."
3. Fannin, Rebecca A. (2019). Tech Titans of China: How China’s Tech Sector Is Challenging the World by Innovating Faster, Working Harder & Going Global. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-52937-451-3. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book has a section titled "AI at Work in Fintech: WebLab". The book notes: "An example of AI disrupting traditional banking comes from Hong Kong-based fintech startup WeLab, which provides small consumer loans in an online instant, with fewer than average defaults by relying on AI and data to determine creditworthiness. WeLab technology combs through online data such as bill payment records and social media profiles to figure out which potential borrowers are likely to pay their loans on time. Then it prices and tailors online consumer loans. Consumers complete the entire lending process over their smartphone and don't need an established credit history—an issue among young people starting in their careers. Loan decisions for individual borrowers are made online within seconds. One hint: don't fill out the online form in all capital letters. WeLab has found applicants who write in upper case are not good credit risks. A technology team of more than 210 engineers and data scientists have ..."
4. Mohan, Devie (2020). The Financial Services Guide to Fintech: Driving Banking Innovation Through Effective Partnerships. London: Kogan Page. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-78966-106-4. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "WeLab is a Hong Kong start-up that was founded in 2013, and which became the first peer-to-peer lending platform in the country. WeLab enables users to borrow money as personal loans from other indi- viduals while delivering lower interest rates than traditional banks. WeLab makes this process as easy as possible, with an online application form and relatively short assessment process being the only barriers to accessing credit. One of the fascinating initiatives implemented by WeLab is Wolaidai, a mobile peer-to-peer lending platform for top-tier university students in China. With the founder of WeLab, Simon Loong, having experience in the commercial banking industry at Citibank and Standard Chartered, this fintech solution draws on experts in the traditional financial system, while taking on some of its biggest proponents. We will undoubtedly see more of this in the years to come."
5. Rubini, Agustín (2019). Fintech in a Flash: Financial Technology Made Easy. Boston: De Gruyter. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-5474-1716-2. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Founded in 2013, WeLab is a Hong Kong-based internet finance company that uses exclusive risk management technology to analyze Big Data and offer reliable credit services to individual borrowers in the Asian market. WeLab operates two leading online lending platforms, Wolaidai in China and WeLend in Hong Kong, seeking to offer its customers a seamless mobile lending experience. Furthermore, the company has partnerships with traditional financial institutions, which use WeLab's sophisticated credit risk management tools to use Big Data analytics and offer their customers advanced fintech solutions. In January, WeLab raised $160 million in Series B funding from domestic and international investors, including Khazanah Nasional Berhad wealth fund, ING Bank, and state-owned Guangdong Technology Financial Group (GTFG). This was the first time that funds were raised by a Chinese fintech firm and one of the first times that an international financial institution (ING) financed a leading Chinese fintech player."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Lo, John Y. (2016). Angel Financing in Asia Pacific: A Guidebook for Investors and Entrepreneurs. Bingley, West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-78635-128-9. Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "There appears to be a consensus that the startup scene in Hong Kong has taken a quantum jump in the last five years. A major breakthrough in January 2016 is probably the announcement of the receipt of US$160 million investment in a Series B financing by WeLab. This is a local fintech startup that specializes in peer-to-peer lending technology and operates both in Hong Kong and mainland China. While not publicly disclosed, the valuation of the company has been estimated to be near US$1 billion, qualifying it as the first unicorn24 from Hong Kong."
  2. Gough, Neil (2014-06-16). "Start-Up WeLab Raises $14 Million From Sequoia Capital and Hong Kong Tycoon". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-19. Retrieved 2024-05-27.
    The article notes: "WeLab Holdings, an Internet finance start-up in Hong Kong, said on Monday that it had raised $14 million from Li Ka-shing, Asia's richest man, and Sequoia Capital, a stalwart of Silicon Valley."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow WeLab to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the sources found by @Cunard I'd add:

Financial Times article profiling the company. This is an earned media feature article, not an interview.
Forbes with a short market report (which I suspect was leaked by Loong)
Forbes again with a feature on the company. This one is a nice profile but clearly based on an interview with Loong.

Keep This is a major fintech player in Asia Pacific, and although WeLend has its own article this is the parent that also includes Mainland platform Wolaidai as well as a bank in Indonesia I think. There are other bits and pieces out there, at the paragraph scale similar to those found by Cunard, but I think the FT piece along with the Forbes 2022 piece should be enough. Oblivy (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clean up is not deletion. Per se, the sources are significantly impactful for the article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Dragaš

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

The article has a serious lack of WP:RS, which is why I have doubts about notability. There are only five links, and the last one is the website of his own organization, International Security Institute. HPfan4 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Serbia. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I Can't say this I'd any way near writing notable books; there was no review also. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:59, 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 redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewired (demoparty)

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

Not a notable event; no secondary coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Belgium. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 10:25, 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!} 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Yoshiwara

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

There is one source given, but amount of detail given could define the term "passing mention". I searched for some more sources and found several more passing mentions (e.g. "Barbara Dju is possibly best known for her role in Eine Nacht in Yoshiwara"). XabqEfdg (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emmerich Hanus: Not opposed (changing) to Keep (for example this brief notula ; Abel in the cast; a 2-paragraph review by ...Billy Wilder (In the Italian translation of the collection of his early work)) ; opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference does not seem to be significant coverage. As far as I can tell it indicates that Abel was in the cast (as an aside, I think WP:NOTINHERITED applies to your second point), but does not go into any detail. The review is interesting and, as you say, may indicate more sources at the time, but it is quite short.

I am unsure about redirecting, because the director is not necessarily what people will be looking for. I also note that almost all of the information in this article is quite adequately included in Hanus's article. XabqEfdg (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about redirecting, because the director is not necessarily what people will be looking for. All right, then let's Keep it. (The footnote mentions the film in relation with Metropolis and Thea von Harbou) (But there is no better target for a redirect from a film than the page about its director imv.) Maile has added sources: thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable director and actors. Likely to have been more significant coverage in RS at the time. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and the Billy Wilder review is an indication of that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:12, 28 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!} 04:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a Google Book source to this. The source is in the German language, but it's a legitimate source. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the review and reliable books coverage identified in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 4 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 merge‎ to United Airlines. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kion de Mexico

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

The seventeen years that the article on this company has existed as an unsourced stub exceeds the fifteen years for which the company itself actually existed. I would suggest merging somewhere, but only if sources could be found to support content to be merged. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mexico. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. I don't even find the sources that would allow a merge. Maybe a redirect to the parent company but I do not find a source to verify that. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: It fails WP:NCORP, but should be redirected to United Airlines per WP:ATD. In 2005 and 2009, it was listed as a wholly-owned subsidiary ([9][10]) and the 2010 John Menzies annual report confirms its assets were acquired by Menzies Aviation. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory google + google books search gives nothing for "Kion de Mexico." If any sources can be found it's probably sufficient to put under United Airlines. If someone writes a huge piece on it it can always be re-split again. I'll vote Merge and Redirect. Hopefully someone finds a source for it eventually? Mrfoogles (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

honestly speedy delete. wp:promodelete could have worked as well User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menzies Aviation as per ADT as the new owners. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I don't know that we have a third-party source for that. We do have the John Menzies plc, Annual Report 2010, stating at page 99: "In 2009 Menzies Aviation acquired the trade and fixed assets of Kion, a ramp services business based at Mexico City Airport, for a consideration of £0.5m, including costs of £0.1m". BD2412 T 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 I think that source should be OK - but if not, happy to go along with the suggestion to merge with United Airlines. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to settle on a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malaal-e-Yaar

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

I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage except some ROTM coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's fairly easy to establish that this was a notable, high-profile production. There might not be any PhD thesis written about its impact on Pakistani literature in the long term, but that would be a bar to high. Most google hits are episodes or link to episodes, but see for example coverage such as [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, are unreliable sources and therefore not enough to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. It is different to judge potential sources for substantiating claims in the article mainspace, where unreliable sources may be called into question, as opposed to show media coverage to establish notability. Coverage in tabloids or low-quality sources can very well be used to imply notability. I'd counter-ask, what process of WP:BEFORE did you do perform before nomination for deletion? This was nominated, with a nearly copy-paste deletion rationale from a lot of Pakistan-related AfDs in the past days, within 5 minutes from another AfD. --Soman (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage on google. Significant coverage on google news about "Malaal-e-Yaar" & "Malaal e Yaar". Libraa2019 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Drama_series: I wouldn't be fiercely opposed to Keep, because there is some coverage (like this https://www.masala.com/tv-reviews/malaal-e-yaar-a-summary-of-the-show-to-date-292294, bylined review) but if all in all it seems insufficient, redirecting it seems a reasonable ATD. A line can be added in the target article. Or more. (It may go without saying but I am opposed to deletion of this) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 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!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article does not establish notability, it is an opinion piece by Hansford and a WP:PRIMARY source. LibStar (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:24, 10 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak keep There's coverage of his World Cup appearances, and his post playing career in law. I think there's enough here for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22 The coverage I see are stats pages and mentions. I do not see any in-depth coverage on the individual which is needed to show notability. If you see such coverage, please post the links. Shinadamina (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment. It would be a alot easier if the people who wanted to keep the article shared the sources, or even better, added them to and expanded the article. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Expanding on my earlier Keep remarks: Radio New Zealand has a number of stories about Fonua's political activities and role in Tongan Law Society, including: [18], [19], [20], [21]. There would undoubtedly be more extensive and in-depth coverage in Tongan language sources. His role as a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa and a member of the Constitutional and Electoral Commission are also referred to in Campbell, I. C. (2012), "The Nettle Grasped: Tonga’s New Democracy", The Journal of Pacific History, 47(2), 211–225. Paora (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the sources offered by User:Paora above are routine political news ("...lawyer-hoping-third-time-lucky...," "...tonga-law-society-says...," "...grassroots-focus-for-tonga-election-candidate...," "...tonga-political-party-believes-king...") and not directly detailing this subject. BusterD (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perfectly reasonable delete rationale: the only applied sources (blogs and fan sites) do not meet RS. On the merits, there's nothing applied to the page, presented in this process, or found in my reasonable BEFORE which brings this past WP:SPORTSPERSON, which requires at least one reliable source which directly details the subject. Nothing like that in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Databases and fan blogs don't cut it for notability. Let'srun (talk) 16:52, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 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!} 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things

-Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)

-Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure

-A functional sandbox for enhanced security

-Google Sync

-On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content

-GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags

-Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags

-Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs

-Many flags from ungoogled-chromium

-Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is important. 71.11.225.163 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have 1 actual non-self-published third-party source, which is [22]. Needs a second one for notability but it's dubious if a second exists. That said, not sure where it would go in the Chromium article. Probably best to Merge unless at least one more reliable source can be found, and then even, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: This subject lacks ANY reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. Page was created by a blocked sockpuppet. !votes by ip editors in this process are completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, and are likely connected to the sockmaster. Based on a reasonable BEFORE, one can see this is a fringe product with a microscopic userbase. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have struck through my previous delete. I still don't think the sources are super, but I'll concede the source analysis below is more compelling than my less detailed assertions. BusterD (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I gaze into my orb and I ponder this article -- I see reliable third-party independent coverage in the Register article. This was indeed created by a blocked sock, but it wasn't a UPE; the sockmaster seems to have been blocked for acting childish, not for anything related to COI or spam et cetera. jp×g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Proven, Liam (2024-03-06). "Supermium drags Google Chrome back in time to Windows XP, Vista, and 7". The Register. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The review notes: "Supermium is a browser based on the Google Chrome 121 codebase that works fine on Windows 7 and even, for the truly desperate, for Vista and XP. The third-party adaptation of Chrome works on versions of Windows that the official product no longer supports. It installs and runs on Windows 7, which stopped getting updates for Edge and Chrome at the start of 2023. It's even able to log into a Google account, as well as synchronize settings and addons."
2. Václavík, Lukáš (2024-03-09). "Supermium je moderní prohlížeč pro Windows XP a jiné vykopávky. Stačí mu i 20 let starý hardware" [Supermium is a modern browser for Windows XP and other digs. Even 20-year-old hardware is enough for him]. Živě.cz [pl] (in Czech). Czech News Center. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The article notes: "Supermium, as the name suggests, comes from the open source Chromium project, which is based on Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. But all of them require Windows 10 and later. However, in his Chromia offshoot, Fournier rewrote the code so that Windows XP SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2 and later are sufficient to run. ... Because it's in the Chromium core, it supports modern extensions, and even current websites will work on old systems. In Windows 7 and later, the Widevine plugin is also functional, so Netflix and other video libraries that rely on this type of anti-piracy protection will run in the browser."
3. Zamfir, Roberto (2024-02-08). "Supermium". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2024-05-28. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
  The review notes: "Given how powerful nostalgia can be for those who grow tired of the rather sterile and minimalist design of nowadays’ operating systems, a brief return to the past can be made easier with Supermium whenever internet browsing is part of the equation."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supermium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is the only reliable source of those three. It isn't clear to me who Václavík is and the Zamfir article is self-published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Zamfir is listed as a Softpedia editor. The article is not self-published. Lukáš Václavík is a reviewer for the Czech News Center magazine Živě.cz [pl]. I consider both articles to be independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czech News Center is one of the largest media houses in the Czech Republic. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd presume that they're reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two of the Keep votes center around arguments that aren't related to sourcing. Since this AfD is about sourcing, they're irrelevant. The other two refer to an article from The Register, but notability requires multiple sources, not just one. Given this, I'm inclined to vote to delete. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- notability requires multiple sources -- no it doesn't. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even says so explicitly. jp×g 🗯️ 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources found. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airespring

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

Clear promotional content, and there is no significant coverage in any media that I could find, unless we are counting the "Telecom Industry News", which doesn't seem all that reliable to me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references are a collection of PR announcements and company soundbites. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No new comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [23] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 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!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 10 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!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merdeka Memorial Clock Tower, Kulim

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

WP:MILL structure that fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. No sources to describe the significance; two news sources provide evidence in cursory coverage that it was constructed but no detail to constitute WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional evidence of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of hits about the clock tower in the Singapore National Library, such as [24], but it seems you need to open them on-site in order to be able to read the articles. I've been able to pull these up [25]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this @Oaktree b. There are actually numerous merdeka (aka "independence") towers/monuments in Malaysia, and this article is specifically about the one in Kulim. The searches you linked are for other cities' merdeka towers. A search adding "Kulim" brings up just the one cursory result already sourced in the article, see here. Just sharing in case this info changes your !vote; thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Found a few more sources to establish notability.

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ce1b4842-51cd-4107-891f-94cb820ff093/Merdeka-Clock-Tower-kulim-kedah

https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/the-star-malaysia-star2/20180825/281513637011166 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is just a 3D model of the building. What makes you think this is a reliable source or provides significant coverage? What does this add to the article? Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources each have a paragraph about the place. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what @Reywas92 may be getting at is that that 3D model page is user-generated content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If found non-notable/deleted, it could be copied entirely into Kulim District. CMD (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. Is the last comment advocating a Merge to Kulim District?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Good points made by all participants, but no consensus whether to keep or merge. Since outright deletion is off the table, this discussion is better suited for a proposed merger on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
English literature refers to literature in the English language

Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.

Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?

Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...

You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.

The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SeeVolution

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent or unreliable. Originally PRODed, but missed this previous AfD which unanimously favoured deletion. – Teratix ₵ 03:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Websites, and California. – Teratix ₵ 03:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Fails AfD in 2012 and still fails today. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did do a quick BEFORE anyway (and I really do mean quick, there were only 2 google news results, for example, and one of them was about a different topic, as are the hits in scholarly sources, nothing relevant in books, TWL databases don't have anything relevant that aren't press releases, etc). I do see some of their products were acquired by Bridgeline Digital, which is a listed company that we might have been able to redirect to if not for the fact that that company doesn't have an article right now. I don't think a previous deletion via AFD should block a PROD (for recreations that are not G4) though to be honest I'm inclined to speedy delete via A7 for this one, I can't see any plausible CCSI. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yves Michaud (politician). ✗plicit 08:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michaud Affair

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

This has been problematically tagged for over a decade. Seems almost entirely based on self-published primary sources. Has POV issues, and no clear evidence that this is a notable event beyond a news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or place to post personal interpretations. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, Politics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yves Michaud (politician) (where this is already addressed in a more succinct way). This is notable enough to be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but it isn't of enough enduring significance to have its own standalone article as a separate topic from the MNA who was implicated in it. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as suggested seems fine, this "affair" isn't really notable outside of the individual's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Telefilms: (Page for director is a Redirect) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Plenty of good refs which indicates notability [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, But there's no mention whatsoever of the subject in sources # 1, 2 and 4, Source # 3, though OK for WP:V, but insufficient for GNG because its WP:ROTM coverage. As for source # 5, SomethingHaute is a WordPress blog per this, which isn't deemed a RS. Source # 6 is only a WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 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!} 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:

The book Embedded Computing Systems Applications, p. 451, at Google Books describes LogFS (for about 200 words) and compares it with other FFSs. This seems borderline WP:SIGCOV.
There's the news article LogFS: A new way of thinking about flash filesystems, at Linux.com; but as discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22 § Linux.com, this may or may not be a WP:RS. (Note that the article was published in 2007, before Linux.com changed ownership in 2009. This means later discussion of the site is less applicable, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52 § Softpedia Linux software reviews).
The paper CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System uses LogFS as a benchmark for evaluating CosaFS's performance.

Honorable mentions:

The papers LOFFS: A Low-Overhead File System for Large Flash Memory on Embedded Devices , A Survey of Address Translation Technologies for Flash Memories , Transparent Online Storage Compression at the Block-Level , DFS: A File System for Virtualized Flash Storage , TrueErase: Leveraging an Auxiliary Data Path for Per-File Secure Deletion , and Introducing the Advanced XIP File System (presented at the 2008 Linux Symposium) mention LogFS, but only in passing.
The paper A Novel over Writable and Restoring Solution of Filesystem for NAND Flash supposedly mentions LogFS, according to search previews, and it does cite http://elinux.org/LogFS, but I can't access the paper itself to determine whether it's more than an offhand mention.

Dishonorable mentions:

The paper Transparent Log-Based Data Storage in MPI-IO Applications is about a LogFS, but it doesn't seem to be the same LogFS.
A search for "LogFS" will also turn up some mentions of "LinLogFS", e.g. LinLogFS: a log-structured filesystem for Linux, but these seem to be unrelated.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g 🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn G. Rabb Foundation

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

There is nothing online that suggests the organisation still exists. The Guidestar website (https://www.guidestar.org/profile/36-4416453#financials) has the following comment: "This organization has not appeared on the IRS Business Master File in a number of months. It may have merged with another organization or ceased operations. This organization's exempt status was automatically revoked by the IRS for failure to file a Form 990, 990-EZ, 990-N, or 990-PF for 3 consecutive years. Further investigation and due diligence are warranted" suggesting it may be defunct or merged. Very limited info on existing wiki page. Previous organisation website does not appear to exist. Need to find evidence to support notability or delete. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked up this organization in the Illinois Secretary of State's online database. Apparently it changed its name to "MGR Youth Empowerment" in 2013, and then dissolved in 2015. So the question is whether it was notable during its existence before it dissolved. For reference, their IRS returns through 2011 can be viewed on Candid.org at https://beta.candid.org/profile/7500383 if it makes a difference. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there do not seem to be any secondary references about the (defunct) organization; merely tax filings and in-passing mentions relating to events the group funded. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Asghar Nadeem Syed#TV plays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan'nisar

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. Not to be confused with coverage of 2024 TV drama with the same name. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asghar_Nadeem_Syed#TV_plays: Also see https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/01-Dec-2016/jaan-nisar-a-compelling-drama-on-police-urges-reforms-in-the-vital-organ-of-the-state. Not opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Pakistan is a sensational news site. Their coverage can be used for WP:V, but not for GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I !voted R. 2) did I mention GNG? 3) Since you did, may I ask if there is a consensus to back your assertion? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. There is in-depth coverage in Dawn ([32]). Daily Pakistan and The Express Tribune articles are additional in-depth articles (given by Mushy and others). Redirect per Mushy. 2A04:4A43:958F:F103:D4FD:4246:32DF:30D4 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1. This article can always be expanded should this candidate win his election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor O'Callaghan (businessman)

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. He received some attention from national outlets right when he announced his campaign in August of last year, but that's to be expected of any candidate in a competitive House race. From what I can see, he's received zero national news coverage since September 2023. All of the articles cited on the page are campaign-related, and I can't find any non-campaign-related coverage of him on Google from any time, so I don't think he meets GNG. Very much reminiscent of Kellen Curry, another 2024 congressional candidate who got national news attention right when he launched and promptly faded from view. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Ireland, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support either redirect or outright deleteing, as even with the bit of coverage he has received more recently (he appears to be running a generally more negative campaign rel. to the other 5 in the race) I don't believe he meets notability standards. Buggie111 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not meeting criminal notability; simply being a political candidate isn't notable. Can be re-created if he wins the political seat, otherwise, not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Weak keep: I support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. That being said, while he doesn't meet WP:NPOL for being a candidate, it's possible he meets WP:BASIC. What makes this different from other cases, in my opinion, is that the candidature coverage is not WP:MILL. He's received a significant amount of coverage that specifically goes into detail about his career before running for office. For example, this Bloomberg article and this MSNBC article. C F A 💬 01:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the national coverage of him isn't run of the mill, but the problem is that the only non-ROTM coverage he ever received came right when he announced his campaign. As I said in the nomination, he's received no national attention since September 2023. It seems like he made a splash right when he announced because he's running in a competitive congressional race, but I don't think that translates to lasting notability. If he loses this race, will anyone be searching his name in 5-10 years? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I made this article...I lost my login for AZVoter so I'll go in my thought process here. Conor has the most cash on hand out of any candidate other than the incumbent in this race. He is polling alright and has four endorsements from people in the US house of reps. So he definitely is getting national recognition. But you are correct, if he loses he will probably be irrelevant. The negative campaigning is something I wanted to add but this was my first article so I did not really know what to write about. JustMadeThis4Discussion (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Raising money and getting a couple endorsements from members of Congress is not what I meant by "national attention" (we're talking about news coverage here) and does not establish notability. See WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 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 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!} 01:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RRLS ICT Academy

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

Fairly new private school with questionable notability due to lack of reliable sources online. Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Claim for notability is that it is TESDA accredited. However, accreditation is mandatory and just requires routine paperwork and orientation from TESDA. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 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!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 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!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honoring the Fathers of Bluegrass: Tribute to 1946 and 1947

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

Disputed redirect. Just tried to find sources on Google, and couldn't find any. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grammy Award-winning and Billboard-charted album. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The AllMusic review and the Grammy win are plenty for notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Read WP:NALBUM; this album has met at least two of the criteria, being a Grammy Award album and not just charting but charting at #1 in the U.S. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Hänni

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

Only sources provided are a primary source and obituary in a local news outlet of a minor town. Search does not indicate any further coverage. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. No indication works have achieved level of significance to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and Switzerland. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per nom. Appears to have been a local history enthusiast, but a far cry from satisfying WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ all, without prejudice against recreation as a single, merged article. Normally, when a viable ATD is suggested, we take that route. But here, the Merge supporters were not only in the minority, but couldn't even agree between themselves on a target. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)

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

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is lurking around this now, Id suggest also checking out this. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, discussion to merge completed (please see said discussion)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 already merged, deleted earlier. However this set of wg grace articles have hardly one ga, so many stubs and other full of stuff not required. They arent notable enough for wikipedia.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties" [33]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [34]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [35]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [36]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, most of the info is already repeated verbatim in the main article. Would you support deletion? JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:
Grace turned 23 in July 1871
Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).
1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.
This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".
Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.
Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.
He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.
The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh btw, I also finnaly nominated that dusty bunch of the 1948 ashes articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doczilla. You know perfectly well that I have already said, in express and unambiguous words, on two separate occasions, with this edit and this edit that the three articles W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882), W. G. Grace's cricket career (1883 to 1886) and W. G. Grace's cricket career (1887 to 1891) should be merged together to form a single article at W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891. You have been clearly told what to merge and where to merge it to. Please do not pretend that you cannot read what I have said. James500 (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because Wikipedia isn't a mirror to hold minute by minute biographical details of a person. WP:NOTMIRROR Also I oppose a merge because that would create a massive wall of words that totally overstate the person's actual importance. We are supposed to be editors which implies distilling subjects down to the important points and not trying to write down every last fact we can find about a subject. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge W.G. Grace was the outstanding cricketer of his time, but we only should have one biographical article on his career. The existence of multiple articles looks like an attempt to use WP as if it were a book, not an encyclopaedia. Having a book length biography would of course be wholly legitimate, but not within WP.

Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these pages go into unnecessary excruciating detail over his career. I oppose a merge/redirect because (1) the relevant information needed the main W.G. Grace article, and (2) these titles are highly unlikely search terms. For example, someone looking for information about W. G. Grace's cricket career between 1879 and 1882 is far more likely to search for Grace himself and find the appropriate content on his article, rather than searching for the oddly specific "W. G. Grace's cricket career (1879 to 1882)." Frank Anchor 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too much detail/too much cruft is an editing matter, not a notability matter, and this is not the article improvement workshop. At issue is whether this should be a Keep as a subsidiary page from the extremely long W. G. Grace or whether this should be chopped back and Merged to that piece. Delete is not a valid outcome — nor is Merge unless somebody is ready to spend a day on the project. I believe this serves its purpose of keeping the main biography of readable length while preserving the information for sports historians and fans who care. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isnt a place for "sports historians or fans". Its not an encyclopedia. No other cricketer has this many pages. This is a transclusion of his books. For cricketers, wikipedia only needs to have the main page - unless if its a little bit long one solitary career page. So there goes your "delete is not valid" out the window.
- No merge because no one will spend a day - @Carrite, Wikipedia will grind to a halt if people start having this mentaility :)
Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how WP:GNG works. If, for example, the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is the subject of large chapters in four books, it has certainly received significant coverage in independent reliable sources within the meaning of WP:GNG. That creates a presumption that the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 should have an article. To prevent that period of Grace's life having a standalone article, you need to rebut that presumption with another policy or guideline. And there is no policy or guideline that rebuts that presumption. The only policy you have offered are various parts of WP:NOT that clearly do not apply. In turn: these articles are not cruft (and we don't even have a policy or guideline against cruft); they include a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace, and a summary of accepted knowledge regarding Grace would not fit in the main article; they do not consist entirely of an excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and the coverage in the said books that is not excessive listings of unexplained statistics would not fit in the main article; they are not a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files; indeed they could not possibly be a "mirror" of the copyrighted books on Grace such as Midwinter (1981) and Rae (1998), because we cannot copy the entire verbatim text of a copyrighted source. The policy that actually is applicable is WP:ATD. The articles contain salvagable content, therefore that content should be merged if the articles are not notable. And the period of Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 is demonstably notable. We know that it is notable, because I have just demonstrated that it is notable. James500 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally have one article - Career of W.G. Grace - which will become the new convention for all athletes' pages if wikipedia wants to widen its scope by that much.

It will be a cricket centric article in such a case, with no duplicate infoboxes.

Non-cricket aspects of that period go into the main article.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Possible rename or merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grossology (books)

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

Non-notable book series. Insufficient sourcing for 15 years, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. PROD removed due to talkpage message from anon who "loved the books as a kid". Jdcooper (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Biology, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The anon was right. Grossology was an incredibly popular book series that spawned a TV show and a traveling museum exhibit, and I can find tons of newspaper articles about it. Here's a few: "Teaching the oozy gooey science of grossness" (Allentown Morning Call, Aug 2013), "Museum exhibit uncovers all things gross" (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept 2005), "Totally Gross" (Louisville Courier Journal, Feb 2007). Keep the article per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And move to Grossology as the primary topic per Toughpigs and the reliable sources he has found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, these sources seem to refer to the exhibition, so I'm not sure they establish the books as the primary topic. The article about the TV series is far longer (though with a large amount of unsourced excess trivia). Maybe all the articles (+ info on the exhibition from the sources) should be merged into one. Jdcooper (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll start one big page to see how a merge would work out at User:Jellyfish/Grossology and see how it looks all together. Will edit when time allows. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  On second thought - Grossology (TV series) is absolutely massive, at least on my phone. Unless there's a significant bit of fat to trim off the article, I think it'd be best left as a summary with the main article template thrown on top of the section. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the worst of the fancruft, but yeah it's still a large article in its own right, so I agree with you. Jdcooper (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just realized it has one incredibly nonspecific and presumably un-archived source. Lovely! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - traveling museum exhibit appears notable and has received nationwide coverage (albeit, from multiple local newspapers) from about 2007 to 2021. I also tracked down this NYT article, though it looks to just be a passing mention of the book. jellyfish ✉ 19:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ per author. Rushed AfD and unneeded. Sorry for confusion. (non-admin closure) Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1935–36 Serie C

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

This article, and many others of the same league for these historic years, do not cite sources outside of a single book. This is not a top division league, and I do not feel that a single book source establishes notability for most of these historical Serie C seasons. I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly rely on a single source/no sources and do not establish independent notability:

Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are more sources in practically every it.wiki correspondent. And even though it is the third tier, it is part of the pyramid of some of the more traditional football championships in the world. This nomination is strange, not to mention that it could incur WP:TRAINWRECK. Svartner (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faaimata Hiliau

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

Unfortunately I don't see how this meets WP:BASIC. The only independent article that offers WP:SIGCOV is this one by The Sydney Morning Herald. The two ([37] [38]) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability. C F A 💬 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC (and even WP:GNG if you count the Compass documentary in addition to The Sydney Morning Herald feature article mentioned above). Added two articles from The South Sydney Herald about recent activity related to climate change which Hiliau has been involved in (speaking at Pasifika community gathering and formal visit to government ministers and MPs in Canberra), as well as an external link to the ABC TV Compass documentary about Hiliau and the future of the United Church, with a viewership of 166,000 in August 2023 per MediaWeek. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GNG. There were already 2 independent sources with SMH and compass, and Cielquiparle has added 2 more.

Newystats (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She seems to be notable but the references am not sure could have given her a keep.--Meligirl5 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a hugely important non-Anglo female faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. SproulesLane (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together with the references in the article shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Reza Seyedi

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

BLP fails WP:GNG and all relevant biography guidelines. The basic problem is a lack of WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Quick review of existing sources: 1, 3/8, and 4 are WP:ROUTINE/WP:TRIVIAL coverage, not significant mentions. Source 2 has no reference to the subject. 5, 9 and 10 are primary source bios. 6 and 7 are trivial mentions in lists of speakers. 11-15 are references to the subject's own writing and thus ineligible for notability. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to point to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Aviation, Transportation, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom which can simply be out as PROMO and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:20, 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. ✗plicit 00:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Gómez

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Her only claim to fame per WP:BIO1E is winning a beauty pageant. Even if that is considered to be enough, I have been unable to verify her win with a reliable source which is very odd. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Puerto Rico. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this person, only hits on the name, in unrelated people/industries. Not meeting GNG, lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the beauty pageant results are insufficient coverage for a biographical article, and there is no sign of other coverage beyond her personal social media (which does not suggest that she is a public figure). Walsh90210 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She and her partner were interviewed by their local newspaper after they returned from a holiday in Barcelona where they were very close to a terror attack and then dealt with two hurricanes, which is neither here nor there. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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