Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 10	June 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Rheji Burrell

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure how this article looked back in 2012 when the first AfD came about, but now the article is confusing because it doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be about Mr. Burrell alone or about him and his brother. At any rate, the article discusses a non-notable production team(?) whose own discography hasn't seen them ever having charted; and the list of albums that they supposedly produced for other artists isn't sourced. It doesn't help that the article reads like the brothers themselves wrote it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Music, and New Jersey. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In 2012, the article looked pretty much the same as now. It still needs work, obviously, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I see no reason to disagree with the earlier consensus on notability, which is not lost, and the adequate sourcing turned up in WP:BEFORE searches done during the first AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep/withdrawn by nominator. With due respect to the concern raised by Dream Focus, WP:SNOW is an appeal to use common sense and not draw out the process where there is no reasonable possibility of any other outcome, in this case considerably strengthened by the nominator's statement of withdrawal. Consensus here is clear, sufficiently overwhelming, and definitive. BD2412 T 04:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature film series with three entries

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

Listcruft - an indiscriminate collection of information with no indication of its notability as a standalone topic. A list of films with a certain number of entries in a certain series isn't encyclopedic, unless proven notable as a group.

This nomination would also apply to these articles with the same rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only the first article was actually tagged for deletion; I think the others probably should be too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are lists of film series, an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by number of films exists only for navigation reasons. "Listcruft", how? Indiscriminate, how?.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Not fancruft or indiscriminate.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable topic. That is what encyclopedias are for. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE since all these lists are split off from Lists of feature film series, no suggested backup plan means we lose everything. If we had all the film series in one place, the list article would simply be too big. If anything, one could argue that the series should be split up alphabetically, but that's not being done here. (Could it be done in addition or in substitute to this? This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss that.)

In addition, WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

From a quick search engine test, I do see articles about "longest-running" film franchises that to me indicates an interest in how many films a series has. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, but after this Afd is closed, please discuss on the talk page of the "more than twenty entries" list whether that list can be split. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. You've offered no rationale about why this should be kept. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't see the problem. A monumental effort. Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT, WP:HARMLESS. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a non-encyclopepdic cross categorization, and also as WP:OR, since this requires WP editors to decide what goes in a "film series", rather than relying on reliable sources in order to tally. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete all this without a substitute plan, we would have no list anywhere on Wikipedia listing film series. Is that what you want? If not, how should film series be listed (since all of them in one article makes it too big)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: The most obvious way would be chronologically (by first entry), no? TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the overall film-series titles being split out alphabetically. Like List of feature film series: A where we see, for example, ABCs of Death (three films), Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters (four films), Antoine Doinel (five films), et cetera being listed on that page. We can do that instead of the by-numbers splitting, or in addition to it. Each film series can keep the individual films chronologically-ordered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean like List of film series from the 1920s and so on. We have Category:Film series introduced in the 1920s, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I didn't think of (or realize you meant) that. I feel like that categorization and/or an alphabetical one are typical compared to this one up for deletion. If I had to pick, I'd prefer alphabetical more than chronological, just because a film series is more a range of years than defined by its first year. But both of these seem doable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical would make a little more sense in terms of organization, but it doesn't avoid the OR problem. Is Star Trek 1 series (all together) or 3? (TOS, TNG, and the reboot). Who decides? What about reboots in general? What about remakes? Do the MCU movies all get lumped into one series? Does AVP go in Alien or Predator? Or both? Or neither? Do the Bond movies count as a series? They're mostly just standalone films based on the same characters rather than direct sequels. Unless you count the Daniel Craig ones. Do they go in a separate series? Who decides? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping. Something like Star Trek can list all the feature films. Same with Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Judging from the number of films in some cases, we don't even have to list the films, we could just link to the film-series article.) Something like AVP is likely grouped both ways, so both works. And yeah, James Bond is a film series, as reflected here. The term "film series" isn't intended to be used strictly like in the 007 example. There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping." Can they? Not for direct-to-video stuff certainly. The current list puts Stargate in the same series as the couple direct-to-video films based on the TV series. Those aren't really a series. Who decides? "There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions." I think you're underestimating just how pervasive the edge cases are here, and the thing is, requiring editors to hash them out is asking them to engage in OR, which was the basis of my delete !vote. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration. I'll admit that the nomination is pretty weak, but then again, so are the keep votes above. Let's not let that stop us from addressing the fundamental problems here. As I noted immediately above, the very tallying required for this list ultimately violates WP:NOR, a core content policy, as it requires WP editors to decide what constitutes a film series (is the MCU a film series? Does AVP count for both? What about unofficial sequels?), as evidenced by a lot of arguing about this on the various talk pages. This furthermore seems to fail WP:NLIST, as classifying film series (whatever that even means) by size doesn't seem to be backed up by sources. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I nominated this pretty late at night and some neurons of mine weren't firing as intended. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as why I nominated. I do see the point Mushy Yank made as far as organization goes, and same thing with Erik's point about more complex and cross-categorizational list. There has to be a better way to organize a list of feature films, though, that doesn't involve the same OR or subjectivity that number of entries suffers from. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films says The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films are a series of American superhero films. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and this doesn't address the issue of what gets counted precisely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The films are already grouped together in other Wikipedia articles, such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Dream Focus 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, so what? None of that is relevant to my objection. The topic of "list of film series by how many are grouped together in a wikipedia article" is pretty obviously not a valid list topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these wouldn't fit as one list article showing which series had multiple films, so it was divided in a logical manner. List of short film series list the name of the series and how many short films it has in it, without listing all the names of everything, so it all fits in one article. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size isn't the issue, and it's disingenuous of you to set up such a straw man to argue against. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment. Moving forward, I think the only reasonable list you could have in this place (as alluded to for the MCU by Erik above) is simply an index to WP articles on film series/franchises, without any attempt to decide what gets included exactly. No editor OR is needed. There's no need to apply different standards to different types of series/franchises (see the godforsaken Stargate example above, just one of many like this). You simply get a list of overarching articles, which should discuss any case-specific nuances in prose, and can list related entries without really having to make any sort of decision about if it's truly part of a "series" or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm, you are against having any list of film series on Wikipedia based on the fact some series, like Stargate, are not clear-cut? None of what you said above makes it sound like you are open to alphabetical or chronological sorting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen irredeemably synthetic listcruft in my day, and this isn't it. The question of which films to count together in a series is unambiguous and source-able in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say it's obvious up until reliable sources contest it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, this was an AfD made in haste without taking into consideration its use as an organizational list. Oopsies. Would someone be able to close as withdrawn by nominator? jellyfish ✉ 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have the IP address who still argues for deletion. So I think the rules state it must remain open for the full 7 days, even though its obviously a snow keep. Dream Focus 04:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voskos Greek Yogurt

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously deleted, then re-created. Nothing seems to have changed to establish notability. The article cites four sources but the 1st, 3rd and 4th are press releases, on trade blogs that will publish anything about products. The 2nd is a very trivial mention. None of these would seem to establish notability under WP:CORP. Might be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but I can't view what was deleted and it was a long time ago. Here2rewrite (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Products, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All available sources are press releases (and other primary sources), WP:TRADES publications for the dairy/packaged foods industries that do not qualify for WP:NCORP, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in online reviews of yogurts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items and trade journal mentions of this product. Agree that what's used now in the article isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur VI

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

Non-notable rocket model; I can't find sourcing beyond the company's website used now in the article. The blog used as the second source isn't a RS either. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree,

I will admit that yes, this article had a lack of sources. There are reputable secondary sources I used during edits of other Minotaur rockets that can be applicable here; I have since added those to the article. The spaceflight101 source is a data sheet from Spaceflight101, which is a now-defunct but otherwise reliable spaceflight news website. I did a little bit of digging just now and found that they have a whole encyclopedia of different launch vehicles (https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/). The PDF I linked as a source is actually originally posted on this page: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/minotaur-v/. I personally find that to be a valuable secondary source, and I would expect other pages on that site to be useful for future edits of other launch vehicles.

As for the article's notability, I personally feel it's notable since Minotaur VI is still listed as available on Northrop Grumman's website and has capabilities that other Minotaurs do not have (i.e. can get payload to Mars). However I will say I may have bias as I created this article, so I am absolutely open to opinions from others regarding its usefulness. IanThePineapple (talk) 18:25, 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!} 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 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 03:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scene description language

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

I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 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!} 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Maybe worth adding an entry to the Glossary of computer graphics, not sure about the article. Artem.G (talk) 15:38, 17 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 04:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Youth Parliament

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 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!} 01:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass notability, sources 6 and 11 are the best. I also found this [1] and [2]. The last one I posted seems to suggest political notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 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!} 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Geschichte, it seems I used mobile that caused much of the typographical error. Also the time shows I was in a sleep carried mode (ready to sleep for the night), that I may have edited wrongly (but with love not with prejudice). I didn't see this as early as because I wasn't pinged. Please this type of comment should be partly, when necessary addressed to the editors talk page and if likely, only on that particular case. If I had made mistake, advise me on my TP and not leave a message without diff as you did. Now j understand your message on my TP. The diff I requested wasn't sent by you and it was difficult to check if there was any error with my vote in AFDs. Thanks though and will value the spirit of rechecking. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a diff is required when an editor is quoting from a message right above theirs. Sorry if it was embarrassing but some comments in AFDs just don't make any sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 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 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continenttimes.com

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

No indication of notability. Also see WP:NPERIODICAL. Further noting that this was previously deleted under a different name, see Contínent Times (digital newspaper). B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 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!} 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 11 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.

Atala T

AfDs for this article:

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

Sorry, another company blatantly failing the notability guidelines for companies that is ineligible for PROD because this 2007 AfD exists. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP with absolutely no sources on this subject. Looks like the original creator just recreated the deleted article 15 years ago and no one noticed until now. Better late than never. Dclemens1971 (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORPDEPTH. A search of the company name brings up no relevant information or coverage (other than the wiki article itself). ADifferentMan (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half the sources are deadlinks and the other don't contain the company's name, clearly not notable enough. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHPS-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its complicated: Sammi Brie actually has local WP:SIGCOV material for this station, from newspapers. At the same time, I don't know how to actually put the sources in. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This nomination appears to be the result of a content dispute. (SN: I am not involved in the dispute nor have I ever heard of this TV station; but I read the article and although it could stand a rewrite, the station seems notable, IMO.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has nothing to do with the content dispute involving Baltimore stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will vouch that the content dispute has nothing to do with the slow drip of AfDs of non-notable low-power TV stations. I will also vouch this one shouldn't be tossed with them. Substantial local SIGCOV exists for this one.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lords, Erik (November 19, 2002). "Local station seeks cable spot: WHPR wants Comcast to put channels on free". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 6B. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Schmitt, Ben (July 1, 2009). "Conyers takes to TV, apologizes to Detroit: She won't discuss case, but takes shot at ex-aide". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 3A. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Singer, Christopher (November 2, 2005). "Fundraising clicks for black-run stations - With a little help, 11-watt WHPR-FM and cable TV Channel 33 dial up some needed dollars". The Detroit News. p. 6S.
^ "A new television station in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. June 3, 1998. p. 1-D. ProQuest 390200523.
^ "'The Box' is major success in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. December 17, 1999. p. D12. ProQuest 390224674.

Keep per sources. Danubeball (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aiden Pearce

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

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page already by other user. I'll suggest it by merging/redirecting it into Watch Dogs (video game). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have you tried merging this into a Characters of Watch Dogs article? Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch Dogs (video game) exist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article for the game itself existing doesn't disqualify the idea of a characters list. Now whether enough coverage for the other characters exists or not is a different story. λ NegativeMP1 15:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't be a bad idea, but looking at the article of the first game, it looks like Watch_Dogs characters (main or side) are not particularly beloved by critics. I can't even find any specific characters mentioned in that GA outside of its uncited plot section, which really suggests to me that characters of this franchise are not subject to much analysis. I have not done a dive for sources though; if you can find any sources specifically about Watch_Dogs characters, that would be interesting. It seems like a difficult project either way. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article. This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision. This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who brought those sources to the talk page, and those aren't WP:SIGCOV, but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG's notability. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews. Not showing independent notability from the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ – If we disregard GameRant for Notability determinitation (which I believe we should), the only reliable source focused specifically on the character listed here is The Washington Post. Because Aiden Pierce is the lead character of the Watch_Dogs franchise, I think it would be easy to have a complete description of the character there without running into undue weight issues. Criticism of Pierce is criticism of Watch_Dogs as a whole, hence why most of the reliable sources used in this article are full-game reviews. The Appearances section largely recounts the plot of the games (at length, using almost exclusively primary sources, ugh), which also shows the strong overlap. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral after more sources have been dug up. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Maplestrip. Someone can always expand on the main character's backstory and reception at the main game article. There isn't so much good coverage that it meets WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~But his hat is so iconic!~~ Redirect per Mable. None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character, but rather discuss him in the context of a review of the game as a whole. No development info. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom - the reception is largely trivial mentions pulled from reviews, rather than discussing him alone as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though most above are saying that the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, I found a few articles on the character on numerous sources [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]([10]small section) and theres this short guide from IGN which I'm not sure counts and the GiantBomb one looks like an actual review. MK at your service. 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, see Nilin (Remember Me), the character's reception mostly uses the game's reviews, and the appearances section uses lines from the game to reference it. Some articles do exist on the character, which are mentioned in the concept and development section. MK at your service. 08:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really an argument; Nilin could be notable after digging per WP:BEFORE and not because of that game reviews. Comparing other articles isn't helpful. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why are you pulling out more game reviews, plot content-like sources, and unreliable sources/wiki/game guide articles. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through these. (1) Game Industry News is currently listed as non-conclusive, and Michael Blaker does not seem particularly experienced. Article praises the character and repeats that he gets "reintroduced" in this novel, but there's nothing else here. (2) ScreenRant I would not count for WP:N. (3) IGN, this looks like a really good one! (4) Tassi on Forbes is a senior contributor, which I think is a good sign? This article is actually about something. (5) GameInformer review with a focus on what Pearce represents and such. (6) Petrick Kepleck (GiantBomb), despite looking like a wiki editor, is indeed a proper reporter. Proper reception and emotional significance on Aiden. (7) NME, I have to be wondering if all this stuff is just part of Watch_Dogs: Legion reception specifically. There's some stuff here but not much. (8) Yahoo review that does not add to WP:N. All-inall, still zero development information, which makes me hesitant, but there's a lot more here. Shame none of it was used. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IGN is more like a game-guide content;but there's no need to expound more since its not gonna survive AfD. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IGN does both, and it's important to separate the articles from the gameguides from the user-generated stuff. Joe Skrebels seems to have been a professional news editor at IGN. Confusingly, when I open this article, it redirects me to a Dutch translation with a different author. Annoying, but the effort of translation may suggest that IGN considers this a good article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I worded it incorrectly oops. I mean't the IGN that was brought up here as a sourcd not IGN in General is just making game guide content. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here, but Forbes contributors like Tassi are generally recommended not to use as Forbes doesn't apply editorial oversight to their works. Tassi also has some infamy in journalistic circles which doesn't help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Maplestrip. The above also isn't convincing me, given it's mainly reviews and valnet. And normally I like Valnet but you need some meat to go with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most redirect !votes seem to be at least partially based on None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character. That, however, is explicitely not required to establish notability according to WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Of course something meaningful and fitting for an encyclopedia on the article's subject still needs to be contained in those secondary sources with a different main topic like e.g. the game as a whole. Daranios (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already have a reasonable reception section without regress to Valnet sources, thus the article in its current form already fullfills WP:WHYN and therefore WP:N, even though the plot probably needs trimming to balance. In addition we have the Vice web article, which incidentally does have Aiden Pearce as its main topic, and more secondary sources have been listed and sorted above. Again, some of the do have the character as the main topic. In addition, there's a brief paragraph of commentary on Aiden Pearce in this academic publication. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vice is the only situational source that could be a bit decent. However, I don't think we already have a "reasonable reception section" because of article being bloated with game reviews and plenty of game-guide content? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 18:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About being bloated, I guess we agree that the plot summary content currently is not balanced with the reception section. But that's a problem that can be solved by normal editing and is therefore not a reason for deletion. And we do have a reception section which in my view does not consist of game-guide content. The fact that the sources making up the reception section are mostly game reviews does not invalidate their use, as the content which has been taken from them here is direct commentary on the character, i.e. the topic of the article. Daranios (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One problem with "Per X" !votes is that if X changes her opinion mid-discussion, as happened here, those Per X !votes become ambiguous or ill-defined. Please stick to substantive arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own !vote has moved to "neutral" after more sources were dug up, but I still think the sources are weak. I would like to know if @Shooterwalker: and @Axem Titanium: still think so too, as per the relisting comment. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ without prejudice against immediate renomination. After discarding the blocked socks, canvassed and obvious SPA/COI participants, we're left with no quorum to delete. This should be treated as a contested PROD. Owen× ☎ 12:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Azim Badakhshi

AfDs for this article:

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

The first nomination was withdrawn and not properly discussed. I am not convinced the subject meets the criteria for "Sport personality" according to WP:SPORTSPERSON which states that "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor." which he didn't. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability", the subject still needs to pass GNG guidelines. I would like to discuss it further as the subject is not even close to meeting WP:NMMA criteria. Having fought in ACB, AFC, Brave FC, is not enough and the subject has never been ranked in the world top 10 as per WP:NMMA. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I withdrawn my request cuz as a Persian language user I find and confirm the authenticity of the sources which meet WP:SPORTSPERSON clearly:
- BBC (1) (2)
- The Independent (3)
- Hindustan Times (4) (5) (6)
- Afghanistan International (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
- ESPN (12) (13)
- UFC (14)
- The Print (15) (16)
- Radio Azadi (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

Claggy (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greetings, Your concern is understandable. But He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and Wp:Bio , Despite of being a athlete, He has become a national symbol in Afghanistan, with support from the Millions of Afghans including former President, ministers, and other officials who recognize his achievements. His journey is completely motivator for new generation in Afghanistan and India. Besides his sports career, he is a successful motivator, investor, and human rights activist, I hope this satisfies your concerns.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Afghanistan, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed some of WP:NONRS references, He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, I would like to ask Parwiz ahmadi What is your connection with the said article subject? You seem to have so much interest in him and you have been pleading with editors to help you save the article. You were pleading with Liz for her cooperation and telling her to close the AFD discussion immediately which the reference can be found here. You were also pleading with a user named Untamed1910 in assisting you to also help you save the article which the references can be found here. There is no Wikipedia article you have ever submitted for WP:AFCREVIEW that has been accepted. All were decline. 99% of the ones you have created and move to main space are already deleted except Din Mohammad Jurat which still doesn't also seem to meet WP:GNG. The only news was that he was fired. How does that now makes him suitable for wikipedia without meeting WP:GNG. From what I have reviewed so far I definitely support Lekkha Moun. The article should be deleted because I don't see how it meets WP:GNG either. This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir@Gabriel601

I must say that yes, I requested Ms. @User:Liz to close the AFD according to Wikipedia's policies since seven days have passed since the AFD started. As the Wikipedia rules state, the AFD should be closed if possible. However, I did not use the word "immediately." It would be better if you speak the truth.

Secondly, my entire interest in preserving this article is due to the several days of effort I have put into it, and I am fully aware and confident that this article meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria. He is one of the most famous athletes in Afghanistan and is considered a national figure in Afghanistan. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You told Liz to Please keep this article and close the nomination which sounds like an immediate task. Secondly effort you put about writing articles you never submitted for review doesn't matter here especially when it has now been nominated for AFD. It is a process that has to be passed since you fail to follow the right way as a newbie. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Gabriel601 ,This matter does not concern you regarding what I have written on Ms. Liz's talk page.

Please write your own personal opinion and that’s it. you are not Ms. Liz's representative or Advisor,

In my opinion, your manner of speaking is inappropriate and offensive. I request the respected admin to take this point into consideration.

Your reaction is very unusual and aggressive. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered also you don't have the right to tell an admin the final decision to take on an AFD discussion. He or she can still relist the AFD if the consensus debate is still not clear. My statement might be aggressive to you but they mean no harm than to coach you. Stop moving article directly to main space without submitting them for review to avoid AFD next time. A question was asked by @Bbb23 on your user talk page but you never responded. @Whpq has also warned you regarding your edits. So nothing seems to be new. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the right to ask Liz to undelete your drafts? Here is an example of what you wrote:

Undeletion Draft Requests Hello Liz, I hope you are doing great. I visited your talk page because you deleted the draft articles Draft

Mayweather, Draft

(restaurant), Draft

Darlington, Draft

Maksumov, Draft

So, do you have the right to request Liz to undelete seven or eight of your articles? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to request because they were draft that was untouched after six months and deleted by Liz as per deletion of old drafts. You seem to be a stubborn newbie. Who know if that was why @Bbb23 was requesting for your previous account username. Your edit needs to be checked. If you can be moving articles to main space without review and non of your article submitted has been approved ( All declined ) on this current account. Then how would your old account then look like. I am done communicating with you. I leave the rest to other of the editors on wikipedia to check your works. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601 This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help. Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable if they are WP:RS. See WP:RSUEC. And user conduct issues should be taken elsewhere. It doesn't particularly help or concern the afd. — hako9 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Since I have come up as a subject in this AFD discussion, I feel "involved" and will leave the closure to another administrator. Secondly, I don't remember seeing any User talk page messages but I have been very remiss/behind on replying to talk page messages as I'm caring for a bedbound relative and find responding to talk page messages more taxing than other kinds of editing/admin work. So, I don't believe I've been influenced but will decline to close to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Finally, unless there was problematic content (copyright violations, BLP violations, etc.) I will restore a deleted article to Draft space as long as the editor knows they have to submit the draft for review to AFC so that request is not that unusual. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a great decision. Wishing you a greater strength as you undergo your caring for a bedbound relative. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand what is happening with this article, but it's definitely the weirdest AFD I have been involved. There is drama, and I counted 6 different users (now blocked) that tried to close prematurely the discussion as "no consensus". To me it seems like some people may have a vested interest in the subject. Potentiel COI? PAID? Vanity page? I'm not sure, however 6 reverted "close" is very unusual. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The attempted closes are from a long term abuse vandal, and should not reflect on those supporting keeping this article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All 6 of them? Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just one person. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article (Abdul azim badakhshi meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria due to extensive coverage in reliable sources such as BBC, The independent and ESPN. His recognition as a national figure in Afghanistan and his multi-faceted contributions confirm his notability. شریف الله منصوری (talk) 12:53, 11 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.

Conquest of Hadoti

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is clearly a POV article focusing on establishing the dominance of the Malwa Sultanate over the Kingdom of Mewar. The article does not have proper detail of events, and the WP:RS does not have enough mentioning of events like how the seige went and how the fort was conquered. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe how the article fails NPOV. TarnishedPath^talk 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MicrobiologyMarcus. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I know it is not a proper argument for deletion, I would note there's an SPI that relates to the major contributor of the article, such that I don't know if this article would reach a conservative reading of the threshold of WP:G5 but relates to my concerns above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Kurakin

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Not to be confused with Dmitry Kurakin, sociology professor at Yale University. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Estonia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: multiple Estonian champion at senior-level championships, see [11] Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: although he did win medals at Estonia's Skating Champs I am tempted to still vote keep given there are no independent RSs on this guy. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Estopedist1 are you arguing to Keep this article? I can't tell.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only results, no significant coverage. Best I can find is https://web.archive.org/web/20190317125050/http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00005164.htm --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. All it took was a simple revert. See below for why. (non-admin closure) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson the Volleyball

AfDs for this article:

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

Cites no sources, no indication of notability or importance, confusing layout thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd speedy this for a hoax. This is unsourced, and while I know of the ball, this was never seen before the Tom Hanks movie. Some strange OR/hoax article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Someone else has restored the page to its proper form. I will be withdrawing. For future reference to those who are seeing this later, the page was confusing, unsourced, un-notable/important nonsense full of OR/hoax nonsense. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. No issues then. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 11 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!} 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Cunnane

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. A mere 5 google news hits, none are in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Stuff article is all I find [12], no book reviews or no listing in the Getty ULAN. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 11 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!} 02:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecom Express

AfDs for this article:

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company making press releases or announcements is not significant and cannot be considered notable. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Attaching some sources [13],[14],[15]. These three sources are sufficient to meet the WP:THREE criteria and hence pass the WP:ORGCRIT. A Google search would also produce some more reliable results. Akshithmanya ^talk 00:16, 30 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!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails CORPDEPTH. The WP:THREE provided by Akshithmanya are PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any additional thoughts on the sources provided by Akshithmanya or other sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 11 June 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.

None of the sources provided by Akshithmanya are "Independent Content". This from BII] is written and published by one of their investors. This in Forbes is a standard puff profile that Forbes does on hundreds of companies, relying entirely on "interviews" with the execs/founders. Finally this in Business Outreach is a marketing journal, self-described as "a leading platform for CXOs across India to share their views with their peers", and the "article" is another puff profile. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please discuss renaming of this article on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)

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

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 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!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was indeed a siege of Barwara in 1757, and there are multiple good sources. I see no reason to delete an article about a verified historical event. My impression is that we don't have enough coverage of the global south, not an overabundance that requires aggressive pruning. With that said, the article should probably be renamed, per @RangersRus, unless there are other sources that say "Barwara". Pecopteris (talk) 05:21, 11 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.

Russell Johnstone

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. The supplied sources are all primary. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the Equestrian Life story? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a WP:PRIMARY source? A mainstream media source would be better for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it primary? It looks like an independent secondary news outlet devoting a story to him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of is that there is no author listed (it just says by Equestrian Life), but I agree it appears to be a usable source for notability purposes. Hopefully LibStar can elaborate on what they mean. Let'srun (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see the issue. It appears that it is a paid promotional piece, since at the bottom of the article there is a note which says " This article was written in conjunction with Barastoc". Barastoc is a sponsor of the subject's team. In that case, the article lacks independence. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh Chowdhury

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

Doesn't meet GNG and reliable sources for inclusion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Asia, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I can find are variations of this story [16], which don't contribute to notability, and I'm unsure if it's the same person. The article now is very PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously confused if the person of the article is same or not? Common man, there's no chance to be confused because he is a social influencer and, therefore, you can easily watch his channel and cross-check those achievement on official website of organizers.

Yeah if you think it's a PROMO, just feel free to give your touch and delete whatever word you think as promotional.

Thank you Strikingstar01 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the major cause for deletion is insufficient sources and a little bit promo content? OK, if I fix both causes, then will you guys agree on retaining the article? Strikingstar01 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is clearly PROMO, created by a SPA. The subject hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage which is not enough to establish GNG . Saqib (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assalam o alaikum,

I don't know but would like to listen why you think it's a promo and I'm a SPA?

1) the sources clearly varifies that the person got 1st rank in multiple national and global tournament, You can't buy the organizers to mention your name in 1st place yearly events because they can mention names of only one and actual winner.

2) Common man, How could you expect churnalism from government's site?

3) Yeah the article could be PROMO because I've just started this journey with tons of guideline and could make several mistakes. Please mention sentences which indicates promotional content. Strikingstar01 (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO page. The subject has not made any significant achievement, notable to warrant a page on him. This page reads clear promotion of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think, if a person have more than 40 Million impression and bunch of golabal achievements, he deserve a page? Strikingstar01 (talk) 13:15, 16 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Parlevliet

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. She did not even complete the individual event. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Olympic site for her [17]. Nothing else. No sources found in .au news sites. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NSPORT --Here2rewrite (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this subject. Let'srun (talk) 22:54, 16 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.

[Detr021119-1] Lords, Erik (November 19, 2002). "Local station seeks cable spot: WHPR wants Comcast to put channels on free". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 6B. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[Detr090701-2] Schmitt, Ben (July 1, 2009). "Conyers takes to TV, apologizes to Detroit: She won't discuss case, but takes shot at ex-aide". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 3A. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[3] Singer, Christopher (November 2, 2005). "Fundraising clicks for black-run stations - With a little help, 11-watt WHPR-FM and cable TV Channel 33 dial up some needed dollars". The Detroit News. p. 6S.

[4] "A new television station in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. June 3, 1998. p. 1-D. ProQuest 390200523.

[5] "'The Box' is major success in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. December 17, 1999. p. D12. ProQuest 390224674.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]